How Do You Know Your Religion Is True?

[Paladin D]

Recently, someone I know who was raised Catholic, is now going to a Methodist church, but is thinking about registering with my local Catholic parish, brought up this question:

"How do you know your way (religion) is the right way (true)?"

The context was not so much having to do with which Christian sect contains the fullness of truth, but in a broader sense to include all religious beliefs. It's easier to make such a case within the context of Christianity, but it's much more difficult (at least for me) to make a case for Catholicism compared to non-Christian religions. There are so many religions that claim (or partly claim) to be "the way", does this mean ours is just another religion lost in the mix? How do we stand out?

Are there any tips on how to approach this, and/or reasons to give?

Edited October 28, 2008 by Paladin D

[philothea]

This is a great question!

I looked back at some previous exhaustive explanations I've given (elsewhere), and first I'd need to know what basic premises the person you're talking to has accepted. I'll assume, to simplify matters, that we can agree on (1) the existence of objective truth, and (2) the possibility of the supernatural.

At that point, you start examining history, looking for consistency, verifiable claims, and results.

Christianity, and specifically Catholicism pulls way ahead on those counts, fast (thus, here I am being Catholic!). Some religions get eliminated immediately -- at least in my estimation -- like Hinduism. It's so ancient, complex, and bizarre nobody understands it all anymore. It's pretty much impossible to convert to. As another example, Islam has been full of dispute since the day Muhammad died. On the other hand, Buddhism is fairly convincing, were it not for the existence of Judeo-Christian revelation.

Each person has to decide what level of evidence they require, and then go looking for it, or at least start looking at the available documents and history of religion, until they find themselves convinced of one point or another.

The important thing is to get out there and start searching for the truth!

[Paladin D]

From what I understand, this person does indeed believe in the supernatural, but to quote him, "I don't believe anyone has everything figured out." So therefore, this person feels that all religions have parts of the truth, but not one religion has it all.

By the way, I really appreciate your answer.

Edited October 28, 2008 by Paladin D

[CatherineM]

Ask him who started his religion, where and when. Ours was started by Jesus almost 2000 years ago. That does tend to make Protestants angry though. Most don't know. The Methodist denomination was started by John Wesley, a former Anglican, less than 300 years ago.

[philothea]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1688288' date='Oct 28 2008, 07:57 PM']From what I understand, this person does indeed believe in the supernatural, but to quote him, "I don't believe anyone has everything figured out." So therefore, this person feels that all religions have parts of the truth, but not one religion has it all.

By the way, I really appreciate your answer. [/quote]
Aha, well that touches on premise #1, the belief in objective truth.

Now, I completely agree that all honestly-considered religions (and, for that matter, cultures) posses their own unique wisdom and insights, and have discovered aspects of the truth. (This is compatible with Catholic teaching, BTW.)

However--

- Most religions state as absolutes things which are completely contrary to other religions. Reincarnation vs. resurrection, monotheism vs. polytheism, and so on. Those things can't be simultaneously true, so at least one is wrong. This is where research comes in, and having to make a choice.

- Are there religions out there that claim to have everything figured out? I think any group that took that stance would get laughed out of town pretty fast. As for Christianity, the Old Testament clearly says we couldn't understand all the reasons behind what happens even if God outright told them to us. Given the complexity of what reality we know, I believe it. I think the complaint that a religion doesn't have everything figured out is a bit of a cop-out.

The more honest question would be, who is closest to the truth? Even better, can any religion be considered free of formal errors? Can you fully trust the truths they [i]do[/i] have?

[Paladin D]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1688290' date='Oct 28 2008, 09:03 PM']Ask him who started his religion, where and when. Ours was started by Jesus almost 2000 years ago. That does tend to make Protestants angry though. Most don't know. The Methodist denomination was started by John Wesley, a former Anglican, less than 300 years ago.[/quote]

He doesn't believe his denomination is any better, I'm assuming, since the reason he joined was simply because there was no local Catholic parish nearby that he knew of (which turns out, there is, which is why he's thinking about going to the Catholic Church).

I could make a strong case about the Catholic Church being the "true church", but it's more difficult to say one religion is the "fullness of truth" compared to the other non-Christian religions.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='philothea' post='1688301' date='Oct 28 2008, 09:33 PM']Aha, well that touches on premise #1, the belief in objective truth.

Now, I completely agree that all honestly-considered religions (and, for that matter, cultures) posses their own unique wisdom and insights, and have discovered aspects of the truth. (This is compatible with Catholic teaching, BTW.)[/quote]

Absolutely.


[quote]Are there religions out there that claim to have everything figured out? I think any group that took that stance would get laughed out of town pretty fast. As for Christianity, the Old Testament clearly says we couldn't understand all the reasons behind what happens even if God outright told them to us. Given the complexity of what reality we know, I believe it. I think the complaint that a religion doesn't have everything figured out is a bit of a cop-out.

The more honest question would be, who is closest to the truth? Even better, can any religion be considered free of formal errors? Can you fully trust the truths they [i]do[/i] have?[/quote]

Good point, I will have to present that question to him.

Would it be safe to use the instances of miracles, or possibly the examples of incorruptible bodies of Saints as one piece of the puzzle towards the validity of the Catholic faith? Though I suppose the problem with this, would be how other religions claim miracles, though I haven't really explored them so I wouldn't know if they are substantiated.

