Critiquing: How to Use Questions to Answer Christianity’s Toughest Challenges

September 21, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Street Smarts — Questioning Atheism — Tactics Overview — Gardening vs. Harvesting — Clarifying the Gospel

---

Overview and Context

This content discusses Greg Koukl and Amy Hall addressing how to use questions to navigate and respond to challenges against Christianity, as detailed in Greg’s new book, Street Smarts: Using Questions to Answer Christianity’s Toughest Challenges. The focus is on using tactics to have clearer and more personalized conversations about Christian beliefs.

Logical Coherence

1. Using Questions as a Tactic

The core idea presented is the use of questions to engage in conversations about Christianity. This approach is described as beneficial for gathering information and challenging opposing views without direct confrontation.

“The first one is to gather information about a person’s view or about their challenge or something like that. And we’re just learners at that point.”

While the approach of asking questions to gather information is inherently logical, it becomes problematic when used to steer conversations towards predetermined conclusions without genuinely considering the responses. This can create a semblance of dialogue without fostering true understanding or respect for differing viewpoints.

2. Assumptions and Presuppositions

Throughout the content, there is a recurring assumption that Christian beliefs are inherently logical and supported by evidence, while opposing views are flawed.

“I know that there’s evidence for God. Good evidence for God. I know the problem here.”

This presupposition undermines the logical coherence by failing to address the substantial evidence and reasoning behind non-Christian perspectives. The argument is presented as if the conclusion (that God exists) is already validated, which can be seen as begging the question.

3. Analogies and Evidence

Greg uses analogies, such as footprints in the sand and blueprints, to argue for the existence of God through the concept of design.

“If you saw a shoe print in the sand on the beach, what would you conclude? Well, somebody been walking there.”

Analogies can be useful, but they must be carefully constructed to avoid oversimplification. The analogy of footprints and blueprints assumes that complex natural phenomena (like the human body) must have a designer, which is a form of false analogy. The complexity of natural biological processes is not directly comparable to human-made objects.

4. Substantiation of Claims

There are several claims made throughout the content that lack sufficient evidence or are presented as self-evident truths without proper substantiation.

“There’s no evidence for God. Okay. Now keep in mind. I know that there’s evidence for God. Good evidence for God.”

Claims of evidence for God are repeatedly made but not elaborated upon with specific examples or detailed arguments within the content provided. This lack of substantiation weakens the logical foundation and raises the question of the burden of proof. Any claim, especially one as significant as the existence of God, requires robust evidence and reasoning to be credible.

5. Cognitive Biases

Several cognitive biases are evident in the content, including confirmation bias and the backfire effect. The strategy of using questions is designed to confirm the existing beliefs of the Christian practitioner while potentially causing the non-believer to react defensively.

“We want people to see how we got to the conclusion that we got to. We want them to think about what their views are and evaluate them.”

This approach can lead to reinforcing pre-existing beliefs rather than fostering an open and genuine exchange of ideas.

Critique and Recommendations

Logical Fallacies and Inconsistencies

1. Begging the Question: The argument assumes the truth of its conclusion (the existence of God) within its premises.
2. False Analogy: Comparing complex biological processes to human-made objects like footprints and blueprints oversimplifies the argument.
3. Lack of Substantiation: Claims about the evidence for God are not supported with specific examples or detailed reasoning.
4. Confirmation Bias: The approach is designed to confirm the practitioner’s beliefs rather than engage in unbiased dialogue.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

Any significant claim, particularly about the existence of a deity, must be supported by credible evidence. It is essential to provide specific examples and detailed arguments to substantiate such claims. Without this, the argument remains unconvincing to a critical audience.

Methods to Test Alleged Promises

To evaluate any alleged promises of God, one could consider the following methods:

1. Empirical Testing: Observing and recording instances where specific promises are said to be fulfilled.
2. Statistical Analysis: Analyzing the frequency and conditions under which alleged promises occur.
3. Comparative Studies: Comparing the outcomes of individuals who rely on such promises versus those who do not.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

It is crucial to align one’s degree of belief with the degree of available evidence. Strong claims require strong evidence, and any belief should be proportionate to the supporting evidence.

Improving Logical Coherence

To improve the logical coherence of the arguments presented:

1. Provide Detailed Evidence: When claiming evidence for God’s existence, present specific and detailed examples.
2. Address Counterarguments: Engage genuinely with opposing views and provide reasoned responses to counterarguments.
3. Avoid Logical Fallacies: Ensure analogies are apt and avoid assuming conclusions within premises.

---

I invite you to discuss these arguments further in the comments section. Let’s explore the intricacies and implications of these discussions together!