Aug
1
A common challenge one hears (or reads) from non-Christians — usually atheists — is something along the lines of:
“You’re just a Christian because you were raised in America. If you were raised in [insert country], you’d be [insert country’s dominant religion].”
It is meant to make one’s Christian faith sound like it’s merely due to random, cultural circumstance. It is meant to shake the Christian’s faith and, unfortunately, it does have this effect on some. But, it shouldn’t. In fact, the proper response is “So what?”
Before I go further, I should note a couple things. The whole idea of such a “What if…?” statement assumes that such alternatives are/were possible, and it also raises questions about God’s sovereignty, omniscience, etc. I believe that God chose me as one of His elect to salvation, regardless of where I lived. But, those are probably not issues we want to get into now. So, laying such considerations aside, let’s just go with the hypothetical as stated.
Given the socio-religious context in India, yes, chances are that I would have grown up in a Hindu family. I would have been taught the Hindu religion from an early age and accepted it as my own. This does not, however, preclude the possibility of something or someone leading me to convert to another faith, including (but not limited to) some form of Christianity. So, I would not have necessarily maintained my Hindu faith.
Also, what would the atheist say to the Christian not living in, or having grown up in, America? What if the Christian in question was raised in China or Iceland or Morocco or New Zealand? Obviously, the challenge doesn’t work on them.
Furthermore, I could say the same thing about the atheist. If she had been born, grown up, and educated in India, she would most likely be Hindu, too. Or, maybe Muslim if in a mostly Muslim nation. Or, Buddhist if in a predominantly Buddhist country. And so on… Of course, later conversion to another religion or an atheistic worldview or something else is also possible in her hypothetical situation.
Back to my original response to the atheist: So what?
Here’s the thing about such a challenge. It’s just an analysis of some individual’s cultural situation, which is subjective, i.e., in this case, it’s about me. It may be an interesting statement or observation about human psychology or anthropology or something like that. But, it is worthless in weighing the merits of one religion/worldview over another. It says nothing about the truth claims of Christianity itself — e.g., the existence of God, the deity of Jesus, the validity of the biblical account of His resurrection, etc. As Christian apologist Greg Koukl has put it,
“These attempts are nothing more than genetic fallacies or psychogenic fallacies or ad hominems — all irrational missteps, not thoughtful responses. Anyone advancing such an appeal is being unreasonable. It’s just intellectual trash talk.”
I believe in Christianity because I think its representation of the nature of the world is accurate and true. By “true” I mean the classic, correspondence view of truth. (That is, if you say that something is, and it is, or if you say that it isn’t, and it isn’t, then that is a true statement. The claim corresponds with reality.) My belief in Christianity depends on objective, external evidence, which has nothing to do with my wants, feelings, or circumstances. I believe that the Christian worldview describes the way the world actually is.
Where I or anyone else was born or grew up is irrelevant. What matters is the Truth of God’s Word.
(H/T Greg Koukl)
