Justin, this was fantastic. I appreciate this article a lot. I was recently listening to Todd Philipps video for his reasons for discounting Christianity after serving in ministry and his number one reason was because of competing religions and how geographic location seems to dictate religious belief. Obviously this is a logical fallacy, but I was trying to think of how one would respond to this argument.
This was helpful: Competing truth claims does not discount the existence of the subject matter. That is an excellent response.
I also appreciate how you mention that the Bible presupposes competing truth claims. Some people seem to think that the gotcha moment is when they make this argument but the existence of competition was already presupposed.
Really appreciate this! I often work with those who are bringing up this point all the time. Always helps to have some additional insight and loving, wise ways to respond.
Great article, particularly loved that the car kept weaving its way in and out! But we must know: prepping to wash the car is not the same as washing it. Did the car get washed!?!?
In defense of Todd Phillips, we can strengthen his argument. While the competition of truth claims, by itself, does not render the subject matter illegitimate, if Christianity is committed to exclusive salvation in this earthly lifetime involving specific Christian beliefs, then it is very surprising why God doesn't make the one true religion, if it does exist, clearer to everyone. On the assumption that all religions are false, religious diversity is to be expected, especially if there is no one out there who could clear the confusion.
Put another way, people debated whether the Earth is flat or round, and once the experts agreed that it was round, they also agreed on what is the evidence for the roundness of the Earth. Unfortunately for theism, experts who are believers don't agree on what is the evidence for God's existence. Some Christian like Francis Collins and Robin Collins point to cosmological fine-tuning; Other Christians like Timothy McGrew and Hans Halvorson disagree that cosmological fine-tuning is evidence for God. Saint Anselm thought the ontological argument was proof of God; Saint Thomas Aquinas disagreed.
Biologists who believe in evolution agree that the fossil record and vestigial structures support evolution. Find Christians who agree on the evidence for Christianity. Some Catholics think modern Catholic miracles (Fatima / Padre Pio) not only prove Christianity but also Catholicism in particular. Protestants disagree.
The competition of religions does not make Christianity false, but it should make us question the grounds we have for believing Christianity or questioning the commitments we think Christianity is committed to.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I would like to address a couple of your points.
First, we must be careful not to compare the primary beliefs of evolutionary biologists with the secondary disagreements of Christians. Yes, evolutionary biologists generally agree that the evidence supports the theory. However, in studying evolutionary biology, it becomes clear that there are internal secondary disagreements as to HOW that evidence supports the theory: Punctuated Equilibrium, Evo-Devo, genetic drift versus selection, etc.
Christians are no different. While they certainly have secondary disagreements driven by human fallibility and lack of knowledge, they agree on the primary fact that Jesus, the Son of God, died for our sins and was raised from the dead.
Second, to claim that God should make the “one true religion” clearer seems to imply that God should make His existence so obvious that disbelief is impossible. A God who has given sufficient evidence for those willing to seek Him, while still allowing people to resist Him, appears more logical given that we are creatures with free will.
For example, love is a moral good, but a consequence of love is that it must be freely given. If it cannot be withheld, then it becomes a logical contradiction, as love cannot be forced or coerced. Thus, if God’s existence were so undeniable that rejection became impossible, our response would be compelled rather than chosen. That is an argument many of us address elsewhere, so for the sake of brevity, I’ll leave it there.
Dale Allison and Mike Licona are Christian scholars who disagree on whether the evidence from history supports the Resurrection of Jesus even though they both agree that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead (Allison by faith; Licona by inference to the best explanation). N. T. Wright and Marcus Borg are Christian scholars who disagree on whether Jesus was bodily raised from the dead. If Jesus's corpse was discovered, it would disturb Wright greatly but not Borg.
So yes, Christians may have primary agreements and secondary disagreements like evolutionary biologists, but the relevant difference is that Christians may not even agree about the evidence for those primary agreements. This is one reason my confidence in evolutionary theory is higher than my confidence in theism / Christianity.
The Biblical stories involve characters whose disbelief is impossible: Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, King David, King Solomon, Jonah, and so on. James 2:19 affirms that even demons affirm God's existence. If they have free will and can still disobey, then free will on its own is insufficient to explain why His existence is not so obvious. Think about the Trinity, the love between the Heavenly Father and the Son. Is God the Father free to reject the existence of His Son? No, but their love is still genuine. And if we still have free will in Heaven where God's existence is plainly obvious, then love is not compelled despite the impossibility of rejection.
