Apologetic Starters

Social Forums Non-Philosophical Chat
1

You’re a good Christian.

You had a better than average Sunday School class, and you fondly remember your dad ranting for hours about politics and religion.

You find yourself in a pretty good job, surrounded by pretty good co-workers, when, one day, you overhear a co-worker drop the GNR-bomb.

“God is Not Real!”

Immediately, deep in your belly, a fire starts to burn. The co-worker laughs, and appears to believe that his statement was totally acceptable by everyone else.

I mean, what backwoods hick would think otherwise?

What do you do?

How do you engage the arrogant and (often times) contentious unbelievers that you meet in your day to day life? (Or in web forums?)

After a few years of doing apologetics, I have found certain apologetic “openings” that serve to funnel the unbeliever directly down a path to his or her own ideological destruction…placing them right into my hands (as an apologist.)

You see, the disagreements between us Christians, and the unbelievers, do not arise because of the nature of the “facts.” Our disagreements come on a philosophical level! The basic presuppositions that the Christian holds to, are vastly different, and in direct conflict with the presuppositions held by the unbeliever.

I have come up with at least three ways to quickly cut through all the crap and force the unbeliever (although unknowingly) to present their foundational beliefs flat out.

1. Draw attention to the complete ridiculousness of the theory of Evolution.

Since they are fond of ignorantly mis-characterizing the Christian religion, I simply do the same in return. Something like this will work:

I don’t believe that complex life popping up out of mud puddles after getting struck by magical lightening, is a rational belief at all!"

This forces the unbeliever automatically to defend their closely cherished foundational philosophy of naturalism. Since no rational defense can be made for any form of naturalism then as an apologist, you are already on the road to closing his or her mouth. (There are many philosophical preconditions that must first exist before rationality or knowledge can exist. Naturalism cannot provide them, in fact, only the Christian worldview can.)

2. If you can remain a gentleman in the situation call them, or their philosophy “God-haters” (or God hating).

This statement works one hindered percent of the time. EVERY TIME, to the man, that a non Christian hears this, they respond in exactly the same way…usually immediately:

You can’t hate something you don’t believe in!

You see, in this one statement, they belie their foundational philosophical bias. It cuts right through all the arguing about texts, or thermodynamics, or bodies mysteriously resurrecting, and directly highlights the conflicting philosophies.

From here, you can simply say that, yes, according to Romans 1 (starting in verse 18) all men DO believe in God. In fact, they cannot reason without His truth.

“I can to reason without the truth of God you moron!”

My response? Prove it!

3. If they believe in the myth of evolution, then deny the truth of any simple statements they make which allude to some memory or personal experience of theirs.

If they believe in the myth of evolution, then, they cannot give you a single reason why you should automatically trust the truth of any statement they may make.

They either have to show why you the Christian should believe them, or they have to drop the argument they were trying to make. (This leads directly to a discussion of epistemology, and the check mate.)

Conclusion:

Maybe these starters will help some of you Christians out there, maybe not. I find them helpful! It’s my hope that Gods kingdom will be advanced either way!

God bless!

Shot

2

I was going to make a longer reply, but I will have to think about your post a bit more before I do. However, right now, I will not deal with the each individual argument of your text, but rather with its outcome.

It seems that you are trying to describe the fallacy of the naturalist world view:

  1. Disbelief in anything that he has not witnessed actual proof of.
  2. Belief that evidence can be determined using set principles.
  3. Belief that when a significant majority of evidence points in one direction, a statement can be considered as true until proven otherwise.

Is that an adequate description of naturalist principles?

The majority of christians (at least in the society I grew up in) would agree with these principles. It seems as if you are trying to throw out the bath water of evolution but with it you throw out the baby of reasoning [size=50](I like my similes)[/size].

So it seems that you are in a bit of a dilemma…

Oh, I do not hate god. I hate ignorance, and god seems to propagate it.

3

Mr. Art,

I hope you forgive me for using you as an illustration of one of my apologetic openings.

You say this:

“The majority of Christians (at least in the society I grew up in) would agree with these principles”

I will use the third “opening” that I mentioned in my post.

3. If they believe in the myth of evolution, then deny the truth of any simple statements they make which allude to some memory or personal experience of theirs.

If we’re animals, and animals use deception to get ahead in life, then, I have no reason at all to believe you about your statements of the “majority” of Christians in the society you grew up in. It is most likely that you are lying about your experience of Christians in your youth.

Furthermore, it can be easily demonstrated from your statements themselves that you are either lying or seriously confused.

You listed a group of beliefs that you hope fit a naturalistic view of the world, but which you also hope fit a Christian view, (at least the Christians you grew up with.)

Here is your list:

1. Disbelief in anything that he has not witnessed actual proof of.
2. Belief that evidence can be determined using set principles.
3. Belief that when a significant majority of evidence points in one direction, a statement can be considered as true until proven otherwise.

How many of the Christians that you grew up with, believed in number 1?

Did they all witness Christ? Did any of them witness the Creation account, or the resurrection? Obviously, the belief that something must be empirically verified before it counts as “proof” is directly opposed to a Christian philosophy.

