Christianity Is More About Fulfilling Wishes than Seeking Truth

Christians want it to be true, so they think it must be true

I am not against comforting words. I don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with saying “Everything is going to be fine” to a distraught friend. There is value in comforting words and thoughts even if they are not entirely true or certain.

Provided that people know comforting words are not necessarily an accurate description of reality.

If one determines what is objectively true based on what comforts them, that is merely wishful thinking.

It may sound crazy to some readers. Who would do that? Unfortunately, plenty of people do that, like Christians. There are many Christian (or pro-Christianity) leaders and thinkers who use this faulty reasoning to promote Christianity. In this article, I discuss three examples.

Tim Keller

There is nothing wrong with Christians discussing the benefits they get for believing in Jesus, but if those benefits are used to add credibility to the belief, or to persuade non-Christians to also join them, then it becomes problematic. It’s like saying, “It would be nice if x were true, so you should choose to believe x is true.” Tim Keller, for example, said something to that effect:

If Christmas is just a nice legend, in a sense you are on your own. But if Christmas is true, then you can be saved by grace.

In case you cannot see what’s wrong with this statement, let me rephrase it:

If Santa Claus is just a nice legend, in a sense you need to get your Christmas gift or get others to give you one. But if Santa Claus is true, then you can get a free Christmas gift every year, delivered to your house, with no strings attched.

The absurdity of this statement is apparent. If something is not true, it is not true. Emphasizing its potential benefits does not make it more likely to be true.

In a way, this is like Pascal’s wager. The question of probability is set aside, and the benefit from belief vs. loss from nonbelief is put in the spotlight. When Christians appeal to Pascal’s Wager, they are essentially saying that the likelihood of Christianity being true isn’t important; what is important is what you can get by believing in it.

Another writer on Medium made a similar statement to me recently. I told him about an Indian guru called Prahlad Jani who supposedly did not eat or drink for decades because goddess Amba sustained him. He responds:

If Prahlad is right or wrong what matters? I missed out on one goddess out of millions sustaining me from not eating when I had access to food and water? — Street Theologian

The underlying sentiment is that if the benefit of belief is not sizable, there is no motivation or reason to believe it is true.

But common sense tells us that the probability of something being true has nothing to do with its potential positive (or negative) effects on us if it were true. (It almost feels like I am insulting the readers’ intelligence by clarifying this point.)

In short, Christians are free to believe whatever they think makes them feel comfortable, but the likelihood of their belief being real is a separate matter.

William Lane Craig (WLC)

WLC is a well-known Christian apologist. In a podcast recorded in 2022, WLC says,

I thought if there is just one chance in a million that this is true it’s worth believing … Far from raising the bar or the epistemic standard that Christianity must meet to be believed, I lower it. I think that this is a message which is so wonderful, so fantastic, that if there’s any evidence that it’s true then it’s worth believing in, especially when you compare it to the alternatives like naturalism or atheism or other forms of life.

After the podcast, WLC clarified that there is ample epistemic justification for belief in Christianity, but he also made it clear that belief in Christianity can be justified by pragmatic reasons. He uses the optimism of cancer patients having a better chance of survival as an example. He says that even if the diagnosis should give the patient no hope, as long as the patient still believes they can recover, their actual survival rate could be higher.

The problem with this argument is that we DO know how the optimism of patients improves their prognosis. There is plenty of research on that.

It’s like “Fake it till you make it”. It is a common strategy for people having imposter syndrome. At the moment, you know you are not competent enough, but you fake it. The act of faking entails that you don’t focus on what is true at present (that you are incompetent now), and interestingly, this act of not letting your mind be aligned with truth actually helps build your competence or confidence in the long run.

Again, we know how “fake it till you make it” works. The difference between these examples and Christianity is that the probability of God’s existence is not affected by the number of people believing in Him or the sincerity of belief. The final outcome of cancer (or the future confidence level of a person) is an undetermined variable, and the patient’s optimism can have a measurable impact on that. But can we say that the existence of God is yet to be determined?

It’s not hard to spot the hole in WLC’s argument. It’s very large.

Some readers may object and say that WLC is not talking about increasing the likelihood of God’s existence, but whether it’s worth believing in God given what’s at stake (eternal life vs. damnation). He says,

when you do the cost-benefit analysis that I’ve just described then clearly Christian belief wins out.

In that case, it is a direct admission that the reason for belief is personal benefits, not because Christianity is probably true.

Jordan Peterson

I classify Jordan Peterson as a pro-Christianity thinker, not a Christian. His underlying position is more aligned with atheism than Christianity. Yet, as weird as it is, he promotes belief in Christianity and has a lot of Christian fans following him.

One of his points that he repeats now and then is the idea that Western civilization is based on some fundamental principles, and those principles came from Judaism and Christianity.

In this section, my focus is not on the validity of that claim. That’s a topic for another day. (I happen to find this article very informative on this topic.)

My main criticism is that even if Western civilization is based on Judeo-Christian values, that does not make the God of Judaism or Christianity real. Many Christians simply skip over this gap. The assumption is that if we benefit from value system x, then the propositions in x must be true.

To use an example that Jordan Peterson gives, individual rights are very important to us. We benefit from the recognition of those rights. Now, suppose this idea of individual rights originally came from the Christian religion (which I don’t think it does, but for the sake of argument, let’s suppose that’s the case), does it entail that the God of Christianity, therefore, exists?

No! It’s a non sequitur fallacy.

The reality may be something very different from how I want it to be. Suppose I want my moral standards to have an objective basis. It does not mean that objective moral standard actually exists. Suppose I wish that my physical death is not the end of my existence. It does not mean that the afterlife is, therefore, real.

The fact that Christians appeal to this kind of argument to justify belief in Christianity is obvious evidence of their wishful thinking: “I want it to be true; therefore, it must be true.” Having such a bias does not help them find the truth. It does the opposite.

A person who seeks truth should do their best not to let their biases affect their judgment. Truth is independent of our feelings, values, and wishes. I don’t feel comfortable with the idea that chimpanzees and I share common ancestors. But facts are facts. My feelings do not matter when it comes to ascertaining whether chimpanzees and human beings do, in fact, have common ancestors.

Truth seekers suck up the uncomfortable truth, not try to bend it.

Conclusion

Are you a truth seeker? You don’t have to be one if you don’t want to. What you don’t get to do is to engage in wishful thinking but claim you are passionate about finding the truth.

If you are not a Medium member yet, please consider signing up using my referral link. I will get a small commission at no extra cost to you.