If Christian universalism is true, then religious diversity is a lot less surprising because the stakes involved with believing on whether Jesus was raised from the dead, on which denomination to join, are not very high, not urgent enough for God to reveal His existence to others, especially when people can express virtues through nonbelief.
I appreciate the cordial discussion. These are valid concerns that deserve a deeper dive. I don’t want to derail too much from the original topic, however, so I’ll try to keep my responses as brief as I can.
First, we shouldn’t discount a cumulative case simply because scholars disagree over particular pieces of evidence. Such reasoning cuts both ways. For example, PhD Chen Jun-yuan’s findings of sponge fossils in Chengjiang challenged interpretations of gaps in the fossil record, yet, from what I understand, he still accepted evolution. One biologist may emphasize evidence A, B, and C, while another emphasizes B, C, and D, yet both reach the same broader conclusion. Christianity, or any cumulative case for that matter, is no different.
It’s also worth noting that evolution being true or false does not disprove Christianity.
Second, Scripture does not support the claim that these individuals saw God so plainly that rejection became impossible. In fact, the accounts you mention are repeatedly contrasted with free rebellion. Knowing that God exists, as you point out, does not equate to freely placing your trust in Him as He desires.
Moses believed, while Pharaoh witnessed the same miracles and resisted. The Israelites witnessed God’s deliverance and then worshipped a golden calf. People witnessed the miracles of Jesus, yet still rejected and even killed Him. God clearly did not make Himself so apparent that free choice was overridden and loyalty was forced.
We must keep in mind that if God is perfectly just, He will provide sufficient opportunity to draw all those who would freely choose Him, without coercing those who would freely reject Him. In contrast, if God knows someone would reject Him even with more evidence, withholding further evidence could actually be merciful. Those who are given more are rightly held to a higher standard.
Third, we can’t compare our limited human freedom with God’s nature. The Father’s inability to deny the Son doesn’t demonstrate that human love can simply be compelled while remaining genuine. The eternal relationship between the Father and Son belongs to God’s own nature, which God cannot change or deny.
We are created beings whom God draws into a relationship. That relationship can be freely accepted or rejected. God, in contrast, IS love by His very nature. We merely have the ability to freely partake in it.
Fourth, free will in heaven can be maintained without retaining the ability or desire to sin. Our choice to ultimately be free from sin is itself freely made. If someone has gangrene in their hand and freely chooses to amputate it to save their life, we wouldn’t say they lost their free will because they can no longer use that hand. Their present condition is the consequence of a choice they freely made. Likewise, our perfected state in heaven can be the result of a freely chosen relationship with God, rather than a condition imposed upon us from the beginning.
This is already getting way way longer than I intended, so I will stop here. I recognize that each of these arguments deserves its own treatment. My publication is geared toward introductory treatments of these issues, but I’m happy to recommend deeper resources for anyone interested.
I enjoy the substantial engagement. Some brief remarks:
Lack of consensus among experts about the evidence for a particular position is one reason to be suspicious about how confident a layman can have a view about that position, but I agree it alone is not strong enough to dismiss looking at the cumulative case. I as a layman have good confidence in positions that many experts disagree about.
I acknowledge that many people see no irreconcilable conflict between evolution and Christianity. BioLogos is a good organization with an important mission to show why.
Scripture speaks of people who know that God is real and yet chose to rebel anyway. So why isn't everyone in that position? Perhaps nonbelievers might reject Him if provided with more evidence of His existence such that withholding that evidence would be merciful. When we look at the religious demographics of Thailand with over 90% Buddhists and of Saudi Arabia with over 90% Muslims, I don't think people in Thailand are more resistant to God than people in Saudi Arabia.
When parents choose to have children, their children usually don't have the freedom to disbelieve in the existence of their earthly parents. So why is the relationship between us and our Heavenly Father different?
Matthew 25:34-40 is a beautiful passage that illustrates that a nonbeliever can be, in one sense, in a relationship with God even while they don't know about it, in a better relationship with God than a believer who does not produce good fruits of the Spirit. My answer to the problems of divine hiddenness and religious diversity is that we don't need to be in explicit conscious relationships with God since we have the moral freedom to choose good or evil, giving us an implicit relationship with Him that will become more explicit in the afterlife eventually.
Washing her car, should come naturally too you.
Yes, I agree 🤣! It typically does, I admittedly dorked out on my order of operations here though.
Made for a funny story between us thankfully.
Justin, this was fantastic. I appreciate this article a lot. I was recently listening to Todd Philipps video for his reasons for discounting Christianity after serving in ministry and his number one reason was because of competing religions and how geographic location seems to dictate religious belief. Obviously this is a logical fallacy, but I was trying to think of how one would respond to this argument.