Now, about the second two statements, it is certainly unreasonable to think that you grew up with a society of Christian philosophers, and so I can agree that many would perhaps hold to number 2, and 3 as stated, although the presuppositions involved to believe such things would be drastically different for the Christian than they would be for the God-hater (like you.)

Which “set principals” constitute evidence? Who sets these principals? The answers to these such questions will be radically different for the believer and unbeliever. Same goes for number 3.

To conclude:

Please don’t see these as three separate arguments. I intend them to be more of something akin to a “trap.”

As I said in the post, our disagreement, at its core, is philosophical. These questions are meant to dive straight to the point of it, flesh it out, and bring the antithesis of our worldviews into direct conflict.

Since I have the philosophical high ground, that is the level at which I (as a Christian apologist) want to argue.

These “openings” of mine, are meant to directly highlight and expose our differences in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. These openings easily and naturally bring the discussion into that area, as opposed to wading through all the peripheral issues that Christians so often find themselves bogged down in.

Hopefully that helps clarify my position some.
God bless

Shotgun

4

Did I say that men acted as animals do? No. Evolution is not a theory based upon men cheating and stealing. It is “science.”
You’re actually not even referring to evolution in the above quote. You are assuming that I have a machiavellian view of men and that I do not “believe” in morality because I am disinclined to believe in God.

However, it does not matter whether you believe my personal experience or not, I will try to appeal to yours (an experience which you cannot deny).

My wording should have been clearer, and I apologize for that. I am saying that modern Christians live by the principles described above in situations except for when they think about religion. And even when they do think about religion, they must have some proof (though not scientific) that supports their views. As a Christian, have you talked to God in your prayers? Have you felt his presence within you? Have you had a chance to glimpse at divine purpose?

The italics are a good point, I will have to think about these a bit more.

5

Hey Art, thanks for replying.

You say this:

'Did I say that men acted as animals do? No."

If men (in your view) are animals, and they act, then what are they acting like?

If they do not act like animals, then what are they acting like?

You then go on to offer a critique of my 3rd opening as I applied it to you in my response:

"Evolution is not a theory based upon men cheating and stealing. It is “science.”

Whatever you want to call it Mr. Art, you have to explain to me why I should trust the simple allusions (like your allusion about the Christians you grew up with) of someone who believes 1. That we are animals and 2. that animals survive by utilizing deception.

I realize these two views do not encompass the whole of evolutionary theory, but someone who holds to evolution (and argues against God) will have these two views. And anyone who holds to both of these beliefs must earn trust.

You’re actually not even referring to evolution in the above quote. You are assuming that I have a machiavellian view of men and that I do not “believe” in morality because I am disinclined to believe in God.

Do you see how this “opener” leads directly to a discussion about the foundation of ethical systems?

I am not assuming anything about you in order to make the argument, other than the assumption that you hold to the two beliefs (men are animals, and animals use deception naturally.)

I naturally expect you to try and give me reasons why I as a Christian should trust your statements as an…(someone who holds the above two beliefs.) During the course of the resulting discussion your ethical views, and anthropological views will surface.

Do you see how such an approach is much more direct than arguing about the “crusades” or “abortion” or other such pop issues? Instead of beating around the bush, this opener allows us to directly dive into a discussion about our ethical foundations.

However, it does not matter whether you believe my personal experience or not

It’s a good thing, since I have no reason at all to trust your statements about your own personal experience. (Nor do I have any reason to trust your experience itself, as I have shown in another thread here at I Love Philosophy: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=163766 )

The rest of your critique honestly, belies your ignorance of Christian philosophy. You see, no Christian has ever observed causality (thanks Hume) nor have we ever observed a physical manifestation of any abstract universal idea (like “redness” or “blueness” or Justice or Love).

The presupposition that we must empirically verify something before it counts as “proof” is a philosophical bias on your part, and one that the Christian does not share. For the Christian, sense perceptions and reason, are both objects by which God allows us to know and experience the world. They are not the foundation of our epistemology however. They are rather secondary to the revelation of God.

This is where the would be empirical apologists like Lock (and others) went astray. When you set your own autonomous reason over and against Gods revelation, you are no longer operating by faith, and your philosophy is doomed for failure.

Thanks for the interesting discussion so far, I’m sorry that it was moved from the more appropriate “Religion” section, to this obscure “Mundane Babble” area. Maybe we can manage a decent conversation despite this unfortunate setback.

God Bless

Shotgun

6

I would hate for this thread to get burried, especially since Mr. Art decided to run from this discussion, and start a new one out of the blue.

Perhaps his new discussion will end better for him than this one did?

7

I just tuned into this discussion.

Um, Shotgun, why do you have to trap or trick unbelievers?

Do you really think you serve God by using tricks and traps of rhetoric?

Wouldn’t offering a good example, and just stating your truth frankly be a better approach?

And do you equate anti-God as being the same thing as belief in evolution? This seems to me to be a pretty big over-generalization at best.

Just some food for thought.

Best!
QK

8

Umm quizkid, apparently you are not familiar with this guy. :wink: