Before I go into this new series of posts about common arguments against Christianity, I thought I'd point out a couple of things extremely important to remember.
First, when someone raises an intellectual argument against a belief system, that argument is usually tied to an emotion or experience or both. In all the conversations I've ever had with people about the merits (or lack thereof) of Christianity as a belief system, every single one, without exception, had an experience that fueled the argument. For instance, some people know that if they believe that Jesus is who the gospels present him to be, that will mean that Jesus commands total allegiance for a lifetime. Since they don't want to repent of their sins and follow Jesus, they question the reliability of the gospels or even the entire Scriptures. Another example is when a person knows someone who claims to be a Christian and that person does not act consistently with what they claim to believe and mistreat the person. That person then dismisses Christianity as a means to keep people under control (power play or control mechanism). The point then is to find out what the real issue is and deal with that in the context of an extended relationship instead of just a one time, all in, attempt at converting someone. See also John 4 where Jesus deals with a legitimate argument (where to worship) but gets at the heart of the issue (her insecurity and shame manifested by multiple unhealthy relationships).
Second, the goal of intellectual argumentation, even in the context of the academy of higher learning, is not to win the argument but rather to show the love of Jesus to people. Because of my fleshly desire to win every fight, I have been guilty on numerous occasions of losing sight of the real point of the conversation. The old adage rings true "You can win the argument and lose the person." What is said sometimes pales in comparison to how it's said. If the person walks away feeling beat up instead of loved and cared for, we've missed the forest for the trees. I'm not saying that we shouldn't give reasonable and well thought through answers to honest questions but we should be equally careful that our demeanor and attitude reflects God's heart for them instead of self righteousness and pride.
Posts
The Noise of Strangers
-
Welcome to another Thursday UNFILTERED blog post, the only blog that thinks
3 a.m. feels more like the middle of the night than midnight does. And
while we...
3 days ago
3 comments:
"First, when someone raises an intellectual argument against a belief system, that argument is usually tied to an emotion or experience or both."
In all honesty, that seems like a dubious induction. If "experience" means "negative experience with someone who practices that belief system," it's especially dubious.
It doesn't seem epistemologically unsound for experience in general to be brought into play when examining a belief system.
You run the risk, unintentionally I presume, of presenting objections as psychological in nature. If we can uncover why someone has an objection, we can table the objection. Actually, that goes further than I assume you are operating. But I reject the notion that intellectual activity can be reduced to psychology, or that intellectual speculation is reactionary in nature.
"In all the conversations I've ever had with people about the merits (or lack thereof) of Christianity as a belief system, every single one, without exception, had an experience that fueled the argument."
Not to be facetious, but your statement here is obvious. Every person operates off an initial axiom that arises from experience: that something exists. You may be equivocating "experience" from the first part I quote to the second part.
I do agree that argumentation can never do the work of the Holy Spirit. Any belief system that rests on an assumption beyond the basics principles of reasoning requires a leap of faith (in truth, all worldviews require an element of operating with uncertainty) and Scripture indicates only the Holy Spirit can facilitate the leap required to submitting to Christ.
Still, I'm wary of the approach that attempts to discover the reason behind someone's argument instead of addressing their argument. This wasn't your intent, I presume, but you must be aware that in the wrong hands, this might translate to dodging the question - or giving temporary emotion succor instead of showing them the true error of their thoughts.
"For instance, some people know that if they believe that Jesus is who the gospels present him to be, that will mean that Jesus commands total allegiance for a lifetime. Since they don't want to repent of their sins and follow Jesus, they question the reliability of the gospels or even the entire Scriptures."
It's interesting to note that in Acts 17, Paul could have easily pointed out the contradictions in Athenian religion, and the use of the Greek gods to justify their sinful actions. But he didn't.
"The point then is to find out what the real issue is and deal with that in the context of an extended relationship instead of just a one time, all in, attempt at converting someone."
I would submit that the goal is to be sensitive to possible emotional states or experiences while addressing the objection being raised. Many non-Christians will rightfully object to an evangelist psycho-analyzing them instead of addressing their objection.
However, I agree with your conclusion wholeheartedly. A Christian will find many situations where they cannot answer an objection, and many where they can. However, in all situations we have the opportunity to show the love of Christ.
I'm Jeffrey by the way. We have a mutual friend in Sean (and, presumably, Christ).
Thanks for the feedback Jeffrey. You should know that this post was intended to thwart the common misconception that Christians are argumentative and uncaring. The point I was trying to make was given the fact that we are relational beings who are generally swayed by emotion (at least as much as reason) when it comes to decision making, we as Christians should take that into consideration when dealing with a potential skeptic.
I'm not saying that we should ignore, dismiss or "table" legitimate questions (see the part about John 4). Rather, I'm addressing the nature of our heart while engaging in intellectual discourse. This post was written specifically for the heavy handed apologist who thinks the only thing valuable is making unbelievers look stupid.
FWIW, I try not to equivocate in public. Thanks for the warning. Seriously though, thanks for the comment!
Cody, you should check out Alasdair MacIntyre's Whose Justice? Which Rationality? and Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry. I think you might find them useful to what you're after here.
Post a Comment