Answering Objections With Analogies

When discussing the Faith with others, valid objections against religion arise and have been promoted throughtout time. In order to address three common objections, I like to make some analogies to education. These analogies are by no means flawless, but they can serve as a way to help our brothers and sisters understand the benefits of religion when they are opposed to it.

Objection 1: Look at all the different religions and gods in human history. You don't believe in almost all of them. Doesn't that mean that there isn't a God, or that your religion is probably also wrong? Isn't it more realistic to say what's true for you might not be true for me?

Repsonse 1: Imagine a math classroom where the question on the board is 13 x 3. In this classroom, 90% of the students answer the question and 10% don't care to try or claim that there is no answer. Of the 90% who attempt to answer, none of them get the correct response. Some are really close (only off by a few numbers) and others are way off. Does that therefore mean that there is no correct answer? Does that mean there is no "truth" to this problem? Absolutely not. It simply means that no student has the complete answer yet. Many of them are close, and perhaps set up the formula correctly to solve the problem, but made a slight error along the way. Each student and their outcome to the problem represents different religious and philosophical perspectives and doctrine.

It is also false to conclude that because there are multiple different religions then they are all equally subjective truths. It is common to lump all religions and religious claims into the relativistic category of truth, believing that truth is “true for you but not for me.” The truth of how the universe came to be is objective. There is only one true explanation. We may say the same of religious claims of truth. There may be some overlap between various religious claims, such as in moral issues or the existence of God. As it pertains to the nature of Christ, some religions claim that He is a divine incarnation both completely God and completely man. Others claim that He is actually the Archangel Michael. Others claim that He was merely a prophet or just a rabbi. All of those religions can not be equally correct on their claims. One is either objectively true or, at the very least, closer to the objective truth than the others. We can do our best to reason and evaluate the claims and evidence of each religion to determine which religion is closest to professing the claims closest to objective truth.

Objection 2: Religion is just about rules and control. If God is "love" then God would want me to be happy. Why are there so many rules to follow?

Response 2: When a student turns in an assignment, they are assessed. Let's say the assignment is an essay. A student might have a sloppy thesis, weak supporting evidence, incoherent arguments, and a disconnected conclusion. The teacher knows that the student is capable of a much higher standard, and challenges the student to revise the work and improve it. The teacher has provided the structure and resources to study in order to accomplish the task through access to tutoring, instructional video, and informational text. This angers the student and makes the student complain about the requirements and effort that will be needed to achieve that quality. The student said that they felt fine about the work and they wanted to leave the essay at its current level of achievement. The teacher knows that if the student continues in this state of mind and practice, their work will never improve and there will be no growth, regardless of how the student assesses their work. Also, the quality and outcome of those around the student can then be negatively influenced to diminish much more easily. Furthermore, when the student faces a more challenging and significant future project, they will not be equipped to confront it. Religious “rules” are often much more of standards that aim to help us achieve our highest human potential objectively, regardless of how our own subjective feelings, perspective, and desires evaluate our state of being.

In a similar way, when rational adults condemn religious “rules” without understanding their rationale it can be likened to the behavior of children. Parents often set parameters, rules, and standards for their children to abide by. Is this because they do not love their children and want to make their lives miserable? Quite the contrary. The parents know much more than the children do about human behavior. They know that these rules are put into place for the good of the child as a means to bring about the best version of that child. From the perspective of the child, the parents blocking the absolute and total freedom of the child to do whatever the child wants according to his or her impulses is a heinous violation of their rights. Sometimes explaining the rationale for the rules can help children understand, just as understanding why religious limitations exist can help the adult see how they are beneficial.

Objection 3: How can you say that someone will go to heaven or not based on their religious beliefs? For example, if you think that someone has to believe in Christ to go to heaven, but they were born into a Muslim society and their tradition was Islam, why would God punish them for that lived experience?

Response 3: There are two students in a tenth grade English Language Arts class. The first student, Matthew, comes into class at a 4th grade reading level. The second student, Michael, comes into class at a 12th grade reading level. Will the work of those two students be "judged" equally? Certainly not. The resources, skills, and experiences that Michael had access to gave him a major advantage over Matthew. Their work will be differentiated and their final grades, or judgment using standards, will be based on their growth over time based on where they started from. If Michael started off at a 12th grade level and ended up at a 10th grade level, should he pass the class? If Matthew started off at a 4th grade level and ended up at a 9th grade level, still short of the 10th grade standard, should he pass the class? Similarly, why wouldn't people be held accountable based on what they know/don't know and their individualized experiences and contexts? That applies to religious foundations (or lack thereof) and geographical/cultural context as well. It is the teacher who determines the outcome of who shall pass based on their efforts and the use of their resources in the classroom. God alone decides who has embodied the good in their heart, mind, and will based on their individual circumstances. It is hard to believe that a good and just God would punish someone of upstanding moral character and love strictly because of their religion alone.

According to Lumen Gentium established at the Second Vatican Council, the official Catholic position on salvation and other religions is clear. The document states:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation (337)."

Those who come to know that the Catholic Church is the true door to salvation and that Christ is truly God become Man but still rejects this truth is in a different situation. The paragraph directly before the previous quotation in Lumen Gentium explains:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it (336).

When we try to share our faith with others, we will encounter objections along the way. For every objection posed there is a thoughtful, charitable, kind response that can shift the thinking of the other person. Analogies can be useful for helping others contemplate elements of the faith in a non-combative manner.