Critiquing: Wouldn’t a True Christian Refuse to Leave People Behind in Hell?

August 21, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Christianity’s Fast Spread — True Christian Solidarity — Religious Age Challenge — Love and Punishment — Ancient Religion Claims

---

Christianity’s Fast Spread

The first major topic discussed is whether the rapid spread of Christianity is evidence of its truth. The speaker asserts:

“I’ve never advanced the fast spread of Christianity as an evidence for the truth of Christianity.”

The argument relies on the perceived supernatural aspects and subjective experiences of individuals converting from Islam to Christianity. However, the logical coherence of this argument is weak. The assumption that subjective experiences equate to objective truth is a classic example of confirmation bias. Individuals interpret their experiences in a way that confirms their existing beliefs, which does not constitute objective evidence.

Additionally, the speaker mentions:

“If this was just a dream or a momentary hallucination, they’re not going to do that.”

This statement assumes that the depth of conviction validates the truth of the belief. This is a false cause fallacy. The strength of belief does not necessarily correlate with the truth of the belief.

True Christian Solidarity

The next issue revolves around whether a true Christian would refuse to leave others behind in Hell. The response provided is:

“Would you ever say if you really loved people, then you would put yourself in prison because they’re suffering in prison and you should also suffer in prison?”

This analogy is intended to dismiss the idea that a loving Christian would choose to suffer in Hell alongside others. However, the analogy is false equivalence. Prison and Hell are conceptually and contextually different, making the comparison invalid.

The discussion continues:

“So, our saying, God, I don’t want to go to heaven if they’re not going to heaven. I’m going to suffer with them. I’m not going to leave them behind. I don’t. That makes no sense to me.”

The speaker’s inability to understand the argument does not invalidate it. This reflects a personal incredulity fallacy. Just because something is difficult to understand does not make it false.

Religious Age Challenge

In addressing the challenge of favoring older religions, the speaker questions:

“How can it be? That Zoroastrianism, which is monotheistic, and major portions of Hinduism, which is polytheistic… How can they both be equally true?”

This statement highlights a misunderstanding of religious pluralism. The age of a religion does not inherently validate its truth claims. The argument also commits a straw man fallacy by oversimplifying and misrepresenting the reasoning behind favoring older religions.

The speaker further argues:

“No one would say anything about like that about medicine. Oh, I go back to the 17th century of medicine. I still in favor of bleeding people because the oldest way must be the true way.”

This analogy is another false equivalence. Medicine and religion are fundamentally different in nature. Medicine evolves based on empirical evidence and scientific advancements, whereas religious beliefs are based on spiritual and historical contexts.

Love and Punishment

On the topic of love and eternal punishment, the speaker states:

“What love, I think, requires is that we make clear to them that there is a way to get out of prison, even though they deserve to be in prison like us.”

This argument presupposes the validity of the concept of Hell and eternal punishment. The moral justification for eternal punishment is not substantiated, making the argument begging the question. The moral reasoning behind the necessity of such punishment remains unexplored, leading to a moralistic fallacy.

Furthermore, the discussion of solidarity with those in Hell lacks logical coherence. The speaker asserts:

“If you are there in hell, you are not with them. You are not there to comfort them.”

This statement disregards the original question’s moral implications, focusing instead on practical impossibilities. The argument misses the point of the moral dilemma and fails to address the core issue.

Ancient Religion Claims

Regarding the claims of ancient religions, the speaker argues:

“Older things aren’t necessarily more true because they’re older. Newer things are not necessarily more true or better because they’re newer. Each claim has to be assessed on its merits.”

This statement is logically sound but does not address the original challenge sufficiently. The argument against favoring older religions is presented without adequately engaging with the reasons someone might hold such a belief. It would benefit from a more thorough analysis of the epistemological basis for evaluating religious claims.

Unsubstantiated Claims

The content contains several unsubstantiated claims that warrant scrutiny. For example:

“Supernatural signs and wonders, kinds of factors… are factors in making their decision for Christ and against Islam.”

Claims of supernatural events require substantial evidence, which is not provided. The obligation to substantiate such claims is critical, as extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

Testing Alleged Promises

To test alleged promises of God, one could employ empirical methods and seek reproducible evidence. For instance, if a promise entails a tangible outcome, rigorous testing and observation are necessary. It is essential to map one’s degree of belief to the degree of available evidence, ensuring that beliefs are proportionate to the substantiating data.

Cognitive Biases

Several cognitive biases are evident in the content:

1. Confirmation Bias: Interpreting personal experiences as validation of religious beliefs.
2. False Cause Fallacy: Assuming that strong beliefs validate the truth of the beliefs.
3. Personal Incredulity: Dismissing arguments due to lack of personal understanding.

Conclusion

The content presented contains several logical inconsistencies and fallacies. While some arguments are coherent, others rely on flawed analogies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases. A thorough examination and substantiation of claims are necessary to ensure logical coherence. Mapping one’s degree of belief to the degree of available evidence is crucial in forming rational conclusions.

---

I invite you to discuss these arguments further in the comments section.