Christianity
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Are there any arguments that don’t rely on some fallacious reasoning as to why Christianity could be considered the “correct” religion as opposed to others in the world?
Answers
6Evidences for the existence of God and the veracity of Christianity
Definition of Faith: A reasonable true belief
Definition of a true Belief: (Aristotle). To say something that is, and it actually is; or to say something is false, and it actually is.
Proposition: God exists, and Christ is who He said He is.
Evidences: The Ontological Argument, the Cosmological Argument, The Fine Tuning Argument,
The Design Argument, The Moral Argument, The Archaeological Arguments, The
Arguments from Historical Documents other than the Bible, etc.
If one objectively researches the above evidences and using one’s mind through deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning, as well as good application of the scientific method (including forensic, historical and archaeological); it is most reasonable to say that the above proposition is true, but of course one cannot say this with 100% certainty. (Very few true beliefs have 100% certainty). There are other very persuasive, reasonable arguments that support the proposition, if one wants to take the time.
No, the question is itself a fallacy because it assumes that there is only one correct religion. This is a false premise, as there are many different religions in the world with different beliefs and practices. There is no way to prove that one religion is more correct than another, as all religions are based on faith.
Furthermore, the question implies that there is a need for a "correct" religion. This is also a false premise, as people can live meaningful and fulfilling lives without subscribing to any particular religion. There is no one right way to live, and people should be free to choose their own beliefs.
The short answer is no. Even if you crossed the broken bridge of saying Christianity is the only correct religion, then which of the 32,000+ denominations, cults, or whatever you want to call the different lines that trail from the name Christianity, are correct? This means, of course, all the others are wrong, and we need to ask why. Once a person has surrendered reason to faith, there is no logical basis to support any religion.
Every Christian I have met says religion is a matter of faith, which, of course, it is. I don’t have any faith. I don’t respect faith. I don’t believe in faith. I would be very foolish if, after a person announces he holds his belief based on faith, I were to try then to discuss anything of substance. The only means I have are reason, empirical demonstration, rules of evidence, and so forth. None of these are relevant to a faith-based belief.
So, I don’t argue. If I continue, I just ask questions — and have a little fun. For example, 1 Samuel 18: 25-27 says David bought his first wife for 200 Philistine foreskins. Looking at this from a financial point of view, I don’t know if that was a good deal or not. What was the exchange rate of Philistine foreskins to Caphtorites foreskins? Where did David get those foreskins? Was there a foreskin store? Are foreskins priced per each or per pound? What was the price in gold per foreskin? There is only one foreskin per man. Did David kill 200 Philistines to scalp their little head? If each man had to “buy” his wife by paying more than his own foreskin, how and where did he obtain them?
All of this leads to so many unanswered questions and an equal amount of entertainment.
But, absent all that fun, there is a major problem of definitions. Have the person advocating the position define the terms, then enter the discussion. Always check your premises.
The idea that Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, could be singularly "correct" could fall into the pit of logical fallacies, such as "No True Scotsman" fallacy (assuming that 'no good example exists' because 'my example didnât happen'). Itâs like saying, "No true pizza lover would ever put pineapple on their pizza."
On the cognitive bias side of things, confirmation bias would make a grand entrance. This is where folks accept all the arguments in favor of their own perspective (Pepperoni is the one true pizza topping!) and dismiss any tasty, pineapple related evidence that challenges it.
Not to mention the mother of all poor reasoning: believing that religious "correctness" can be objectively determined. Itâs a bit like declaring yourself the winner of an argument with your cat. Sure, you can say you won, but the cat doesn't care, may or may not have understood the argument, and will definitely still knock over that glass cup when you're not looking.
In summary: religion, like pizza toppings, is down to personal preference. Can't we all just sit down, accept our differences and enjoy a slice or two of heavenly dialogue together? As long as it's not anchovy. That's a step too far.
Hi Ethan, what a lot of similar questions you ask! It will help if, in the follow on discussions, your own contributions pass the Turing Test...
In regard to this specific question on the subject of Christianity, my answer is: Yes.
The reasoning can be valid even if the premises are unsound.
P1: God is infallible
P2: Jesus is God incarnate
P3: Christianity is the manifestation of Jesus' will
P4: No other religions can claim this
Therefore, Christianity is the only correct religion.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course