Moving from Arguments for God to Arguments for a Specific Religion

[Rhubarb]

So many philosophers have put forth rational arguments for the necessity of a God-like being. Some of these arguments, I think, can be very compelling. But if one grants the existence of a God-like being, is there a rational sort of argument to show that any one religion has the proper understanding of this being?

I’m curious how you might go about convincing the open-minded skeptic, who grants a God exists, that your religion understands what this God is all about.

 

[Della]

Well, first of all this religion would be historically not merely mythologically based. Only three religions are historically based: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All three are historically related to each other.

So, of these which is the truest expression of God’s revelation to man (for God is an active Person not merely a concept). That is the question one must answer for oneself. Succinctly:

If it’s Judaism then Gentiles need to nothing except be righteous according to their laws concerning non-Jews.

If it’s Christianity, then one must hold that Jesus is the Son of God and Son of man, the Redeemer and Savior of the world who rose from the dead and founded his Church due to God the Father’s love for humanity. Christians believe Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism.

If it’s Islam one needs to embrace Mohammed as Allah’s prophet instead of Jesus. Muslims believe that Jesus is one of the judges of mankind but not the divine Son of God.

That’s the starting point, as I see it.

 

[oldcelt]

I think that many assume that once a God is acknowledged that religion must follow. Personally, I do not find that to be factual. One may believe in God without necessarily joining others, even those of like beliefs.

 

[Della]

I think that many assume that once a God is acknowledged that religion must follow. Personally, I do not find that to be factual. One may believe in God without necessarily joining others, even those of like beliefs.

But we all have relationships whether we want them nor not, starting with family. Family is God’s way of introducing us to others and to others’ neeeds, as well as to the fact that none of us is perfect. If we cut ourselves off from others, how is God in that when he created us as he did? If he is a hands off Person, then why create the family? We’d be like the lowest forms of life that simply abandon their young to make it on their own. But, we aren’t. We are sentient beings who need love and we can only find that with others than ourselves. A religious community is a family–one that informs us, loves us, and corrects when we need it. We need such communities if we are to be the people God wishes us to be.

 

[marymary1975]

Well, first of all this religion would be historically not merely mythologically based. Only three religions are historically based: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All three are historically related to each other.

So, of these which is the truest expression of God’s revelation to man (for God is an active Person not merely a concept). That is the question one must answer for oneself. Succinctly:

If it’s Judaism then Gentiles need to nothing except be righteous according to their laws concerning non-Jews.

If it’s Christianity, then one must hold that Jesus is the Son of God and Son of man, the Redeemer and Savior of the world who rose from the dead and founded his Church due to God the Father’s love for humanity. Christians believe Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism.

If it’s Islam one needs to embrace Mohammed as Allah’s prophet instead of Jesus. Muslims believe that Jesus is one of the judges of mankind but not the divine Son of God.

That’s the starting point, as I see it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m curious how you might go about convincing the open-minded skeptic, who grants a God exists, that your religion understands what this God is all about.

What this God is all about should include a religion’s teaching that this God really cares for his children, or he is not a God much worth caring about.

I would ask the skeptic to consider which of the religions offers evidence of the God most interested in the betterment and happiness of his children, even to following his own preaching when he said, “No greater love has a man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends (children).” John 15:13

That would be my kind of God.

 

[Mumbles140]

I think that many assume that once a God is acknowledged that religion must follow. Personally, I do not find that to be factual. One may believe in God without necessarily joining others, even those of like beliefs.

So how do you form your basis for your belief in God? If you pondered how the world came to be, where it all came from, etc, you could determine that their must be some being not of this universe - the Creator, the first mover, etc, however you want to define it. The question is, then, without religion and revelation, how do you know anything about God? Through private revelation, or mere logical conjecture.

And to address the OP, I think you could bring philosophy into the argument. If there is a God, and God created the Earth, it is evident that God created man (which, so as not to through people off, I mean ‘created’ as ‘caused man to be’, thus avoiding the Creation / evolution debate to an agnostic) to be the highest order of creation.