This was helpful: Competing truth claims does not discount the existence of the subject matter. That is an excellent response.
I also appreciate how you mention that the Bible presupposes competing truth claims. Some people seem to think that the gotcha moment is when they make this argument but the existence of competition was already presupposed.
Really appreciate this! I often work with those who are bringing up this point all the time. Always helps to have some additional insight and loving, wise ways to respond.
You have no idea how much this just made my day. I really appreciate you sharing this all with me!
So many competing religions because, as the lyrics to the Drottnar song "We March" assert, "We love lies; they're easier to deal with."
I love this
Great article, particularly loved that the car kept weaving its way in and out! But we must know: prepping to wash the car is not the same as washing it. Did the car get washed!?!?
Hahah fortunately yes. Too funny 😂😂😂!
But unfortunately, it’s somehow already dirty again thanks to the forest sap and dust she drove through.
Thankfully, it’s not as dirty as it was at least so I have some time.
In defense of Todd Phillips, we can strengthen his argument. While the competition of truth claims, by itself, does not render the subject matter illegitimate, if Christianity is committed to exclusive salvation in this earthly lifetime involving specific Christian beliefs, then it is very surprising why God doesn't make the one true religion, if it does exist, clearer to everyone. On the assumption that all religions are false, religious diversity is to be expected, especially if there is no one out there who could clear the confusion.
Put another way, people debated whether the Earth is flat or round, and once the experts agreed that it was round, they also agreed on what is the evidence for the roundness of the Earth. Unfortunately for theism, experts who are believers don't agree on what is the evidence for God's existence. Some Christian like Francis Collins and Robin Collins point to cosmological fine-tuning; Other Christians like Timothy McGrew and Hans Halvorson disagree that cosmological fine-tuning is evidence for God. Saint Anselm thought the ontological argument was proof of God; Saint Thomas Aquinas disagreed.
Biologists who believe in evolution agree that the fossil record and vestigial structures support evolution. Find Christians who agree on the evidence for Christianity. Some Catholics think modern Catholic miracles (Fatima / Padre Pio) not only prove Christianity but also Catholicism in particular. Protestants disagree.
The competition of religions does not make Christianity false, but it should make us question the grounds we have for believing Christianity or questioning the commitments we think Christianity is committed to.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I would like to address a couple of your points.
First, we must be careful not to compare the primary beliefs of evolutionary biologists with the secondary disagreements of Christians. Yes, evolutionary biologists generally agree that the evidence supports the theory. However, in studying evolutionary biology, it becomes clear that there are internal secondary disagreements as to HOW that evidence supports the theory: Punctuated Equilibrium, Evo-Devo, genetic drift versus selection, etc.
Christians are no different. While they certainly have secondary disagreements driven by human fallibility and lack of knowledge, they agree on the primary fact that Jesus, the Son of God, died for our sins and was raised from the dead.
Second, to claim that God should make the “one true religion” clearer seems to imply that God should make His existence so obvious that disbelief is impossible. A God who has given sufficient evidence for those willing to seek Him, while still allowing people to resist Him, appears more logical given that we are creatures with free will.
For example, love is a moral good, but a consequence of love is that it must be freely given. If it cannot be withheld, then it becomes a logical contradiction, as love cannot be forced or coerced. Thus, if God’s existence were so undeniable that rejection became impossible, our response would be compelled rather than chosen. That is an argument many of us address elsewhere, so for the sake of brevity, I’ll leave it there.
I appreciate the input.
Your feedback is very valuable.
Dale Allison and Mike Licona are Christian scholars who disagree on whether the evidence from history supports the Resurrection of Jesus even though they both agree that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead (Allison by faith; Licona by inference to the best explanation). N. T. Wright and Marcus Borg are Christian scholars who disagree on whether Jesus was bodily raised from the dead. If Jesus's corpse was discovered, it would disturb Wright greatly but not Borg.
So yes, Christians may have primary agreements and secondary disagreements like evolutionary biologists, but the relevant difference is that Christians may not even agree about the evidence for those primary agreements. This is one reason my confidence in evolutionary theory is higher than my confidence in theism / Christianity.
The Biblical stories involve characters whose disbelief is impossible: Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, King David, King Solomon, Jonah, and so on. James 2:19 affirms that even demons affirm God's existence. If they have free will and can still disobey, then free will on its own is insufficient to explain why His existence is not so obvious. Think about the Trinity, the love between the Heavenly Father and the Son. Is God the Father free to reject the existence of His Son? No, but their love is still genuine. And if we still have free will in Heaven where God's existence is plainly obvious, then love is not compelled despite the impossibility of rejection.
