Kevin Vandergriff
Title: Are Christians Narrow-Minded?
(Narrow-Minded: not receptive to new ideas; having a closed mind)
In order to successfully argue that Christians are narrow-minded because they believe that Jesus is
the only way to God, one must have an argument with premises and a conclusion. So, since there are a
number of implicit premises that could be tucked away in the assertion: “Christians are narrow-minded
for believing that Jesus is the only way to God,” we must explore them in order to draw out a number of
potential arguments that if true, would lead to the conclusion that Christians are narrow-minded for
holding said belief.
Summary of Epistemic Objections: Christians are narrow-minded to believe that they have
objective, and/or privileged knowledge of God, since it is impossible for any human being to have that
kind of knowledge because one or more of the following is true: a) religious claims are meaningless, b)
all truth, and therefore all religious truth, is subjective, c) empiricism is the only means to knowledge, or
d) all religion’s basically make the same truth claim
a) Objection 1: Religious claims are meaningless because only statements that are true by
definition, or verifiable by the five senses, are meaningful statements. Since religious claims,
like God exists, or Jesus is the only way to God, are neither true by definition, nor verifiable by
the five sense, they are meaningless.
Response: This principle of meaning, known as the verificationist principle of meaning, is too
restrictive, in that it would render meaningless wide tracks of knowledge, and it is self-defeating. First,
there are several metaphysical statements we all know to be meaningful that would be rendered
meaningless by this principle, such as: there exists an external world, other minds, paste events, etc.
Moreover, certain scientific statements like those of the theory of inflation would also be meaningless
on this principle. Lastly, the principle itself would be rendered meaningless by its own lights because it
is neither true by definition nor verifiable by the senses, and therefore, the principle is literally selfdefeating (if we assume it’s true, it has to be false).
b) Objection 2: Religious claims, like other claims to know something, are only true for the
individual, but not necessarily true for anyone else. This means that truth is subjective, and
dependent on the attitudes, beliefs, and will of persons. On this view, known as relativism, truth
is created, but never discovered.
Response: Relativism has a number of problems. First, it doesn’t allow for religious disagreement.
In order for people from different religious worldviews to actually disagree, truth must be objective;
otherwise people are simply sharing their different preferences with one another, but not actually
disagreeing over what they think is objectively true. However, since we certainly do observe religious
disagreement in the world, and relativism can’t adequately explain this, relativism must not be true.
Second, relativism is self-defeating because it makes an objective truth claim that all truth is relative. If
this claim is false, then relativism is false. If it is true, then it results in a contradiction, and must be
false.
c) Objection 3: The only legitimate knowledge we have comes from the five senses. If some
proposition lacks empirical support, then that proposition can’t be known. Since religious
claims are about things that can’t be empirically investigated, then religious claims can’t be
known.
Response: Empiricism is too restrictive an epistemology, and it is self-defeating. There are plenty
of things we know that aren’t based on our five sense such as: mathematical and logical truths, aesthetic
truths, and certain metaphysical truths like the existence of other minds. Second, the claim that we can
only know what can be verified by the five senses is itself not verifiable by the five senses, it is
philosophical, and therefore, empiricism is self-refuting.
d) Objection 4: Christians think that they have the distinct corner on the market about God, what
salvation is and how to obtain it, where we go when we die, etc. However, all religions answer these
questions in basically the same manner.
Response: Since we know that contradictions can’t be true, we also know that this naïve objection
doesn’t hold any water because, in fact, all religions have mutually exclusive views of God, salvation,
the afterlife, and the like. Therefore, not all religions can be true.
AN EMOTIONAL OBJECTION TO CHRISTIANITY: It appears that there aren’t any successful
epistemological arguments that Christians are narrow-minded but doesn’t their belief that Jesus is the
only way to God itself, have a sort of intrinsic arrogance to it, since it means that everyone else who has
never heard of Jesus is going to hell?
Response: First, people don’t go to hell because they aren’t Christian, they go to hell for the
wrong deeds they have committed. Moreover, since all people have committed wrong deeds, then God
is obligated to punish those wrongs since he is perfectly just. This means that, as a matter of justice,
God doesn’t owe us a pardon.
Second, since religious claims are meaningful, knowable, and capable of being true or false, it
follows that the Christian belief under consideration isn’t narrow-minded, but rather, such a belief is
either true or false. In fact, it is true by definition that all denials of a true proposition are false. There
are an infinite number of wrong answers to the question: What does 2+2 equal? and only one right
answer. That is the nature of truth. It may be the case that some Christians behave narrow-mindedly, or
have a narrow-minded attitude, but if there are good arguments for Christ being the only way to God,
then the proper thing to do is believe it. Moreover, arguments don’t have personalities, and so are
incapable of being narrow-minded, but people do have personalities. If Christianity is true, then it is the
person of God who is claiming that the only way to God is through Jesus, and this God also desires all
people to be saved. If that sounds objectionable to you, then your real problem is with God, not
Christians. Christians are those people who have humbled themselves before God, and serve and
worship Jesus, and follow Him in faith and repentance for He took the punishment for sin that was ours.
You may think they are wrong, but surely they aren’t being narrow-minded, especially when there are
convincing reasons for thinking that God really did claim in the person of Jesus that He was the only
back to God for all mankind. Thus, the proper adjective to describe Christians isn’t narrow-mindedness,
but humility, and love. Christians are like one humble beggar passing on bread to another humble
beggar. If Christianity is true, and if Christians didn’t proclaim Jesus as the only way to God, then that
would be like finding the cure for AIDS, but not sharing that cure with all who are sick with the virus.
Third, do not confuse arrogance with unfairness. Your real objection to this doctrine of
Christianity is that you think it is unfair that there are people born at times and place in the history of the
world, who, through no fault of their own, never get the chance to hear the Gospel, and so, miss out on
hearing about Jesus due to historical and cultural accident. But why think this assumption is true? Why
not instead think that God has so providentially arranged the circumstances of people’s so lives that all
those people who would freely come to believe in the Gospel if they were to hear it, are born at the
times and places where they come into contact with the Gospel. That way, God isn’t being unfair if
someone who would reject the Gospel if they heard it, doesn’t get to hear it.
CONCLUSION: In summation, since the claim Christians are narrow-minded for believing that Jesus is
the only way is based on faulty premises; religious claims are not meaningless, truth is not subjective,
we can know things on a basis other than our five senses, and religions have significantly divergent
teachings. Moreover, God desires all to be saved, and anybody who is willing to be saved, will be
saved. Lastly, the same standard of narrow-mindedness that the Christian is being accused of applies
like a double edged sword to any person who makes that claim. Isn’t it narrow-minded to tell a Christian
that they are wrong to believe what God Himself has said and done in history for them. In fact, if my
defense holds any water, Christians aren’t narrow-minded at all, but the person who claims they are is
potentially being intolerant of God Himself. Perhaps, it would be wise to rethink ones position if that is
where it leads.
(“The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid. Otherwise it is more akin to a
sewer, taking in all things equally.” –G.K. Chesterton)