If you are like me, you have encountered countless individuals who “argue” for their point-of-view based on some experience, rather than providing good reasons. These people just know that they know that they know what they believe is right because of some experience that brought them psychological confidence that they are right. While this approach to the issue of truth is endemic in Pentecostal circles, it is not limited to us by any means. Mormons, Baptists, Hindus, Muslims, and just about every other religion today claims to have had an experience, and argue that their experience justifies the validity of their truth-claims. When two people claim to have had an experience, and both use that experience to give validity to their opposing truth-claims, either one or the other is right, or both are wrong.
Tactics
September 30, 2009
I just know that I know that I know…
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Epistemology, Tactics, Thinking[5] Comments
May 29, 2009
Nancy Pearcey explained in her book, Total Truth, that every worldview consists of three basic elements: creation, fall, redemption. Every worldview starts with an account of beginnings (where everything comes from, and how everything is supposed to be), which in turn shapes its concept of the fall (what’s wrong with man and his world) and redemption (how to fix man and his world). Because the fall and redemption logically follow the creation story whoever has the authority to shape a culture’s creation story is de facto the “priesthood” of the culture, “possessing the power to determine what the dominant worldview will be.” This is important for two reasons.
First, the creation story of our modern, secular society is Darwinian evolution. According to evolution, there is no design or purpose to the universe. There is no right and wrong. Morality is whatever helps someone pass on their genes to the next generation. The problem with man is not moral, but biological and environmental. Man is competing against everyone else for survival. In such a worldview the Gospel becomes absolutely irrelevant.
The only way the Gospel will be effective in modern culture is if we replace the Darwinian creation myth with the Christian creation story. Indeed, the Christian message does not begin with Christ, but with creation. Rather than starting our message with man’s sinfulness, we need to start our message with man’s dignity rooted in creation. Beginning with sin instead of creation is like trying to figure out a book by starting in the middle—you won’t know the characters and plot. Even redemption ceases to make sense because the purpose of redemption is to restore us back to our original created state.
When Paul talked with the Jews he started with Christ because they already understood creation and the fall. When he addressed the Greeks (Acts 17), however, he started with creation: God made the world and everything in it (you’ll have to remember that the Greeks believed the universe was eternal, not created by God). He pointed out that if God made us, He must have some qualities like us. He can’t be stone. A non-personal being could not have created beings like us. Only after establishing the Creator did Paul move on to sin and redemption. In a culture that is fast becoming Biblically illiterate our approach must be similar to Paul’s approach to the Greeks: we start with creation. Only in that context does the fall and redemption make sense.
May 26, 2009
In the February 2005 issue of Stand to Reason’s bimonthly newsletter, Greg Koukl shared some sound advice concerning the way we talk about our Christian faith to non-believers. I think you will find his advice valuable. He wrote:
If I said “Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States,” people would know I was talking about historical facts. By contrast, if I said, “I believe in the resurrection of Jesus,” most people would not think I was talking about historical facts, but personal faith: my sentiments, my feelings, my preferences.
From their perspective, words like “faith” and “belief” don’t describe the world, they describe me. Statements about Jesus may reflect personal “truths” (i.e. “true for me”). But they’re not true; they are not facts. They are merely “beliefs”-well-intentioned falsehoods, useful fictions, convenient illusions. That’s not what we say. It’s what they hear.
…Let me suggest a simple adjustment. Since there is often a difference between what we say and what they hear, don’t give others the chance to misunderstand. Instead of using emotive “faith” language, use the language of truth. Don’t talk about your beliefs, talk about your convictions, about what you’ve been convinced of. Don’t talk about faith, talk about truth. Don’t talk about values, talk about what you understand the moral facts to be.
…
I’ve actually encouraged Christians to ban words like “faith” and “belief” from their vocabulary. These words no longer communicate what we intend them to. It’s not that faith isn’t valuable. It’s vital. But faith is often misunderstood as a “leap,” a blind, desperate lunge into the darkness. It sounds too much like religious wishful thinking. … When he [an Christian ambassador] talks about Jesus, he is careful to communicate that he is talking about facts, not just the kind of religious wishful thinking the words “faith” and “belief” frequently conjure up.
I couldn’t agree more.
May 21, 2009
Is Faith Private?
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Relativism, Tactics, Thinking[4] Comments
It is becoming more and more common to hear people say “faith is a private matter, and should be kept to oneself.” This sort of statement usually comes from those who are opposed to religion in general, but as the roots of pluralism grow deeper in our society, we are finding more and more religious individuals touting similar sentiments. This got me thinking, is faith a private matter? Is it even possible to keep it to oneself without destroying the religion itself?