So why were were created as the highest order of beings on Earth? The only ones with our rational intellect and free will. Clearly it was not to be slaves to God - our free will allows us to get around that. Are we only for his amusement? Look at any religion and God (or the gods) are typically involved in the matters of humanity - sometimes to save, sometimes to damn. Therefore, we can conclude that God cares about us - that God loves us.

So what does one do when they are in love with someone? They desire to be loved in return. It strengthens that love between them. So if God created us out of love, and wants to be loved in return, then surely God would instruct us as to how we can return that love. If not, it’d be like giving a bunch of toddlers a deconstructed motor and say “Make it run.” There would be lots of guessing, and maybe (out of pure luck) get some things right, but for the most part, be completely wrong.

Now, you have to luck at what religions claim revelation from God, and how those revelations tie in with the idea that we were created out of love and with free will. As to this point, CS Lewis advises to look towards Hinduism or Christianity, as Hinduism is (apparently, to him) the most logical non-monotheistic religion (and I know the complexities, so I hate to ‘label’ it, but hopefully it is accurate enough for this discussion), and Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. Concerning Islam, I refer again to Lewis, who calls it the greatest Christian heresy.

Personally, I find monotheism to make the most sense. If there were a multitude of gods, there would still have to be one originator. We see in Greek mythology that Athena grew out of the head of Zeus, while Aphrodite was birthed by the sea. And with other polytheistic religions, you find ‘good’ gods and ‘evil’ gods, or at least gods that ‘war’ with each other (whether directly or through the manipulation of humans), and I never found that to work with the notion of a loving God.

Thus, we settle on Christianity. That in itself is no small task, but I would ask that you examine those who still claim their ties back to the Apostles. Some of the Reformation churches do claim valid orders, as do the Orthodox, and obviously Catholicism, but a lot of ‘Bible’ churches teach the other churches were wrong. We see in the Old Testament that God instructs His people when they go astray, but these churches believe that God allowed His followers to stay in error from shortly after Christ’s death (the ECF’s are clearly in line with the current teachings of the Catholic Church) until the Reformation (or even today, with some of these mega-churches?

If you can whittle down to those claiming back to the apostles, you look at the Sacraments, the words of Jesus, and the authority given to Peter as Prince of the Apostles. It should be pretty easy from there to sign up for RCIA and start the process!

 

[Della]

I think that many assume that once a God is acknowledged that religion must follow. Personally, I do not find that to be factual. One may believe in God without necessarily joining others, even those of like beliefs.

A most relevant quote I came across today:

Pope Francis
Apostolic Exhortation « Evangelii Gaudium / The Joy of the Gospel » §111-114 (trans. © copyright Libreria Editrice Vaticana rev.)

The salvation which God has wrought, and the Church joyfully proclaims, is for everyone. God has found a way to unite himself to every human being in every age. He has chosen to call them together as a people and not as isolated individuals. (Vat II, LG 9) No one is saved by himself or herself, individually, or by his or her own efforts. God attracts us by taking into account the complex interweaving of personal relationships entailed in the life of a human community. This people which God has chosen and called is the Church. Jesus did not tell the apostles to form an exclusive and elite group. He said: “Go and make disciples of all nations” (Mt 28,19). Saint Paul tells us in the people of God, in the Church, “there is neither Jew or Greek… for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3,28). To those who feel far from God and the Church, to all those who are fearful or indifferent, I would like to say this: the Lord, with great respect and love, is also calling you to be a part of his people!

 

[ynotzap]

And there is the personal encounter with God, in Jesus Christ. That’s the real proof!
l Cor: 2:l–5 "I did not come to you with the sublimity of words, or of wisdom For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear and much trembling, and my message and my proclamation were not with persuasive words of wisdom but with a demonstration of spirit and power, so that your faith might rest no human wisdom but on the power of God

If one is sincere to know one religion from another, test their beliefs. Jesus can tailor events in your life that will lead you to the truth. No one can go to the Father except through Jesus and no one can come to Jesus unless the Father calls Him. I f the Father is calling, He will open doors that will lead you to His Son. The desire to know the truth comes from God.

Although evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the dead is even more abundant than historic evidence that Caesar ruled in Rome, yet great as historic evidence is, it also is surpassed by the mighty resurrection power in the lives of every true believer. A.Leander

 

[oldcelt]

And there is the personal encounter with God, in Jesus Christ. That’s the real proof!
l Cor: 2:l–5 "I did not come to you with the sublimity of words, or of wisdom For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear and much trembling, and my message and my proclamation were not with persuasive words of wisdom but with a demonstration of spirit and power, so that your faith might rest no human wisdom but on the power of God

If one is sincere to know one religion from another, test their beliefs. Jesus can tailor events in your life that will lead you to the truth. No one can go to the Father except through Jesus and no one can come to Jesus unless the Father calls Him. I f the Father is calling, He will open doors that will lead you to His Son. The desire to know the truth comes from God.

Although evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the dead is even more abundant than historic evidence that Caesar ruled in Rome, yet great as historic evidence is, it also is surpassed by the mighty resurrection power in the lives of every true believer. A.Leander

I’d sure like to see that comparison. Repetition of an event that you did not witness is not evidence, it is story telling. There are physical remains attesting to Julius Caesar…I’m guessing that is the Caesar you refer to. Caesars Commentaries are extant, we have busts, coins. writing by those who knew him personally.
Here is a list that I hope puts this nonsense to rest:

Contemporary Witnesses to Caesar

Cicero

Orations and Letters provide eyewitness evidence of Caesar

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) was almost an exact contemporary of Julius Caesar.

In Caesar’s struggle with Pompey, Cicero, governor of Cilicia, sided with Pompey but was subsequently pardoned by Caesar.

In March of 44 BC Cicero was a witness to Caesar’s murder, though he was not a part of the conspiracy.

Following the assassination, Cicero made a series of speeches known as the “Philippics” which called on the Senate to support Octavian against Mark Antony. Cicero’s “Second Phillipics” was an eulogy of Caesar’s conquest of Gaul.

Unfortunately for Cicero Octavian reached a temporary rapprochement with Antony, who then ordered Cicero’s murder.

Among some 900 preserved letters to and from Cicero are correspondence both about and with Caesar.

“… if Caesar does lose his head all the same, Pompey feels only the deepest contempt for him, trusting in his own and the state’s troops …”

– Cicero to Atticus, 7.8, 50BC.

Sallust

Caius Sallust (86-34 BC) tribune, provincial governor and supporter of Caesar. His testimony is in a history “Bellum Catalinae”.

Nepos

Cornelius Nepos (c100-24): “Life of Atticus”.

Catullus

Gaius Valerius Catullus (c84-54 BC): “Carmina”.

Asinius Pollio

Gaius Asinius Pollio (76 BC-4 AD) was an ally of Caesar and founder of the first public library in Rome. He was a source used by Plutarch.

Virgil

Virgil (70BC-17AD): “Aeneid”.

Ovid

Ovidius Naso (43BC-17AD): “Metamorphoses”.

Near Contemporary Witnesses
Paterculus

Velleius Paterculus (c19 BC-32 AD): “Historiae Romanae”.

Lucan

Lucan (Marcus Annaeus Lucanus, 39-65 AD) followed the example of his grandfather, Seneca the Elder – a young contemporary of Caesar – who in later life wrote a history of Rome.

Lucan wrote his own Pharsalia approximately a century after the civil war it chronicles, using Seneca’s work as an eye-witness source.

Plutarch

Plutarch of Chaeronea (45-120 AD) was a Greek moralist, historian and biographer (and priest of Delphi). He wrote his Parallel Lives (matching Greek with Roman lives) during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian. He describes in detail the life and assassination of Julius Caesar (as well as Marcus Brutus and Mark Antony).

Appian

Appian of Alexandria (c.95-165 AD): Civil Wars.

Suetonius

The most famous biographer of Caesar, Tranquillus Suetonius, wrote his Lives of the Twelve Caesars during the reign of emperor Hadrian (117-138).

Suetonius was in charge of the imperial archives and in this capacity, had access to some of the best possible information.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Well, first of all this religion would be historically not merely mythologically based. Only three religions are historically based: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

That’s a pretty bold claim. What do you mean by “historically based?” Is it simply that the religion survived a certain length of time? Or is it that the religions beliefs are based on a long series of alleged historical events interpreted in a religious perspective?

I will point out that much of the old testament is a-historical. For example, the exodus never actually happened.

