Critiquing: Why Do You Need to Work so Hard to Defend Christianity if It’s True?

April 27, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Effort in Truth Defense — Apologetics Website — Choosing Truth for Others — Evaluating Other Gods — Common Sense Notions

---

Introduction

In this analysis, we will critically examine the logical coherence of the content presented in the PDF titled “Why Do You Need to Work so Hard to Defend Christianity if It’s True?” published on April 27, 2023, by #STRask – Stand to Reason. We will focus on identifying logical inconsistencies, highlighting any unsubstantiated claims, and exploring cognitive biases present in the arguments. The goal is to provide a thorough critique from the perspective of a non-Christian.

---

Effort in Truth Defense

The content begins by addressing a question about the necessity of working hard to defend Christianity if it is indeed the truth. Greg Koukl responds by comparing the effort required in apologetics to the effort involved in scientific inquiry: “Why is science necessary to find the one truth about the world because it’s a lot of work?” This analogy, however, is flawed.

Logical Inconsistency:

• False Analogy: The comparison between scientific inquiry and religious apologetics overlooks fundamental differences in their methodologies and goals. Science relies on empirical evidence and repeatable experiments, whereas religious apologetics often involves defending pre-existing beliefs. This comparison weakens the argument by suggesting an equivalence where none exists.

Unsubstantiated Claim:

• Assumption of Obviousness: The claim that the existence of God is “so completely obvious to everybody” lacks empirical support. Many people, including theists, arrive at their beliefs through various complex and deeply personal processes, suggesting that the truth of such claims is not self-evident.

Apologetics Website

Deb’s question about the existence of an apologetics website if Christianity were true is addressed by comparing it to the presence of atheist websites. Greg Koukl argues that the existence of such websites does not imply falsehood: “There are all kinds of atheist websites… It doesn’t make any sense to me to suggest that if you have a website trying to show that something is true, this is evidence that the something you’re trying to show is true is actually not true.”

Logical Fallacy:

• Red Herring: The argument diverts attention from the original question by introducing an irrelevant comparison. The presence of atheist websites does not address the concern about the necessity of defending a supposedly self-evident truth.

Choosing Truth for Others

Sarah’s question critiques the perceived exclusion of personal evaluation in the process of arriving at the truth: “When I hear and read your material, I don’t feel like I’ve gotten closer to any truth, but like I’ve heard somebody pick it without me, then make a profession out of cleverly keeping me from evaluating it.”

Logical Inconsistency:

• Begging the Question: The response assumes that the arguments presented are sufficient and that any failure to be persuaded lies with the reader: “We are always making a case. We are saying A, B, C, D, E, F, whatever, therefore G.” This does not address the concern that the process might be perceived as exclusionary or manipulative.

Cognitive Bias:

• Confirmation Bias: The response reflects a tendency to favor information that confirms pre-existing beliefs while dismissing or rationalizing counterarguments.

Evaluating Other Gods

Ali’s question about ruling out other gods is addressed by emphasizing the unique position of monotheistic religions and the compelling nature of Christianity’s evidence: “What best explains the way the world actually is… None of these other gods in the pantheons or anything like that.”

Logical Fallacy:

• False Dichotomy: The argument presents a limited set of options (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) and dismisses others without thorough examination: “So then, so now we’re talking about monotheism. Well, there are not too many monotheistic religions.”

Unsubstantiated Claim:

• Appeal to Common Sense: The assertion that “a design needs a designer” and similar arguments are presented as common sense without providing robust evidence or addressing significant counterarguments from naturalistic explanations.

Common Sense Notions

Throughout the content, there is a recurring theme of appealing to common sense to justify belief in God: “Moral law needs a moral law giver,” “Big bang needs a big banger,” etc.

Logical Inconsistency:

• Appeal to Common Sense: These arguments rely on intuitive appeal rather than empirical evidence. While common sense can guide everyday decisions, it is not always reliable in complex, abstract domains like cosmology or morality.

Cognitive Bias:

• Anchoring Bias: The reliance on initial intuitive judgments (e.g., design needs a designer) can anchor subsequent reasoning, leading to a preference for explanations that align with these intuitions despite contrary evidence.

---

Testing Alleged Promises

To evaluate the claims made about the promises of God, a more rigorous approach is necessary. Potential methods include:

• Empirical Testing: Design studies that test specific, falsifiable claims related to the promises.
• Longitudinal Studies: Observe and document outcomes over time in communities adhering to these beliefs versus those that do not.

Degree of Belief and Evidence

It is crucial to map one’s degree of belief to the degree of available evidence. Strong beliefs should be backed by strong evidence, and this principle should guide the evaluation of religious claims.

---

Conclusion

In summary, the content presents several logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases. The arguments often rely on flawed analogies, appeals to common sense, and confirmation bias. A more rigorous, evidence-based approach is necessary to substantiate the claims made. Mapping one’s degree of belief to the degree of available evidence is essential for a coherent and rational evaluation of truth claims.

---

Feel free to discuss these arguments further in the comments section!