During the Richard Dawkins / Alister McGrath interview, Dawkins asks McGrath how a person goes from being a deist to being a Christian. (This exchange begins around the 24 minute mark.) Dawkins lists several things Christianity "adds on" to belief in God in general (including atonement, prayer, forgiveness, etc) which Dawkins says "seem to have no substantiating basis at all," and then remarks that he is tempted to say that these things were grafted on "for no better reason than that's the way that you happen to have been brought up".

McGrath begins his reply by saying that the foundation for his belief is in the person of Jesus, and that for Christians their beliefs are not just abstract musings about "a god" but instead Jesus and His resurrection are key to "understand everything". One of the main reasons that Christians believe in God, says McGrath, is Jesus. He notes that the ideas of sin, atonement, etc are not "added on" but rather are core beliefs that have explanatory power. He concludes by saying that "Christianity is not so much about explanation but about salvation".

Here McGrath takes a different stance than I do. First, I would have made reference to Dawkins' last point, that McGrath believes because it's the way he was brought up. Dawkins is aware that McGrath was an atheist early in his life, so that comment does not apply to him. Nor does it apply to me, since I was brought up in an intentionally non-religious environment. Of course, even if McGrath DID believe just because it's the way he was brought up, that says nothing about the truthfulness of those beliefs. (See: Genetic fallacy)

My journey from agnosticism to Christian faith went something like this:

1. Does God exist?
• Yes.
2. What would God be like? What attributes would this God have?
• One God … creative … omniscient … omnipotent … good …
3. Which, if any, of the gods of the world religions comply with these attributes?
• Some: Judaism, Islam, Christianity. (And Christian splinters like Mormonism.)
4. After investigating these faiths, which seems to be worthy of further investigation?
• Christianity, for what have become my "big three" reasons (among others): Historical reliability, the person of Jesus, and salvation by grace. (And by extension, greatest "explanatory power" as McGrath says.)
5. After studying Christianity in more depth, do I have good reason to think it is true?
• Yes.

Of course, as you can read in more detail in my personal story, even after I had come to that point of intellectual acceptance it took awhile for me to take the step of "faith". This faith is not blind … see my post Faith & Evidence.

Again, like the miracles issue, I agree wholeheartedly with what Dr. McGrath is saying. However, I would have attempted to point out what makes Christianity uniquely different from other faiths and naming the reasons why belief in Jesus is warranted in the first place. These things are, I think, the "substantiating basis" that Dawkins is asking for. Christianity must be about both explanation and salvation.

I said I would post about "The Secret", Rhonda Byrne's ridiculous new-agey DVD/book that proposes the not so novel theory that "OUR THOUGHTS … CREATE … THINGS!" … however I've decided against wasting my time doing a meticulous refutation, in the hopes that the fad will die off soon. However, I did write an article for The Life recently about The Secret, titled What is "The Secret"?. I invite you to read it as a summary of my views on this subject.

Shouldn’t Christians just leave people alone, letting others believe what they want? After all, if all religions are basically the same, or at least are fulfilling to those that follow them, why try to get people to change their beliefs? The idea goes that there are many roads up the mountain, but they all eventually lead to the same point at the top. Thus, many paths … thus, any religion may/will ultimately lead you to God.

I guess it depends whether religion is like insulin or ice cream. For example, I prefer chocolate ice cream, while you might prefer vanilla, or butter pecan, or strawberry, or … great, now I'm hungry. But regardless of what your favorite flavor is, there's nothing wrong with choosing one instead of another; it's a personal preference. If someone told me they liked mint flavor best, I wouldn't respond by saying "What the heck's wrong with you?" or "How dare you choose mint instead of chocolate, you miserable heretic!"

But the point is this:

That’s the beauty of ice cream – you can choose what you prefer. When it comes to medicine, however, it doesn’t make sense to choose what you prefer. Rather, it’s essential to choose what heals. It would be silly to choose NyQuil over penicillin simply because it tastes better." (Alan Shlemon, STR.org)

When choosing ice cream, you choose what you like. But when you choose medicine, you choose what heals you. Religion isn't like ice cream, where you should choose whatever "tastes best". You need to choose what's true. The truth is often tough, but that doesn't mean we should just ignore it and choose what we like.

