As far as I understand, all beliefs about existence – the mesh or grid through which we interpret both the inner and outer world – are built upon three pillars: ontological, epistemological and moral truth which are described in Francis Schaeffer’s book “He Is There And He Is Not Silent.”
Every belief system or world-view can be reduced to these three. It is then a matter of comparing them with one another; they might line up on one or two of these pillars but for one system to be totally in accord with another, such as Islam with Christianity, they must, like the navigation lights that guide ships safely into harbour, all three, line up.

Specifically about the truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, may I recommend you read the famous debate between the two lawyers, one Christian, Josh Mcdowell and the other Muslim, Ahmed Deedat: www.answering-islam.org/Debates/Deedat_McDowell.html

May I also recommend the book “Who moved the stone?” by Frank Morison. It was written by a lawyer who started to write a book, the aim of which was to disprove the resurrection and in doing so ended up by arriving at a totally different verdict.

David Skinner, UK

Belief is not something subjective; it is dependent on something existing as opposed to not existing. When a jury is summing up the evidence, it is not searching for unity at all costs, based on the lowest common denominator, but an all encompassing truth. It is not enough to say that all ideas of God, or routes to Him, are true simply because all religions can point to the same evidence found in the created order; it also has to line up with morality and an intelligence that can be communicated.

David Skinner, UK

It sounds like you will be keeping busy.

Christian Science certainly teaches the idea that evil and suffering are illusory. But the idea that not just evil, but this world as a whole, is an illusion, or Maya, is a common feature of eastern religions, particularly Hinduism.

And no, the resurrection is not merely a matter of “faith”. It is a matter of examining the evidence. That would include assessing the historical reliability of the Gospels, and so on. The empty tomb has to be accounted for, and the idea of resurrection is one very plausible account to pursue.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Out of interest, which religions claim that evil is an illusion?

It can certainly be historically verified that Christ existed, but surely such events as His rising from the dead can only ever be faith-based. Contrariwise, Muslims surely cannot prove that He did not rise. In a way, it is a moot point.

Zenobia Frost

Most religions do claim to be universally true. For example, all three monotheistic religions make absolute truth claims. The task is then to compare them with one another, and with reality.

Thus the law of non-contradiction (A does not equal non-A in the same time and in the same way) can be applied to religious truth claims. Christians claim that Jesus died on a cross and rose from the dead. Muslims say he did not die on the cross and rise from the dead. Both statements cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense. One must be false. If Chrisianity is true in this area, then Islam cannot be, and vice versa.

And the correspondence theory of truth, which goes back at least as far as Plato, says that a statement is true if it accurately describes a state of affairs; if it tells it like it is, in other words. Thus the following statement is not true: “Bill is not typing on his computer at this moment.” The fact is, I am now typing on my computer, so that statement is false.

As far as religious truth claims go, we can do the same sort of testing. Some religions, for example, claim that evil is an illusion. Most people would argue that evil is real indeed, and thus this religious claim does not square with reality. And biblical claims about Christ can be tested historically, and in other ways, to see if they are in fact true, or correspond to reality.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

I think you assumed I had taken a sarcastic tone in my last post; I was merely clarifying what you had meant in your last post.

So where am I going with all this? Well, we were talking about religious belief systems. I was wondering whether you were claiming that one religious belief system can be objectively and universally true.

Perhaps you could expand on your comment, “Thus the mark of a good and coherent worldview – an indicator of its truthfulness – will be how it corresponds to reality.”

Thanks. Zenobia Frost

What about these for some simple starters? Sydney is south of Brisbane. The Berlin wall came down in 1989. Two plus two equals four. I am alive as I type this response.

Those are all objective truth claims. What may be more important however is where you are going with all this. What are you implying? That there is no objective truth, and that all is relative?

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Thank you.

Zenobia Frost