[philothea]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1688362' date='Oct 28 2008, 10:52 PM']Would it be safe to use the instances of miracles, or possibly the examples of incorruptible bodies of Saints as one piece of the puzzle towards the validity of the Catholic faith? Though I suppose the problem with this, would be how other religions claim miracles, though I haven't really explored them so I wouldn't know if they are substantiated.[/quote]

Hard to say... I think the Catholic Church has the best documented and researched miracles, by far, but other faiths [i]do[/i] claim miracles. It's hard to verify or deny theirs.

I think the Guadeloupe image and some of the eucharistic miracles are the most dramatic, if you decide to mention them.

Also, depending on how nitpicky your friend is, because our knowledge of nature is incomplete, we can't actually determine if any particular incident is actually "miraculous."

For me, the best evidence is the existence of the saints -- not the miracles, so much, but their actual lives and personalities. Clearly, the Church is an effective system for producing these people who are heroically virtuous, wise, and supremely happy. Reading the writings of several saints was what ultimately convinced me. Especially since they all, though very different people, agree on all the truths of the faith.

[Paladin D]

I truely appreciate your responses, I just didn't want to come off as if I'm not satisfied.

I suppose in the end, there is no "clear-cut" answer to prove that the Catholic faith is the "true" one, compared to other religions? I don't think such an answer exists really, and unfortunately some people expect a quick, clear-cut answer.

[philothea]

It's all good! I hope I don't sound cranky.

I am trying not to get into arguments with people about politics. Thank you for giving me something to gnaw on.

I think, in a face-to-face discussion, I could probably figure out what evidence an individual would find convincing, and present it (at least, most reasonable people)... but it's hard to come up with a fits-all-situations answer, even with the specifics you have been able to provide.

[Saint Therese]

Because I'm always right?

[Paladin D]

Not to bombard you further, but you mentioned the lives of the Saints was your evidence that helped you come to the Catholic faith. Of course as you mentioned, people are looking for various forms of evidence.

If I were to propose the idea of the example of the Saints as an attribute to the overall validity of the Catholic faith, one refution could be that many religions have produced many wise, good, caring people.

I'm only bringing this up, because I know this would likely be a refution used.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Paladin D

[CatherineM]

St. Irenaeus: "...the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth."

Eusibuius of Caesarea: "But the brightness of the Catholic Church proceeded to increase in greatness, for it ever held to the same points in the same way, and radiated forth to all the race of Greeks and barbarians the reverent, sincere, and free nature, and the sobriety and purity of the divine teaching as to conduct and thought."

St. Augustine: "The Catholic Church is the work of Divine Providence, achieved through the prophecies of the prophets, through the Incarnation and the teaching of Christ, through the journeys of the Apostles, throug the suffering, the crosses, the blood and death of the martyrs, through the admirable lives of the saints.... When, then we see so much help on God's part, so much progress and so much fruits, shall we hesitate to bury ourselves in the bosom of the Church? For starting from the apostolic chair down through successions of bishops, even unto the open confession of all mankind, it has possessed the crown of teaching authority.

All these guys wrote these things before we even put the bible together. They had no doubt which church had the true faith.

Edited October 30, 2008 by CatherineM

[philothea]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1688904' date='Oct 29 2008, 07:02 PM']Not to bombard you further, but you mentioned the lives of the Saints was your evidence that helped you come to the Catholic faith. Of course as you mentioned, people are looking for various forms of evidence.

If I were to propose the idea of the example of the Saints as an attribute to the overall validity of the Catholic faith, one refution could be that many religions have produced many wise, good, caring people.

I'm only bringing this up, because I know this would likely be a refution used.[/quote]
Not a problem!

I would ask, specifically, who are those other, good, wise, caring people which have been produced by other religions? And I don't mean that in a snarky way.

Typical answers might be Gandhi, or Martin Luther King Jr., perhaps? Both of those men were products of, and responses to, extremely unjust political situations. A lot of non-specifically-religious greatness is a response to injustice, and not really a reflection on a particular religion at all.

Catholicism, along with numerous people of renowned, world-shaking greatness, also produces amazingly holy, brilliant, and heroic people out of nowhere. Just nobodies.

Reading writing or biography of saints like Francis of Assisi, John of the Cross, Therese of Lisieux (or hundreds of others I could name!) I don't think anyone with an open mind can avoid being struck by their brilliance and sanctity, while none of them really accomplished much, in a political sense, or came out of any particular historical forge.

So there are these thousands of incandescent examples of human greatness, all of whom adamantly proclaim the truth of the Catholic church, from all walks of life, all backgrounds, all nations, all intellects, all economic situations.

I don't know any other religion that has anything approaching that quantity or quality of witnesses. (Admittedly, the Catholic Church is the only one who formalizes this process of finding awesome people, but I don't think that can validly count as a point against it!)

Personally, I became undeniably convinced of the truth of the Catholic Church while reading St. Teresa of Avila's autobiography. She's practical, humble, witty, intelligent, and wise... and at the same time, she had these unbelievable mystical experiences, while being entirely and devoutly Catholic. A crazy person wouldn't be able to fake all that wisdom, so... my only conclusion was that she had to be talking about something real.

[philothea]

Just wanted to add one quick thought --

If someone believes that there is a God out there, and that God interacts with creation, and that there are absolutely standards for what is right and wrong, then, it is only reasonable to assume that the "one true religion" would actively work to spread itself, so as many people could learn the truth as possible. Also, it would have some kind of reliable authority to guard those truths from distortion over time.

Several religions are eliminated on those grounds. (While again, Catholicism pulls ahead.)