How do you KNOW Christianity is true?

It may be the single most prevalent question regarding Christianity. How do you know Christianity is true? This question also implicitly asks "how do you know all the other religions are false?"

Whether you are a Christian or of some other religious persuasion, chances are that you've had this thought yourselves or had it posed to you. The Christian will usually respond with a fairly short answer. They may refer to their upbringing in the Church, the teachings of the Bible, or their first hand experience. While these reasons may well be true and subjectively validate their own faith, they often leave the questioner vastly unsatisfied, often to the point of frustration. So what is the answer? What is the source of their frustration? How does a Christian respond?

Unfortunately, there is not an easy or quick answer. The question itself is loaded with presuppositions and assumptions that must be addressed first if any reasonable answer is to be given. Moreover, it may be the case that the questioner does not even wish to gain a reasonable response, but they rather wish to take an intellectual jab at what they see as an ignorant belief system. But even if that is the case, it is my firm conviction that the question allows the Christian to address many false assumptions that the questioner may carry while being gracious and loving.

It should be first noted that the question is not primarily one about Christianity. It is instead a question about knowledge itself! "How do you KNOW...?" There is a field of philosophy called epistomology which deals exclusively with these sorts of questions. We must all come to our own conclusions and answers to these very basic questions. How do we know anything? What is it exactly that we know? What constitutes knowledge? All of these questions are being indirectly addressed when someone asks "How do you know Christianity is true?"

There are two questions which seem to create a bit of a problem. The first being "what do we know?" and the second being "how do we know what we know?". It would appear that before we can move forward regarding questions of knowledge, we would need to answer these two questions. But if we venture to give an answer to the first question, say that we know snow is white, we would then need to ask ourselves how we knew that in the first place! So we would be needing to assume an answer to the second question in order to answer the first. On the other hand if we try to answer the second question, say that we know things by observation, then we claim that we KNOW that we know things by observation and simply assume an answer to the first question. This cyclical problem is called the problem of the criteria. There are only three answers to this problem. The first is the defeatest attitude, that we can't know anything. But this solution must be wrong, since the defeatest claims to KNOW that you can't know anything, thereby contradicting himself. The second solution claim that we must adopt an answer to the second question and give a set of rules as to how we know what we know. But this creates another problem. Say we know that X is true. Then this solution necessitates us to infer how we know X to be true. We may know X because of Y, but how do we know Y to be true. Because of Z, and so forth and so on. This becomes an infinite regression of "how do you know?" etc. etc. This is the position of the skeptic. In the end, this solution allows no real knowledge. The last solution attempts to assume some answer to the "what do we know?" question. This is, in my estimation, where most every thinking person begins their quest for knowledge. (Even the skeptic claims to KNOW that we can only know those things which we can verify with certainty, but he can't show that he KNOWS that with any certainty.) We all have a set of presuppositions and assumptions that we adopt without question, and we form every other belief and bit of knowledge off of them.

When a person asks "How do you know Christianity is true?", one must first ask in return how they believe we know anything at all. This isn't to be difficult, but rather to help identify where the questioner is coming from. If they are genuinely interested and assume that such knowledge is attainable, then you would proceed differently than if they are a true skeptic trying to intellectually outmanuever you. If the later is true, dealing with the actual apologetics that support Christianity may be initially fruitless. Instead, you may need to address the deeper foundational issues of the questioner's worldview.

A skeptic will define knowledge differently than will the Christian. They will demand absolute certainty as a prerequisite for knowledge while Christians and others like them will take a much more practical look at the evidence and decide which of the options on the table is more likely to be true. I will make the conjecture that we all, including the skeptic, must approach life from the non-skeptical, evidential point of view.

The skeptic will count the existence of an alternative logical possibility as grounds to reject a claim to knowledge. For example, you may respond to a skeptic with 300 pages of evidence regarding the historical accuracy of the New Testament, the lack of proven Biblical contradictions, and the thousands of manuscripts supporting the consistency of scripture, but they may say that it is still possible that it is some elaborate hoax and thus claim it is not possible to KNOW that it is true. This is the skeptical stance that requires certitude in order to have knowledge.

However, the skeptical mind can not function on this level all the time. For if the skeptic required certitude to know something, he would never be able to know anything, save for a few basic mathematical and self-evident truths. (Sometimes a skeptic will off that you can't be sure about anything, and they are sure about that. This is evidence that the position of the skeptic is, in the end, self-refuting.) It would never be possible for a skeptic to know who their mother is. Do they have a birth certificate, baby picture, witnesses, etc? Sure. But they could all be faked. It is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE to fake almost anything. The movie "the Matrix" showed that it is at least logically possible to fake all of existence with some elaborate computer controling the sensory input of all mankind. However, it is unreasonable to reject the reality aparent before us simply because it is logically possible computers are controling our brains. We must instead weigh the evidence.

I think this is the most crucial issue in the question "How do you know Christianity is true?" We must arrive at a place where we are allowed to weigh the evidence. This may mean we need to include other claims with Christianity on the table. Many other claims will have contradictions inherent in them. They can be rejected on such grounds. Others will stand to more intense scrutiny, but in the end may fail. But ultimately, the answer to the question "How do you know Christianity is true?" must be a process of coming alongside of the questioner, weighing the evidence and coming to a conclusion of what is probably true. In my experience, it is that the Christian worldview is the best and most comprehensive explanation of the world in which we live. I KNOW this like I know I have a mother and father, that I had cereal for breakfast, and that I am writing these words right now... even though it is at least logically possible those things are not true.

