Critiquing: What if They Think Christianity Is True, but They’re Apathetic about Becoming Christians?

March 27, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Apathy’s Challenge — Fear and Condemnation — Judgment and Punishment — Love and Fear — Apologetics’ Role

---

Introduction

The content from Stand to Reason addresses the challenge of dealing with individuals who, despite being convinced of the factual truth of Christianity, remain apathetic about becoming Christians. The primary arguments revolve around using fear of judgment and punishment to motivate conversion and emphasizing the role of apologetics, even within Reformed theology. This critique highlights logical fallacies, cognitive biases, unsubstantiated claims, and the need for evidence-based belief.

Addressing Apathy through Fear

The content suggests using the fear of bad news to motivate apathetic individuals:

“Jesus said lots of things that are not good news. The gospel is good news, but the good news is only good news if there’s bad news… He starts by saying your righteousness must exceed that of the prescribes and Pharisees. So you got to be holier than the pope in modern terminology, maybe, in order to get to heaven.”

This approach relies heavily on instilling fear to provoke action. The logical inconsistency here is the assumption that fear alone can drive genuine belief and commitment. While fear might induce temporary compliance, it does not necessarily foster sincere conviction or transformation. Moreover, this tactic can be perceived as manipulative, potentially undermining the authenticity of the conversion process.

Judgment and Punishment

The content repeatedly emphasizes the inevitability of judgment and punishment:

“One day, you’re going to stand before Jesus and he is going to demand an accounting of your life. And those books that are open there in Revelation 20, those books have every single thing that you ever did wrong.”

This argument assumes that the fear of divine judgment will compel individuals to convert. However, the logical flaw lies in the presumption that belief can be coerced through threats. Genuine belief typically arises from personal conviction and understanding rather than coercion. Additionally, this approach raises ethical concerns about using fear as a primary motivator, which can be seen as undermining the principle of free will and authentic choice.

Love and Fear Dichotomy

The content attempts to reconcile the coexistence of fear and love within Christian doctrine:

“No, we actually don’t have any fear because we have been forgiven. We’ve been saved. That actually removed all fear that God’s love cast out fear.”

This creates a dichotomy between fear and love, suggesting that once a person becomes a Christian, fear is replaced by love. The logical inconsistency here is the oversimplification of complex human emotions and motivations. Fear and love are not mutually exclusive and can coexist. This oversimplification fails to address the nuanced nature of human psychology and the multifaceted reasons behind belief and behavior.

Role of Apologetics in Reformed Theology

The content argues for the necessity of apologetics even within Reformed theology, which traditionally emphasizes divine sovereignty and grace:

“Did they use apologetics in light of their conviction about sovereign grace? The answer is yes. All the time.”

The logical coherence of this argument hinges on the assumption that apologetics is compatible with the belief in divine sovereignty. However, this raises a potential contradiction: if salvation is solely a result of divine grace, the role of human reasoning and evidence (apologetics) becomes secondary or even redundant. The content attempts to bridge this gap by suggesting that apologetics serves as a means to an end, facilitating the understanding necessary for salvation. This explanation, while plausible, still leaves room for debate about the balance between divine intervention and human effort.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Several claims in the content lack substantiation and appear dubious:

“One day, you’re going to stand before Jesus… either Jesus pays for those crimes, or you do.”

This claim assumes the literal truth of specific theological doctrines without providing evidence. In a logical critique, the burden of proof lies on the claimant to substantiate such assertions. Without empirical evidence or logical argumentation, these claims remain speculative and unconvincing to a critical audience.

Cognitive Biases and Logical Fallacies

The content exhibits several cognitive biases and logical fallacies, including:

1. Appeal to Fear: The repeated emphasis on judgment and punishment leverages the appeal to fear fallacy, attempting to induce belief through intimidation rather than reasoned argument.
2. False Dichotomy: Presenting a choice between accepting Christianity or facing dire consequences creates a false dichotomy, ignoring other possible perspectives and outcomes.
3. Confirmation Bias: The content selectively cites scriptural examples that support its viewpoint while ignoring counterarguments or alternative interpretations, demonstrating confirmation bias.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

The content makes numerous unsubstantiated claims, highlighting the need for substantiation:

“Jesus is going to return and you will have… here’s the way I characterize it. I’ve been doing this for the last couple of realities at the end.”

Such claims require robust evidence to be credible. In any logical discourse, the obligation to substantiate claims is paramount, ensuring that beliefs are grounded in evidence and reason.

Testing Alleged Promises

To assess the validity of alleged promises, such as divine judgment or salvation, one could propose empirical methods:

1. Historical Analysis: Investigate historical records and evidence related to claimed events, such as the resurrection.
2. Psychological Studies: Examine the psychological impact of belief in divine judgment and salvation on individuals’ behavior and well-being.
3. Comparative Religion: Compare similar claims across different religions to evaluate their plausibility and consistency.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

The degree of belief should correspond to the degree of available evidence. The content often asserts strong convictions without providing proportional evidence. For instance:

“The biggest difference is I love God and they do not love God.”

Such statements require rigorous justification to be convincing. Beliefs should be proportionate to the evidence supporting them, ensuring logical coherence and intellectual honesty.

Conclusion

The content from Stand to Reason presents several arguments to address apathy towards Christianity. However, it often relies on fear-based tactics, unsubstantiated claims, and logical fallacies. For a more robust and coherent argument, it should focus on providing empirical evidence, avoiding manipulative tactics, and ensuring that beliefs are proportionate to the available evidence. This critique highlights the importance of logical consistency, substantiation of claims, and the ethical implications of using fear as a motivator.