Critiquing: What Is the Hardest Aspect of Christianity to Defend?

December 7, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Moral Responsibility — Fall and Sin — Theology and Belief — Worldview Debate — Pain and Suffering

---

Outline of Content

1. Introduction to the Hardest Aspect of Christianity to Defend
2. Discussion on Moral Responsibility and Culpability
3. The Concept of Original Sin
4. Theological Difficulties and Cognitive Biases
5. Worldview and Understanding Suffering
6. Cultural Pressure and Challenges to Defending Beliefs

---

Introduction to the Hardest Aspect of Christianity to Defend

The podcast episode opens with a discussion between Amy Hall and Greg Koukl about the most challenging aspect of Christianity to defend. Koukl identifies the theological issue of human moral responsibility despite inherent sinfulness as the hardest to defend.

“I think the hardest thing to defend, all of the harder things to defend are theological issues, not apologetic issues. And I think among theological issues is the notion that human beings are held responsible, morally responsible for their actions, culpable for their actions, even though they were born within the world.”

Discussion on Moral Responsibility and Culpability

Koukl struggles with the idea that humans are born with a predisposition to sin but are still held morally responsible for their actions. He references the concept of original sin and compares it to being held accountable for a leader’s actions:

“Adam acted as a federal head for the human race, much like a president declaring war in another country is declaring war for the population so that the entire population, so to speak, is at war with the total population of the other country.”

Logical Inconsistencies

This analogy, however, is logically problematic. The concept of collective responsibility applied to moral culpability across generations introduces a moral conundrum. Comparing the actions of a federal head to the inherent sinfulness of all descendants lacks coherence because:

1. Agency and Responsibility: Individuals lack agency over the actions of their ancestors, yet are held morally accountable.
2. Equity and Justice: The principle of justice implies individual accountability for personal actions, not inherited guilt.

The Concept of Original Sin

Koukl addresses the discomfort with the idea that humans are inherently sinful from birth. He attempts to rationalize this by drawing an analogy with fictional characters, but the analogy falls short in addressing the underlying ethical issue.

“In the Lord of the Rings, there was a hybrid creature that was created by Sauron and his minions called a Heurokai. … In other words, these guys were born bad. And we know that. They’re born bad.”

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

The analogy of fictional characters fails to substantiate the claim that humans are inherently sinful by nature. Fictional examples do not provide evidence for real-world assertions about human nature and morality. Additionally, the claim lacks empirical support and relies heavily on theological doctrine without external validation.

Theological Difficulties and Cognitive Biases

Koukl acknowledges the difficulty of reconciling the theological stance with intuitive moral reasoning. This admission hints at the cognitive dissonance between belief and moral intuition. He also highlights a reliance on scriptural authority:

“I think it’s true because Scripture reveals it to us. And it’s not just the case that we are all sinners like incidentally.”

Logical Fallacies

1. Appeal to Authority: The argument relies heavily on scriptural authority, which is not a universally accepted basis for establishing moral truth.
2. Circular Reasoning: The belief is justified by the very doctrine it seeks to defend, leading to a circular argument.

Worldview and Understanding Suffering

Hall discusses the challenge of defending theological views on suffering, particularly when the worldview of the listener does not align with the Christian perspective. This highlights the role of confirmation bias in accepting or rejecting theological explanations:

“But if you don’t think God’s worth it, I could explain to you what’s happening. But it’s not really going to make sense to you because you assume God’s not worth it.”

Cognitive Biases and Worldview Dependence

1. Confirmation Bias: Individuals tend to favor information that confirms their preexisting beliefs.
2. Worldview Dependence: The plausibility of theological claims is contingent upon one’s existing worldview, making objective assessment challenging.

Cultural Pressure and Challenges to Defending Beliefs

Koukl and Hall touch on the difficulty of defending Christian beliefs in a culture that may oppose them. This points to the social and cultural influences on belief formation and defense:

“So any ideas about sexuality, I can explain to you why, why God is against certain ways of expressing sexuality.”

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

Claims about divine intentions and moral directives must be substantiated with clear, testable evidence. Unsubstantiated claims, especially those imposing moral judgments, lack the robustness needed to withstand critical scrutiny.

Potential Methods to Test Alleged Promises

To test the alleged promises of God, one could propose the following methods:

1. Empirical Evidence: Seek observable, repeatable evidence for divine intervention or fulfillment of promises.
2. Predictive Power: Evaluate the accuracy and specificity of prophecies or promises and their outcomes.
3. Consistency and Reliability: Assess the consistency of alleged divine actions with natural laws and observed phenomena.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

Koukl’s approach underlines the need to align one’s degree of belief with the strength of the available evidence. This principle of proportional belief ensures that claims are critically evaluated and belief is adjusted according to evidence.

“You only ought to do something that you were able to do. And if you’re not able to do it, then you can’t be held responsible for not doing it. That doesn’t seem to be a biblically sound equation.”

---

The arguments presented in the content reveal several logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and reliance on cognitive biases. A rigorous, evidence-based approach is essential for substantiating claims and ensuring logical coherence. Discussing these arguments further in the comments section is warmly invited.