If Christian universalism is true, then religious diversity is a lot less surprising because the stakes involved with believing on whether Jesus was raised from the dead, on which denomination to join, are not very high, not urgent enough for God to reveal His existence to others, especially when people can express virtues through nonbelief.
I appreciate the cordial discussion. These are valid concerns that deserve a deeper dive. I don’t want to derail too much from the original topic, however, so I’ll try to keep my responses as brief as I can.
First, we shouldn’t discount a cumulative case simply because scholars disagree over particular pieces of evidence. Such reasoning cuts both ways. For example, PhD Chen Jun-yuan’s findings of sponge fossils in Chengjiang challenged interpretations of gaps in the fossil record, yet, from what I understand, he still accepted evolution. One biologist may emphasize evidence A, B, and C, while another emphasizes B, C, and D, yet both reach the same broader conclusion. Christianity, or any cumulative case for that matter, is no different.
It’s also worth noting that evolution being true or false does not disprove Christianity.
Second, Scripture does not support the claim that these individuals saw God so plainly that rejection became impossible. In fact, the accounts you mention are repeatedly contrasted with free rebellion. Knowing that God exists, as you point out, does not equate to freely placing your trust in Him as He desires.
Moses believed, while Pharaoh witnessed the same miracles and resisted. The Israelites witnessed God’s deliverance and then worshipped a golden calf. People witnessed the miracles of Jesus, yet still rejected and even killed Him. God clearly did not make Himself so apparent that free choice was overridden and loyalty was forced.
We must keep in mind that if God is perfectly just, He will provide sufficient opportunity to draw all those who would freely choose Him, without coercing those who would freely reject Him. In contrast, if God knows someone would reject Him even with more evidence, withholding further evidence could actually be merciful. Those who are given more are rightly held to a higher standard.
Third, we can’t compare our limited human freedom with God’s nature. The Father’s inability to deny the Son doesn’t demonstrate that human love can simply be compelled while remaining genuine. The eternal relationship between the Father and Son belongs to God’s own nature, which God cannot change or deny.
We are created beings whom God draws into a relationship. That relationship can be freely accepted or rejected. God, in contrast, IS love by His very nature. We merely have the ability to freely partake in it.
Fourth, free will in heaven can be maintained without retaining the ability or desire to sin. Our choice to ultimately be free from sin is itself freely made. If someone has gangrene in their hand and freely chooses to amputate it to save their life, we wouldn’t say they lost their free will because they can no longer use that hand. Their present condition is the consequence of a choice they freely made. Likewise, our perfected state in heaven can be the result of a freely chosen relationship with God, rather than a condition imposed upon us from the beginning.
This is already getting way way longer than I intended, so I will stop here. I recognize that each of these arguments deserves its own treatment. My publication is geared toward introductory treatments of these issues, but I’m happy to recommend deeper resources for anyone interested.
Thanks again for the charitable engagement.
I enjoy the substantial engagement. Some brief remarks:
Lack of consensus among experts about the evidence for a particular position is one reason to be suspicious about how confident a layman can have a view about that position, but I agree it alone is not strong enough to dismiss looking at the cumulative case. I as a layman have good confidence in positions that many experts disagree about.
I acknowledge that many people see no irreconcilable conflict between evolution and Christianity. BioLogos is a good organization with an important mission to show why.
Scripture speaks of people who know that God is real and yet chose to rebel anyway. So why isn't everyone in that position? Perhaps nonbelievers might reject Him if provided with more evidence of His existence such that withholding that evidence would be merciful. When we look at the religious demographics of Thailand with over 90% Buddhists and of Saudi Arabia with over 90% Muslims, I don't think people in Thailand are more resistant to God than people in Saudi Arabia.
When parents choose to have children, their children usually don't have the freedom to disbelieve in the existence of their earthly parents. So why is the relationship between us and our Heavenly Father different?
Matthew 25:34-40 is a beautiful passage that illustrates that a nonbeliever can be, in one sense, in a relationship with God even while they don't know about it, in a better relationship with God than a believer who does not produce good fruits of the Spirit. My answer to the problems of divine hiddenness and religious diversity is that we don't need to be in explicit conscious relationships with God since we have the moral freedom to choose good or evil, giving us an implicit relationship with Him that will become more explicit in the afterlife eventually.