Perhaps instead you mean religions that are founded by people claiming divine inspiration or personal divinity.

I don’t think that any of those interpretations makes your claim correct.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Perhaps instead you mean religions that are founded by people claiming divine inspiration or personal divinity.

I don’t think that any of those interpretations makes your claim correct.

But it would be enough to convince me. If there is a God and a true religion, and that is what is at issue here, simple logic requires that we affirm the religions claiming to have been founded by divine inspiration or by a divinity would be the ones to look at and decide upon.

That eliminates a lot of world religions. It certainly eliminates Hinduism, Buddhism, and the religion named after Confucius. What’s left? Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all of which claim direct ties to the Almighty. The remaining question would be which of those three seems most likely to be the religion God intended to establish, and that most clearly reflects the intention of a God worthy of the name.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So many philosophers have put forth rational arguments for the necessity of a God-like being. Some of these arguments, I think, can be very compelling. But if one grants the existence of a God-like being, is there a rational sort of argument to show that any one religion has the proper understanding of this being?

I’m curious how you might go about convincing the open-minded skeptic, who grants a God exists, that your religion understands what this God is all about.

I would tell him to read the gospels of the New Testament and examine the way Christ founded his Church and ask him which Church today seems to be the one Christ founded. Then I would suggest he read the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( linked below. ). And during this time he should attend Mass at a nearby Catholic Church on Sunday, even week days and see what he thinks.

And he could always sign up for RCIA classes. There is no obligation to become Catholic at the end, but one should not approach these classes in an argumentative mood. Just listen and ask reasonable questions.

Linus2nd

 

[JapaneseKappa]

But it would be enough to convince me. If there is a God and a true religion, and that is what is at issue here, simple logic requires that we affirm the religions claiming to have been founded by divine inspiration or by a divinity would be the ones to look at and decide upon.

That eliminates a lot of world religions. It certainly eliminates Hinduism, Buddhism, and the religion named after Confucius. What’s left? Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all of which claim direct ties to the Almighty. The remaining question would be which of those three seems most likely to be the religion God intended to establish, and that most clearly reflects the intention of a God worthy of the name.

That actually presupposes a lot about God. If God doesn’t actively involve himself in human affairs, then the religions which claim divine inspiration are all wrong. Is an active and involved God something that is proved by the arguments for God mentioned in the title?

Your claim is also not correct, some forms of Budhism and Hinduism recognize Gautama Buddha (among others) as a deity, which means that some of those religions do actually claim divine inspiration. Its my understanding that Sikhism claims to be divinely inspired as well.

 

[Bradski]

Although evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the dead is even more abundant than historic evidence that Caesar ruled in Rome…

I’d sure like to see that comparison.

Ynotzap may be referring to Matthew who said, in one line of his gospel, that hundreds saw Jesus after the resurrection.

There’s actually no evidence at all that he even said that, but people still take it as gospel (pun intended) that 'hundreds saw Him" as opposed to ‘one man is said to have said that hundreds may have seen Him with no actual verification of that statement whatsoever’.

 

[Nihilist]

So many philosophers have put forth rational arguments for the necessity of a God-like being. Some of these arguments, I think, can be very compelling. But if one grants the existence of a God-like being, is there a rational sort of argument to show that any one religion has the proper understanding of this being?

I’m curious how you might go about convincing the open-minded skeptic, who grants a God exists, that your religion understands what this God is all about.

The solution to the problem involves considering the following:

1. Congruence of the religion with one’s rationality and conscience (i.e. if a religion was patently absurd [Mormonism], or contrary to one’s conscience, it would be a bad choice)
2. Congruence with one’s taste and aesthetic values (i.e. if you hated, for example, the liturgy and ‘look’ of a religion it would be a bad choice, or if you had bad (or good) experiences of the particular people, that is also an aesthetic factor to be considered.)
3. Congruity with one cultural and historical position (i.e. if you were a native of Saudi Arabia- obviously choosing Islam would make a lot of sense! But if you are of Irish Catholic descent, obviously- becoming a Catholic (or reverting to Catholicism) would make sense).

