In his essay "Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?", Russell wrote:
"I can respect the men who argue that religion is true and therefore ought to be believed, but i can only feel profound moral reprobation for those who say that religion ought to be believed because it is useful, and that to ask whether it is true is a waste of time."
At National University of Singapore, as some of us (Christians) gathered after a talk by someone on some topic, there came an student who asked us for our reason why do we think that our belief is true. At first, everyone hesistated to give an answer, then there was this young lady voice out that the reason why she thinks that Christianity is true is because she believes the bible is the word of God, and the word of God helped her whenever she was struggling with decision making. The bible provided her solutions, therefore she believes that Christianity is true.
That's pragmatism. Christianity is no longer true because it is true in itself, but because it's workable. What kind of rubbish is this?
Christianity is true, therefore it works... not it works, therefore it's true!
Alot of time we do not know what are we talking about. Does that lady's answer demonstrates the truthfulness of Christianity? Far no. How would the inquirer have thought? "Well, after all, Christianity is just the same as other religions that are true because they works."
Christians are called to become lights and salts in this world not ONLY in our life style, in our thoughts as well! Life style alone can't demonstrate the truthfulness of a claim without a firm reason for doing it. Mere radical life style that attracts non-believers doesn't show that the attracted ones are interested with Christian truths, it only means they prefer our life style. There is no extrinsic differences between a morally good atheist and a morally good Christian. Sometimes the former can be morally superior than the latter. If this is the case, then the atheists are the lights and salts, not Christians.
Those who tried to look into this matter of truthfulness very often be labelled as non-practicals. Nothing can be worst than this. Whenever these 'non-practicals' tried to raise awareness of the issue, immediately they will be viewed as showing off and proud, and will be shut off with "WOW, so 'chim' (in-depth), we can't understand, so, we should stop talking about it, and by the way, it is not practical, therefore doesn't really matter." Betrand Russell, the famous agnostic, will just shake his head and say,"i can only feel profound moral reprobation...".