Yesterday at youth group the students asked (again) if we could have a “Real Talk” session. Real Talk is something I do with my high school students about once a month. When I forget a month the students make sure I know about their displeasure, they really like it.
Real Talk is simply an open forum for discussion. I hand out blank note cards and pens. Each student (if they desire) writes out an anonymous question. I pass a bucket around and then pull out one question at a time and answer it according to my best knowledge.
The youth group has a dynamic such that we all take this exercise seriously and no one is demeaned for asking a “silly” question. I also make a point of shooting straight with my answers. I don’t beat around the bush — mostly because there’s not enough time to beat around said bush.
Well, yesterday one of the students wrote a very interesting question: “Do you have an open mind about other religions?” The question was basically asking me, “If you found ample evidence that Mormonism or Atheism were more true than Christianity, would you convert?” I said, unhesitatingly, “yes.”
More than a couple students looked at me with wide-eyed wonder. It was as if they were dumbfounded that their pastor would ever consider converting to another religion. I knew I had to follow up my “yes” answer with a bit of explanation. Here’s basically what I told them.
In my mind, there’s a certain level of intellectual honesty I must have with myself. If I come at any belief system with the presupposition that “this is the truth no matter what evidence may surface” or, conversely, “this is a falsehood no matter what the evidence may suggest” I’m committing intellectual espionage.
Honestly, I have to look at other religions and/or belief systems with an open mind. I wish I could say that I do have a completely open mind about Christianity — or anything else for that matter. But the fact remains that I’m biased, and so are you. I’m biased largely because of my upbringing. I’m also biased because life isn’t long enough to go and fully explore every belief system on Earth.
I think we first have to admit and own that bias. Then we can begin looking at other ideas with a little more honesty.
But back to me converting to another religion. Could it happen? I like to think that I’m honest enough with myself to say “Yes, I’d convert if faced with ample evidence.” But it’s hard to say that for sure.
What about you? Would you convert to a completely different belief set if faced with ample evidence?
14 Comments
Christianity is so much more than a logical conclusion for the religion I choose to believe. Yeah I grew up in a Christian home and went to a Bible school and work full-time for a ministry but that’s all because I’ve felt God. I’ve met Him.
For me to switch religions I’d not only have to lose all sense of connection to Jesus but I’d have to have a real encounter with the true living God. That’s what religion is all about: God. The God that’s real is the God that owns the true religion.
I am a Christian mostly because I’ve seen and experienced Jesus to be real. Not so much because it makes logical sense – even though it does that too.
If someone were ever to prove that Jesus was false – I’d probably switch to Judaism. Who has heard of a God who acts on behalf of those who love Him?
I definitely agree, Shawn. So you would say that your faith is based mostly on your personal encounter with God then? It’s not based so much on the “facts” or “evidence” as much as the fact that you know you’ve encountered Him? Or is it a both/and?
I agree that I’ve experienced God, so that’s a big part of why I believe in Him.
It’s absolutely both/and. It has to be. A true religion that doesn’t make sense is not a true religion. So not only do the dots connect, and the Bible is logical and fascinating but I’ve also experienced God.
So, would you say that if certain evidence surfaced proving the Bible a hoax, or Jesus a hoax, you would then, still believing in God due to your personal experience with Him, change to a different religion which believed in God?
The “ample evidence” is the basis for most atheists’ (lack of) beliefs.
The question isn’t so much “Would you convert to another religion given ample evidence?” as much as “Where’s the ample evidence for your current religion?”
The issue, of course, is that the meat and potatoes of Christian dogma is neither physical or testable, and the idea of “ample evidence” is a non-issue. “Blessed is he who has not seen and yet has believed” and all that jazz. You believe what you believe because you want very much to believe it, you think faith will inevitably be rewarded, and it probably gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling inside, to boot.
Honestly, I don’t know.
I don’t think all Religions are wrong. Some are just more wrong than others. There’s truth in a lot of them, but at some point in their development they got off track.
I believe in Jesus, because to me he’s the most correct (and only) path to the Father. But I don’t believe in Him because it’s an insurance or because it’s fun or because I try my best to believe it and somehow it becomes real. I believe based on evidence, both in the Bible and by other historians, and by the transforming work of Jesus in my and others’ lives.
@Heliologue: I definitely see what you mean. I disagree on some level though. There is evidence (extra biblical) that a man named Jesus lived and died. There’s evidence that his disciples lived and died too. But I really do see what you’re saying and I can’t really say that your point of view is totally “wrong.” I think there’s a lot of truth in what you’re observing.
I agree with what Shawn said above though, that if there were absolutely no evidence whatsoever then even the greatest amount of “faith” would be ridiculous. It would be like having faith in the flying spaghetti monster.
@Cam: I think I see what you’re saying. That even modern day Christianity is wrong to a certain degree because 1) we rely on a 2,000 year old text that has been translated and of which we have no original manuscripts and 2) we’ve got to factor in human error in at least the practicing of said religion.
A couple of years ago my faith was in broken pieces because of the impact of realizing that the bible wasn’t literal. I have written about this before. But, at that time, I read the novel “Life of Pi” where the main character, Pi, ascribes to three faiths: Christianity, Hinduism and Islam. It was at that time I realized there might be potential in other faiths, since Christianity had let me down. I bought a prayer rug and thought about switching to Islam, but I came to the realization I would end up at the exact same place—-disappointed. Plus, I would have to learn way too much, so I decided to stick with Christianity even though I would consider Islam or anything else to be a viable faith.
We Christians, as a general whole, have been stuck in modernism thought for far too long. All this science and logic, just stories. When we learn that all we are is stories, we will be a lot better off.
I think one of the most profound evidences for Christianity is the fact that there was revival in Jerusalem. If Jesus had not risen from the dead, then you know someone would have shown that body and dissolved the whole argument?
And why would 12 guys that were earlier timid about their faith and who were denying Jesus suddenly get bold enough to preach in the midst of persecution, imprisonment and martyrdom?
@Shawn: Maybe because they didn’t actually do so? Don’t make the mistake of equating the Bible with a factual historical text.
The Bible is shown time and again to be accurate regarding historical accounts.
@ everyone,
Wouldn’t it be better to belive in JESUS, and find out there is not a heaven ; Than to not belive and find out there is?
@Ben:
The Bible might have some overlap with real history, since it is more or less the chronicle of a people (I refer here mostly to the OT). But accurate regarding the private lives of apostles? Accurate regarding the contentious divinity of Jesus? Not so much.
@Kevin:
Please don’t trot out Pascal’s wager like it hasn’t been irrelevant since Bertram Russell (and probably before that).
I can see your point, Heliologue. But yes, the chronicle of people is what I was referring to.