God's Nature

Why I Chose Christianity

Some religions have obvious logical fallacies, some have factual ones, and others disagree with my conscience. The only religion that aligns with my brain, its contents, and my heart is Christianity. I cannot refute every religion but I will name a few categories of religions and the fallacies that accompany them.

Polytheistic: As explained in the next chapter, the logical fallacy of this type of religion is that it is really poly-religion, because each separate god would desire worship. (If the gods were agreed, they would be One, as is the Christian God.) This removes many religions from my consideration immediately.

Nihilism, Atheism, religions in which humans have no free will: The ideas that we have no free will, or that nothing we do matters, take away the purpose of religion; to give us purpose. I already spoke of this.

Impossible to follow: If one is damned whether he follows a religion or not, why should he bother doing anything at all? Similar to the last, it takes away not our meaning, but the meaning of our actions. As I said earlier: "If it were true that I have no meaning, why should it matter to me?"

Impossible to lose: Why should I care for a religion that says I'm going to paradise whether I believe it or not? Is this even a religion? Isn't religion supposed to be a way to change something, not to say that one cannot?

The necessity of factually correct claims in a religion need not be explained.

If more than one religion passes these checks, I will consider it using the checks as scales, (e.g. By asking which religion is possible to follow, but also possible to lose—because either of the extremes would make it pointless.) and if the religions still seem equal, I will entrust it to my conscience. Christianity in its true form, the form I attempt to detail in this book, passes these checks with flying colors. Not only that, but no other religion passes my checks.

Of course, I admit my bias in forming these checks with that intention, but Christianity calls this bias "faith." Bias in that sense is not inherently opposed to logic. I developed my reasoning by faith, by faith in order, by faith in reason itself. I have reasoned that if I was born of chaos, then I cannot come to that conclusion by an ordered mind. Even if it were true that I was born of chaos, it wouldn't matter; chaos is meaningless. If a theory has no meaning, discard it. I have a bias towards order, I admit it; I chose that bias—that faith, if you will—by saying: "I'm right or it doesn't matter." In this, bias is necessary for productivity.

I believe Christianity is the most logically sound and meaningful religion. My faith is not dependent on my feelings, because my feelings change. Faith is surety, and I am sure when something passes the tests in my mind and my conscience does not object. My mind does not object to Christianity, and my conscience has no objections either. In the same way I chose to believe in order, I chose to believe I matter to God. Let me say it again: a theory that says we do not matter, does not matter itself. There can only be benefit in meaning, and belief that we have it.

I will, even if I am wrong, be happy. Yes, in that case I would rather be wrong. To express it in equations:

No meaning for life + Belief in meaning = Incorrect, but Happy

Meaning for life + Belief in meaning = Correct and Happy

No meaning for life + No belief in meaning = Correct, but Unhappy

Meaning for life + No belief in meaning = Incorrect and Unhappy

So religious people might be fantastical, but given a choice between Religion and Nihilism, people will often choose the comforting model. In this I agree with Richard Dawkins, but we disagree on which model is correct. Even if I am wrong, my fantasy is a stronger foundation for happiness than any theory that says I have no purpose. If the atheists are right, we are, all of us, doomed, but if the theists are right, we have a chance. It is reasonable to aim at that chance.