Now, it is clear that you can search for God and Truth within different religion traditions. As a Catholic, I believe that Catholicism is the best- and I prefer its liturgy (aesthetically- although Orthodox liturgy is also a good- and some Catholic liturgy is bad), and feel it has the best philosophical and mystical tradition (although, perhaps Hindu and Buddhist philosophy is more sophisticated), and its ethical teachings accord with my own conscience.

Catholicism has a lot going for it aesthetically. This is why, pretty much whenever a minister or a Church is portrayed in a movie, it will be a Roman Catholic.

But for others, a different religion might be best to chose, for historical or cultural reasons. I mean, if your parents and family were all Dutch Reformed, or Amish- then the choice is pretty obvious. But, if ‘all things are equal’- Catholicism is definitely the best choice. IMO. It (like all credible religions) admits that God is ‘beyond his simply liturgical or creedal expressions’. It is also quite broad in the opinions and values it embraces- as this Forum demonstrates!

It’s like choosing a form of exercise- they will all make you fit, but some are better than others. Or a subject to study- you can attain wisdom by studying mathematics, or history, or psychology. But some are obviously not so good- like studying Esperanto. But, it is still not completely useless. So, any religion which involves belief in God is not absolutely useless. Good is bigger than any religious tradition- but, yes, the Truth does subsist in its fullness in the Catholic Church.

But, as you are on a Catholic forum, there must be something which draws you to Christianity.

 

[Bradski]

I would tell him to read the gospels of the New Testament…

And the Bhagavad-Gita, Ramayana and Veda, the Quran, the Amitahba etc. He’s going to be a busy boy…

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I would tell him to read the gospels of the New Testament and examine the way Christ founded his Church and ask him which Church today seems to be the one Christ founded. Then I would suggest he read the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( linked below. ). And during this time he should attend Mass at a nearby Catholic Church on Sunday, even week days and see what he thinks.

And he could always sign up for RCIA classes. There is no obligation to become Catholic at the end, but one should not approach these classes in an argumentative mood. Just listen and ask reasonable questions.

Linus2nd

I think this is actually a little backwards. It seems to me that the first thing to do would be to establish some criteria that a “true” religion must meet based on what the arguments for God prove by themselves. Once the criteria are established, you could then compile a list of religions that meet that criteria. After that, you could probably take RCIA classes (and the RCIA equivalents in other religions,) assuming they made the list.

To do it the your way (participate in random religions based on peer recommendations) is a great way to introduce social pressure into the equation. So, if your goal is simply to get someone to be Catholic and you don’t care whether you are capable of supplying an argument for Catholicism that is persuasive by logos alone, your advice is fine.

 

[ynotzap]

I’d sure like to see that comparison. Repetition of an event that you did not witness is not evidence, it is story telling. There are physical remains attesting to Julius Caesar…I’m guessing that is the Caesar you refer to. Caesars Commentaries are extant, we have busts, coins. writing by those who knew him personally.
Here is a list that I hope puts this nonsense to rest:

There is the testimony of the l2 Apostles, there is also the testimony of St.Paul and his letters, there is the continuity of 264 Popes from the time of Christ, there is the entire history of the Catholic Church, and there is the testimony of many Christians who experienced the truths of the faith to this very day. There are the Archives of the CAtholic Church, and relics of the Saints, and lists of miracles. The is also geographical locations attesting to the areas Jesus traversed. There is also the geographical locations that the Apostles evangelized. There is even testimony from Christianity’s adversaries such as Josephus around the time of Christ. I think it pretty evident that history speaks in behalf of Christianity. Did you represent events you did not witness? The Apostles knew Jesus personally, there are no physical remains to Jesus because He is still alive, and Caesar is dead! Of course you can deny the testimony.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

And the Bhagavad-Gita, Ramayana and Veda, the Quran, the Amitahba etc. He’s going to be a busy boy…

Quite so, this list isn’t even complete.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text

Its also possible that the true religion hasn’t formed yet. All the Abrahamic faiths leave a gap of several thousand years between the start of human civilization and the foundation of their religion. I’m also not aware of any religion that has survived from the dawn of human civilization. It is reasonable, therefore, to suppose that we are in the same situation as those early humans: God’s “true” revelation to humankind has not yet been made, and we have no way to anticipate it.