If faith was private, and we kept it to ourselves, how would one know if there were any others out there who shared their same beliefs if they dare not speak of those beliefs to others? How would a religion and/or a religious movement ever come into being, and how would it grow? Furthermore, how could faith be transmitted from one generation to another?
It seems that if we kept our faith to ourselves it would be impossible to know if any others shared those same beliefs, and thus religious organizations would never form. If faith were kept private, that faith would die with the individual who holds it. It could never be transmitted from one generation to the next. We would expect, then, for religious faith and religious movements to only last for one generation. In fact, if religion worked the way these pluralists indicate it should work, we would never know if anyone else besides ourselves had any religious views at all, there would be no religious organizations, and we would not be able to share our faith with even our own children. After all, faith is a private matter and should be kept private.
December 17, 2008
Which sounds more appropriate?:
1. My opinion is that vanilla ice-cream is the best flavor of ice-cream.
2. My conviction is that vanilla ice-cream is the best flavor of ice-cream.
I think most people would go with option 1, but why? The denotative meaning of “opinion” and “conviction” allows for both usages, but the connotative meaning is quite different. “Opinion” connotes a weak epistemic viewpoint. When someone says they have an opinion on a matter, we tend to think there was little, if any research that went into forming their viewpoint. “Opinion” has subjectivity and personal taste written all over it. “Conviction,” on the other hand, connotes a much stronger epistemic viewpoint. When we hear someone say their conviction is that X is true, we tend to think there was at least a fair amount of research that was instrumental in forming their conclusion. A conviction is not entirely subjective, but based in some facts.
I would not make a doctrine out of this, but it seems to me that when we are speaking of our perspective on matters of objective truth, that we couch them in terms of our “conviction” rather than in terms of our “opinion.” Opinion seems better reserved for matters of subjective truth like one’s favorite flavor of ice-cream. Conviction bespeaks rational persuasion. This is important in a culture in which religious claims are presumed to be flavors of ice-cream, with everyone simply picking the flavor that appeals to their tastes. We need to make it clear that we do not have mere opinions on religious matters, but have developed genuine convictions through researching matters of objective fact.
May 13, 2008
I had an experience today that is instructive in what not to do, tactically speaking. I was composing a response to a question about free will while riding the train home from work. The train was less than a minute from its destination, when the gentleman next to me—having noticed what I was writing about—asked me if I studied theology. I explained that I do, at which point he asked me, “Do you really believe in what you are writing about?” By this time the train had come to a complete stop, and the man was getting out of his seat to exit the train. As I was putting my computer in my bag I answered him, “Yes, actually I do.” As he continued to walk away I added in a slightly louder voice, “And for good reason.” But it was too late. He was already walking out the door.
Hindsight is always 20/20, this being no exception. I missed out on the chance of continuing our dialogue by giving a direct answer to the gentleman’s question. What I should have done is responded with a question. I might have asked an open-ended question such as, “What do you mean by believe?” or “What is it you think I am claiming to believe?” That would have compelled him to stick around a little longer, rather than continue his commute home. Who knows where the conversation would have ended had I done so. Lesson learned.
January 25, 2008
Exposing the Bodily Autonomy Argument for Abortion
Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Tactics[5] Comments
A common argument for abortion is the argument from bodily autonomy. It is reasoned that a woman — and only a woman — has the right to decide how her body is going to be used. If she does not want to share her body with her developing child, she has the right to rid her body of it, even if that requires ending the child’s life. This argument is summed up nicely in a common mantra of abortion-choice advocates, “My body, my choice.”
Much could be said as to why bodily autonomy is not a good justification for abortion rights, but I do not wish to focus on that here. Instead, I want to focus on a tactical approach to exposing the bodily autonomy argument for what it is: a sham. Let me show you how.
Only the most ardent abortion advocates believe in unrestricted abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Most abortion advocates draw the line somewhere, even if they differ on the precise temporal location. Some say abortion is no longer permissible once the baby reaches viability (roughly 23 weeks). Others say the line should be drawn at seven months. Wherever the line is drawn, the fact that a line is drawn between morally permissible and morally impermissible abortions demonstrates that the argument for the moral permissibility of abortion from bodily autonomy is an ad hoc, rather than principled argument. Here’s why.
August 9, 2007
In our culture it is considered impolite, if not intolerant to disagree with someone else’s religious or moral ideas. Personally, I feel uncomfortable when speaking to someone who is asserting religious or moral ideas I find to be flawed, because I want to voice my concerns with their thinking, but do not want to appear rude or argumentative. How do we disagree without sounding disagreeable?
