Note: If you have not signed up to join my blog email list, please click on “contact” above and send me your name and email address. You will receive notices when I post a new blog and avoid missing future blog posts in this and other series.  I do not share email addresses.

Part Six: Why Doesn’t Sincerely Believing in Something Make It True?

In last week’s blog post, we saw that secularism and postmodernism are destroying America’s moral fabric. Our second response to this ideology will show that believing something is true doesn’t automatically make it true. A person can sincerely believe in something and be sincerely wrong. Here are a few examples:

A common complaint among postmodernists is that Christians are intolerant of other religions. The postmodern party line is that any religion that meets people’s spiritual needs—that “feels” right to them—is just as legitimate as Christianity. But what if beliefs other than Christianity are false?  Someone may believe, for example, that all religions lead to salvation, but a little thoughtful reflection shows this is nonsense.

The fact is, virtually all religions have dramatically different views on the nature of God and how they perceive “salvation.” The impersonal, abstract, non-creating God of Hinduism is not compatible with the personal, sovereign, creator God of the Bible. They cannot be reduced to a common denominator. Any attempt to do so only succeeds if one distorts both religions. So how can they all be legitimate?

This same principle applies to ethical issues. The postmodern perspective on moral behavior has more to do with feelings than facts. But “feeling” that a particular behavior is morally acceptable doesn’t make it so—as last week’s blog demonstrated. Here are a few examples of common ethical and religious assumptions:

• “So what if I look at pornography? It’s not hurting anybody!”
• “I’m a good person; God will let me into Heaven!”
• “I think a woman has a right to have an abortion if she feels like it!”
• “All religions are paths to the same god!”

These beliefs are based on feelings that presuppose moral relativism or religious pluralism. That is, if something feels okay, it must be “true.” However, merely believing there is nothing immoral about specific behaviors or all religions are legitimate doesn’t mean they are.

Since it can be tough arguing a person out of such beliefs, the best way to counter them is to challenge non-Christian to justify their beliefs. For example, consider the following four questions that challenge the four assumptions above:

• “Since pornography can destroy marriages and lead to dangerous sexual behavior, why do you think it can’t hurt anybody?”
• “Since science has proven life begins at conception, why do you believe an unborn baby is not a person who deserves protection from being killed?
• “If God will not tolerate immoral behaviors, just how good would you have to be to get a free pass into Heaven?”
• “Why do you feel that all religions are paths to God when most contradict each other on the nature of God and way to achieve salvation?”

We want postmodern moral relativists and religious pluralists to recognize that beliefs based solely on feelings are usually contradictive, illogical, and outright false. Without objective justification, they are merely personal opinions based on emotions and unreliable avenues for discovering truth. Asking questions that require thoughtful reflection can lead to compelling apologetic opportunities. Once thoughtful unbelievers realize their moral and religious assumptions cannot be justified, they may be more willing to consider Christianity—a faith that rests on objective, verifiable facts. ©

Next week we’ll see that postmodern relativism is a self-refuting proposition, and therefore disqualified as leading to spiritual or moral truth.