It is important in all of this that the Christian realize that the skeptical stance is real and is held closely to the heart of many who ask questions. We must always handle such conversations with care and gentleness. Arrogance does not make us intellectually wrong, but it is contrary to the love of Christ, who is the ultimate truth. We must be willing to come alongside all who are seeking truth in a gracious way. In this way, their struggle becomes our struggle, and we may all reason together.

The Ignorance of the Arrogance Argument

Have you ever seen a public debate, be it political or otherwise, where the two parties involved come to a critical disagreement on some very hot button topic? Often they will banter back and forth giving reasons for their intellectual position, but sometimes one of the parties will offer a claim to exclusivity. They are right and the opposition is wrong. End of story. Of course this doesn't sit well with the second party, and they stand up and exclaim what has become the kill shot in any discussion or debate, "What an incredibly arrogant statement! How arrogant of you to say such a thing!" Often times, that is all that needs to be said to send the offending party home with their tail between their legs.

Today we live in a culture where the only universally accepted truth is that of tolerance. This is not the same tolerance that was defined during past decades. That "old tolerance" allowed one to acknowledge that their position was better than the opposition. To put up with the opposition while holding the view that you were superior in some way was to tolerate them. You tolerate the annoying kid incessantly clicking his pen in the waiting room. You tolerate your in-laws. You don't have to like them, but you do have to learn to live with them. Unfortunately this tolerance often branched out to ethnic groups and other sectors of society. To tolerate another race or ethnic group necessarily meant that you perceived your race to be superior to theirs. This is why our culture today will often say the "old tolerance" is vastly intolerant.

The new tolerance makes a modified claim. One is no longer able to assume that their position is an any way superior to another. All views are equal in truth and validity, whether they be mere opinions or objective truth claims. The inclusion of objective truth claims in this new tolerance is of supreme importance. One would have a hard time arguing that if two people thought differently on the taste of a certain cookie that they would be right in making rash judgements about each others decision without being intolerant (according to the new definition), and indeed, arrogant. Matters of opinion are one thing, but in the realm of objective truth claims (claims that refer to the external reality and the truth "out there") this is a very damaging view. Logically, this way of thinking is fatally flawed, for it fails the law of non-contradiction. Jim can not claim that his view that the pyramids were built by Egyptian slaves is right nor that Bill's belief that aliens built them is wrong. According to our culture, that may be perceived as an arrogant thing to claim since Jim can't actually "prove" that the pyramids were built by Egyptian slaves. But unlike subjective statements of taste or opinion, these statements are objective truth claims. It may be that Jim and Bill are both wrong, but objectively they can not both be correct.

There are very few things that we can know with absolute certitude. Some basic laws of logic and mathematics may be taken to be certainly true without argument. The law of non-contradiction, 2+2=4 and other basic principles can be known with absolute certainty. However, there is a vast world of knowledge out there that the human mind can never know with 100% certainty. History, Chemistry, Physics, Psychology, and many other fields of science that study the universe around us can not offer us absolute certainty. What they do offer us is a method and a reason to venture to identify the most probable explanation for the world around us. This is why scientific theories are so often ammended to best fit the latest findings. Did we really land on the moon, or was it some elaborate conspiracy to fool the American people into believing that we did? We can never know for sure. We can only look at the evidence and decide what is most probable.

At this point many people will throw up their hands and claim that we can't know anything for sure! To which one should respond "are you sure about that?". The truth is we absolutely must be sure about some things. For example, there is truth. How do we know that for sure? Claim the opposite, "there is no truth". Is that true? If it is, then there is truth after all... but if it's not, then there must be truth somewhere. Thus we know for certain there is truth. And all objective truth claims suppose they contain some truth. Our goal is only to see which claim is most probable. And we do this by weighing the evidence and using our cognitive abilities to come to a conclusion.

If I were to stand up in a lecture hall on a campus at an American University and claim that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, that would be an objective truth claim. Either Jesus is the only way to Heaven, or He is not. That's the truth of the matter. There are certainly arguments for and against such a position, some good and some bad. But I can garauntee you that the vast majority of the time I would not hear a valid argument in response to such a statement. I would instead hear, "How terribly arrogant of you to make such a claim". Notice that this attack on my character has absolutely NOTHING to do with the statement I would have just made. In fact, the responding person may be right in their assesment of my character. I may indeed be a very arrogant person, but that is a totally different topic of conversation. The usual attack against Christianity is that it is for the intellectually inept person. But to think that a personal attack of arrogance is somehow a valid rebuttal to an objective claim is indeed very intellectually irresponsible.

As Christians, we should always strive to show the truth with love and compassion, with gentleness and respect. Arrogance is not a characteristic of Christ. The truth can and will be offensive to many, but that is the nature of truth. If you are living in accordance with Christ's will, and someone accuses you of being arrogant, recognize that we are fallen people, and reply that you may indeed have been acting arrogantly, but do not let that disuade you from delivering the truth that you bring.