One way is to make your disagreement known is to ask, “Why do you believe that?” (this is a variation of Stand to Reason’s Columbo Tactic). There are three benefits to this approach. First, the mere posing of the question alerts the individual that you question their truth-claim, but does so in a non-threatening, non-contentious manner. Second, asking questions about their beliefs will likely be perceived as flattering, because it is an invitation for them to speak their mind, rather than listen to you speak yours. Thirdly, it forces them to shoulder the burden of proof for their claim.
Upon hearing their reasons (if any are even given) and manner of reasoning, you can ask further questions to expose faulty premises or flawed logic. The ultimate goal is to get them to question the veracity of their beliefs. Once they see the problem in their thinking, offer what you believe to be true about the matter, and offer for their consideration the reasons you hold to that belief.
July 30, 2007
Tactic: What to Say When JW or Mormon Knocks on Your Door
Posted by Jason Dulle under Tactics[10] Comments
Alan Shlemon of Stand to Reason ministries developed a great tactic to use when a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness comes knocking on your door. It’s easy to remember, and it doesn’t require that you know much about either religion:
First, I ask them, “If you discovered you were mistaken about your faith, would you be willing to
change your religion?” This question is critical because it exposes whether or not they’re a genuine truth seeker. They are presumably there to show you’re mistaken about your faith and should change it after they show you the truth. If not, then I point out how their position is unreasonable and thank them for coming to visit. I try to avoid spending time with people who are not genuine
truth seekers and are not willing to follow the evidence where it leads. You can waste a lot of time talking to people who are closed to the truth.Second, I ask them, “Can you offer me three objective reasons or evidences for why you believe your religion is true?” Notice this question immediately shifts the burden of proof to them, where it belongs. It takes the pressure off you and gives you valuable insight into their rationale. Remember, they’ve come to you. You’re under no obligation to jump through their hoops and answer their questions. Just be sure to keep them on track and not let them deviate from the question at hand. They’re often hard pressed to offer you convincing objective reasons. Mormons often ask you to pray and ask God to reveal the truth to you. This is not an objective reason or evidence, however, so don’t let them get away with offering it as an answer.[1]
[1]Alan Shlemon, “Making an Impact Without Knowing Very Much”; available from http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2007/07/making-an-impac.html; Internet; accessed 30 July 2007.
May 15, 2007
Poll: One Final Note
Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Statistics, Tactics[3] Comments
One final note on the abortion poll…. Did you notice how support for aborting a baby because s/he was conceived due to rape or incest enjoys the same level of support as saving the life of the mother (70% vs. 75% respectively). While I am persuaded that the logic of the pro-life persuasion does not justify abortion in cases of rape/incest, at this point in time any attempt to outlaw abortion that does not make an exception for such cases is likely to fail. On a tactical level, we would do well to work towards passing legislation that limits abortion in those areas where the majority of Americans support such limitations. Once we have accomplished those limitations (which constitute 94-95% of all abortions), then we can take on the rape/incest justification. Of course, that is on a legal plane. In our personal, one-on-one pro-life evangelism we should demonstrate how the pro-life logic rules out rape/incest as morally justifiable exceptions as well.
December 21, 2006
We Can Judge People
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Relativism, Tactics, Theology[5] Comments
Dennis Prager argues against this silly notion that “we should not judge” by pointing out that if we cannot make judgments, then not only are we prohibited from declaring certain people to be evil/immoral, we are also prohibited from declaring certain people to be good. Both require that we judge the merits of a person. People often miss this because they think of “judgment” only in terms of bad.
Furthermore, it would be meaningless to say someone is good unless they are being compared against someone else we have judged not good. In other words, you can’t say someone is good unless you can say someone is bad.
May 18, 2006
Responding to “Anti-Choice” Rhetoric
Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics, TacticsLeave a Comment
An obnoxious abortion advocate posted some rants on Scott Klusendorf’s Pro-Life Training blog asserting that we are not pro-life, but rather anti-choice. You can check out the full string here, but I wanted to post the heart of Scott’s response so you can see how a pro-lifer responds to the argument that we are opposed to choice. Scott wrote:
You next claim that Penner is anti-choice, but this, too, begs the question by assuming, without argument, that the unborn are not human. Should we be “pro-choice” on the question of men beating their wives? Parents torturing toddlers? Look, the abortion debate is not a dispute between those who are pro-choice and those who are anti-choice. Let me be clear. I am vigorously “pro-choice” when it comes to women choosing a number of moral goods. I support a woman’s right to choose her own health care provider, to choose her own school, to choose her own husband, to choose her own job, to choose her own religion, and to choose her own career, to name a few. These are among the many choices that I fully support for the women of our country. But some choices are wrong, like killing innocent human beings simply because they are in the way and cannot defend themselves. No, we shouldn’t be allowed to choose that. Hence, the real issue that separates you from me is the question “What is the unborn?” Until you address that issue with a compelling argument, you appeals to “choice” are nothing but question-begging rants.