Jesus didn't claim Christianity is true like ice cream. He didn't say "Come, follow me, it'll be fun!". He in fact claimed something very specific, contradicting every single religious (or non-religious) person who lived before him. He claimed that it's impossible to "earn" our way into heaven, and in fact need to trust in God (who Jesus himself claimed to be in human form) instead of trusting our own failing efforts.

But isn't that pure arrogance? Isn't that intolerant? Doesn't it sound presumptuous for Christians to claim they have "the truth" and all other religions are wrong? Well, only if truth is like ice cream. If someone is dying and needs medicine, you need to give them what will heal them, not what they like best. In the same way, Jesus gives us what we need, and ultimately what is best for us.

There are many different paths, but they don't all eventually lead to the top of the same mountain. Some veer off to the left and the right; others climb entirely different mountains! And if God is real, truth about God is not like ice cream; it's like medicine, and only what is true can heal. Christians don't want to "force" their religious beliefs on anyone; instead, since religion is decidedly not like ice cream, it really does matter what people believe. And people who believe that we have found that truth, that medicine that cures what plagues humankind deep in our hearts, can't help but want to share it with other people.

(This article was originally written for the From Today On website, although it hasn't been posted yet.)

Related reading:

• Insulin or Ice Cream? – Greg Koukl's lectures that are part of the Ambassador Basic Curriculum were the inspiration for this post; unfortunately this short clip from it is the best one I could find on the STR site.
• Jesus and World Religions: How do they compare? – Is it politically correct to "compare" religions? Why not? As long as we know what tolerance is, then there's no harm.
• Story: I researched all the major religions – In my own story, I researched world faiths before becoming Christian. Here's someone else who did the same.

I do believe that in the other world there are neither Hindus, nor Christians nor Mussalmans. They all are judged not according to their labels, or professions, but according to their actions, irrespective of their professions. (Mahatma Gandhi, source)

Do Christians believe they have a monopoly on religious truth? They shouldn't. Truth should be accepted wherever it is found; be it in the Bible, the Qur'an, or in secular writings. That's why on the About this Site page of WhyFaith.com I state that "I will search for and accept truth wherever it is found". I think that Mahatma Gandhi was in many ways a wise man, and we could learn much from him.

However, note carefully that I'm not in any way implying that all religions are equally true. Since they teach very different things, the claim that "there are neither Hindus, nor Christians nor Mussalmans" is insulting to Hindus, Christians, and Mussalmans. This view seems tolerant, but actually is quite intolerant to these groups. What if the same rule was applied to political groups? What if we were to say "there are neither Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, or Communists"? The absolute view of religious inclusively necessarily excludes the exclusitivists (that is, the vast majority of people around the world). It may be easier to wave a dismissive hand at religions and say they are all basically the same, but that is, IMHO, lazy and inaccurate.

Note too that Gandhi has, perhaps due to his desire for religious harmony, apparently misunderstood or has mistakenly stated Christian belief. Unlike other faiths, Christians do not believe "They all are judged … according to their actions", at least not how Gandhi seems to mean it. The Christian concept of grace says that we cannot save ourselves, but rather God has taken the initiative to save us, if only we will accept His offer: "God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners" (Romans 5:8) The Four Spiritual Laws do a good job of explaining God's grace in a very succinct fashion. Gandhi's quote makes it seem like we are saved by our own actions in a sort of spiritual bank account, which is not the Christian belief.

I don't know if this one particular quote reflects Gandhi's beliefs accurately, but this attitude is prevalent in western society nonetheless. And I do know that if you, like millions (billions?) of people around the world are relying on being "good enough", hoping (but never quite sure, honestly) if you're meeting your own standard of goodness (let alone God's!) that perhaps there's another way … (see the resources below for more on this topic)

Related reading:

• Do Good People Go to Heaven? – The Christian answer might surprise you.
• For students: How "good" do you have to be … ?
• How good is "good enough"?