Last week at church, the priest presented his third and fourth reasons that Christianity (or, more specifically, Catholicism) is credible: the holy lives of Catholics, and the rampant spread of Christianity.
The priest admitted that these proofs are weaker than fulfilled prophecy and miracles. In fact, to his credit, he continually acknowledged their deficiencies in establishing Christianity's credibility. Still, he thought that they had some merit, otherwise he wouldn't give a sermon about them.
I'll summarize the priest's arguments before I critique them. For the holiness proof, the priest said that people who follow the tenets of Catholicism will lead holy lives. He acknowledged that not every Catholic is obedient to Christian principles, and that other religions (i.e., Islam) teach morality as well. But he stressed that Catholicism has more renowned holy people than any other religion. For him, the Catholic saints have performed more or better good acts than the practitioners of other creeds. He even pointed to President Bush's praise of Mother Theresa as evidence for Catholicism's moral uniqueness.
For the spread of Christianity, the priest said that Christianity rampantly spread in the first two centuries, in all sorts of countries. He distinguished Christianity from Islam because Christianity's initial success was not due to military force. For the priest, Christianity's spread was an obvious act of God. There is no other explanation.
I have three reactions. First, I partly disagree with the priest that his third and fourth arguments are weaker proofs than fulfilled prophecies and miracles. I can understand why the priest is making this claim, since there are all sorts of moral people in the world, Christian and non-Christian. For the priest, fulfilled prophecies and miracles clearly demonstrate God's stamp of approval on a creed, since they are supernatural occurrences. But, as I said in my posts on these topics, fulfilled prophecies and miracles are not perfect proofs, for ungodly forces can do them too. See Deuteronomy 13:1-3, among other examples. Signs, wonders, and accurate predictions are not ironclad proofs that a prophet is legitimate.
On some level, morality is a more biblical indicator that a prophet is true. Matthew 7:15-20 says: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits." When Jesus was accused of performing Satanic signs, he appealed to the morality of his actions to demonstrate their divine origin (Matthew 12:24-29).
This brings me to my second reaction. Is Christianity morally unique? Christianity is not the only religion that has moral exemplars, for Judaism and Eastern religions also have stories about holy men or people who do good things. But there has always been something about Christianity that has made an impression on people. In the first few centuries of its existence, pagans marvelled at the love that Christians showed to one another. Christianity was also revolutionary because it brought together diverse people of various nationalities, genders, and classes, as liberal scholars such as John Dominic Crossan and Elizabeth Schussler-Fiorenza have emphasized. There was a lot of social stratification in the ancient world, in both Judaism and paganism. You usually didn't see certain groups eating together or socializing. Jews generally didn't eat with pagans (or impure Jews, for that matter), and Gentiles had a solid class system. But Christianity managed to tear down these barriers and create a family. That impresses me. It makes me think that there actually is something to Christianity. Would such "proof" satisfy a skeptic? Probably not on a philosophical level, but I hope it would lead him to ask questions.
My third reaction relates to the spread of Christianity. I wouldn't be surprised if historians have offered sociological, historical, economic, or psychological explanations for Christianity's spread in the first two centuries. I think I once read an explanation that said the poor liked Christianity because it gave them feelings of hope and value. In evaluations of a religion's success, there are always other possible explanations than "God did it." Some Korean Christians will tell you that Christianity's spread in Korea is an act of God. Others will tell you that Koreans like Christianity because it is more conducive to economic growth, in contrast to the prominent Eastern religions of the nation. In addition, the fact that a lot of people believe something does not necessarily make it true. According to the Bible, Baalism spread to such an extent in ancient Israel that Yahwism became the minority religion. Guess which religion the Bible supported.
One thing that I admire about Christianity, though, is that many people converted even though the religion carried a social stigma. That was true in the first few centuries. Christian doctrine appeared absurd to a lot of people, since the cross was a symbol of shame. Christians were like the Communists in 1950's America--they were persecuted and even killed because people thought that they were undermining society (through not honoring the emperor and pagan deities). And it is true today, as Christians suffer persecution in many parts of the world, at the hands of Communists and Islamic fanatics. There must be something about a religion if people are willing to die for it. Of course, people have been willing to die for non-Christian creeds as well. There are Muslims who fly into buildings. I once read about a non-Christian monk in Vietnam who set himself on fire. So the fact that people die for a belief does not establish it as true. But it certainly does impress me and lead me to ask questions.
I'm not sure what can prove Christianity in a rational or philosophical sense. But there are other factors than the rational and the philosophical that attract me to the religion. In many ways, I am attracted to its content, and I want what it claims to offer. That may not satisfy a skeptic, and there are many times when I ask questions about my faith's credibility. But there is something about Christianity that compels me to keep on believing.