You might want to read my short article entitled “Do You Support a Woman’s Right to Choose?” in which I argued in a similar fashion. My article goes into a little more detail and explains the tactical nature of this approach. Check it out.
April 12, 2006
Are You Telling Me I’m Going to Hell Because I Don’t Believe in Jesus?
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Hamartiology, Hell, Tactics, Theology[7] Comments
That is the dreaded question we all face from time to time.How do we respond to it?Greg Koukl has offered some helpful insights.
First, we should point out that Christianity does not teach that people go to hell because they don’t believe in Jesus.The reason people go to hell is because they are guilty of wrong behavior, not wrong belief.They are condemned already.Belief is the only thing that will prevent them from experiencing the natural consequences of their behavior.Sin is like a terminal disease: if it is not treated it will eventually kill you.Those who die of an untreated disease do not die because they haven’t visited the doctor, but because they have a disease.Likewise, people do not die of sin because they have not visited Dr. Jesus, but because they have a spiritual disease.Jesus is the one who holds the cure for their disease.By not accepting the cure, they choose to die in their sinful disease.
How can we communicate this to unbelievers?First, we should be sure to avoid giving a simple “yes” or “no” answer to this question.The reason for this is tactical, not rhetorical.A simple “yes” answer makes the Christian look like a judgmental bigot, and all too often the non-Christian will immediately pounce on you for your response, allowing you little chance to explain your answer.So it’s best to give an explanation as your answer.Here’s how this approach might look in action:
Non-believer: “So do you believe I’m going to hell?”
Believer: “Do you think people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished?Justice demands that people who are guilty of wrongdoing be punished for their crimes.The message of Christianity is that those guilty of moral crimes ought to be punished for those crimes unless they have been pardoned.God has provided such a pardon in Jesus Christ.He is the only answer to our sin problem because He—and only He—paid the penalty for our crimes.We can either take that pardon and go free, or refuse it and stand alone before God to pay for our own crimes such as they are.We will be judged fairly, but justice will prevail.
“The pertinent question, then, is whether or not you have committed any moral crimes.All of us have.That’s the bad news.The good news is that we can be pardoned for those crimes by putting our trust in Jesus, and accepting what He did on our behalf.Are you willing to accept His pardon?”
I hope this tactical approach proves helpful in your own evangelistic efforts.Not only will it take the edge off of an uncomfortable question, but it will also explain the essence of the Gospel in the process.
February 19, 2006
new political rhetoric on abortion dismantled
Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics, TacticsLeave a Comment
William Saletan of Slate recently proposed some new rhetoric for abortion-choice politicians to use when they are debating pro-lifers. His proposal is as follows: “My opponent and I both want to avoid as many abortions as possible. The difference is, I trust women to work with me toward that objective, and he doesn’t.”
Pretty good! It makes the abortion-choice candidate look sympathetic to the pro-life and abortion-choice side, all the while making the pro-life candidate look like someone who does not trust people to make their own choices. But there are some serious logical problems with this approach.
First, if you truly want to avoid as many abortions as possible then the ultimate goal should be to eliminate all abortions. Why? Because abortion is unnecessary, making it possible to eliminate the procedure altogether. One might argue that some abortions are necessary, particularly when the mother’s life is at stake. I can accept that qualification, but since that situation accounts for less than a fraction of 1% of all abortions we’re still talking about the real possibility of eliminating more than 99.9% of all abortions. Does the abortion-choice candidate truly want to eliminate 99.9% of all abortions? I highly doubt it. I would advise a pro-life candidate to call his opponent on this. Make him say he wishes to eliminate all elective abortions. I’ll guarantee he won’t do it.
Secondly, if you want to avoid as many abortions as possible, and you know there are women out there who are opposed to your desire, why would you trust them to work toward your objective? If you desired to save more Jews during the Holocaust, would you say the difference between you and the Allies is that you trusted the Nazis to work with you toward that objective while they did not? Of course not! How about murder? Would anyone say the difference between them and their opponent is that they trust murderers to work with them to eliminate murder while their opponent does not? Of course not! Then how can we trust women who want to murder their babies to work with us to avoid abortion? We can’t. We must legislate morality on them just as we do in every other area of the law.
So much for Saletan’s new rhetoric!
Thinking to Believe 