Students in the Real World, 4-2
After the above warning and explanation, it might appear ironic that I am now going to present a formula for limited use in apologetics. However, it is precisely because I am about to present this formula that the preceding comments are necessary, since many people are already too prone to become mechanical in conversation and debate about the faith.
Although formulas should never be necessary, there are at least two acceptable uses for them.
First, formulas can help the beginner and the less accomplished apologist. The formula that I am about to give you will help to begin and sustain a logical analysis of your opponent in debate. It will give you something reliable to fall back on, and thus boost your confidence. But keep in mind that in the long run, dependence on any formula will hinder a person's development, and so it is best to be weaned from its use.
Second, the deliberate use of a formula in debate can serve to humiliate an opponent. That is, one way to expose the foolishness of a non-Christian's philosophy and the ease with which a Christian can refute it is to defeat him through the obvious and repeated use of a simple formula. It demonstrates that his beliefs cannot withstand any rational analysis, and that he cannot answer even the most basic questions, things that even a toddler can ask. This practice also makes it easy for observers to perceive the inferiority of the unbeliever's position.
Then, another reason why I wish to present a formula here is to show you what a good one should look like. Given that it is often already a mistake to use formulas in debate, the problem is further aggravated when these formulas are lengthy, complicated, and inflexible. There are arguments that require a perfect setup – an attentive opponent who does not interrupt, an appropriate starting point for the conversation, and a step-by-step procession from one item to another in the prescribed order. If the argument has any punch at all, it is neutralized when the opponent objects to a premise in the middle of the presentation, so that the whole debate becomes sidetracked.
In contrast, the formula that I will introduce below is simple, flexible, and robust. In fact, it can function in the midst of total chaos. Moreover, except for the formula itself, there is no information to memorize. That said, it has major limitations, but we will discuss them later.
And here is the formula: "So? Why? Really?" This is it. This is the entire formula. It is simple but powerful. Although there are only three words in it, using nothing but these three words, any believer of any aptitude can crush any student, any professor, and any variety or combination of non-Christians.
The word "So?" refers to relevance. If you would stop to consider all the objections against Christianity that you have encountered, you might be surprised to find that many of them are irrelevant to the debate. And even when the topic could be relevant, the unbelievers often fail to show this relevance. The same problem of irrelevance occurs when they present the case for their own positions. Therefore, one way to neutralize their arguments and objections is to question the relevance of what is said, and to demand the opponent to show this relevance.
The word "Why?" refers to justification. Many statements presented as arguments are in fact only assertions. You must ask the opponent why his assertions are true. In response, it is likely that he give you another set of unjustified assertions, so that you will need to ask "why" again. But notice that the other two words are also available to you. You can ask "So?" – that is, you can question the relevance between the two assertions or sets of assertions, and demand your opponent to show this relevance. With only these two words, you can expose the fact that the opponent's position lacks any kind of justification, and that not only are his objections irrelevant, but even the propositions within his own worldview are irrelevant to one another.
The word "Really?" refers to validity. In this context, validity does not refer to the truth of a position, but to the correct form of an argument. A "valid" argument is one in which the conclusion follows from the premises by necessary inference – that is, the premises must logically produce that conclusion, and it is the only possible conclusion given the premises. The question "Really?" is therefore posed against the relationship between premises and conclusions. So when you ask for justification for an assertion made by an unbeliever, and he provides you with an argument to support this assertion, then besides questioning the relevance of the argument, you should also question whether it is logically valid. Reasoning from intuition, sensation, induction, and the scientific method are all invalid, since they all proceed in logical leaps, and none of their conclusions are reached logical necessity.
These three words apply to all non-Christians arguments, whether those that attack the Christian faith or those that defend non-Christian positions. As such, the formula can serve both offensive and defensive purposes in apologetics. Since the arguments and objections from non-Christians are never consistently relevant, justified, and valid, anything that they say in conversation or debate will quickly crumble under these three words. In fact, even one of these three words can destroy all non-Christian belief systems. None of them can continue to withstand a persistent pressure to show relevance, justification, or validity.
Now, with all that I have said against formulas, if this one can defeat all non-Christian arguments and objections, then is it not a good formula? Should we not make it a regular part of our apologetics? The answer is that almost anything can defeat non-Christian arguments and objections, and the fact that something works does not make it a good or complete solution. Instead of aiming for the minimum, we must strive to be thorough in our refutation of non-Christian belief systems, completely destroying everything that they believe in, and then we must faithfully present the total biblical worldview.
The three words in this simple formula remind us about the questions that we should ask during a conversation or debate. Sometimes when Christians come across anti-biblical arguments, they tend to go by whether they "feel" right to them. If they can sense nothing wrong, then they do not know how to respond. This happens frequently with those believers whose minds have not been renewed by sound theology. The formula reminds them to be deliberate in examining the argument for relevance, justification, and validity.
On the other hand, the skilled biblical apologist possesses superior intellectual reflex. Since his thinking has been trained to follow deeply ingrained biblical and rational paths, his perception is quicker and clearer, and he naturally comes up with stronger arguments and countermoves. He does as if by instinct that which the beginner must deliberate upon. This is why rather than be satisfied with a decent formula, the biblical apologist must strive to make his craft into a natural reflex.
Moreover, the formula given in this chapter does not include any actual information, such as the biblical view of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, soteriology, or any other doctrine. It is possible to devise a more complex one that includes some of this information, but it is certain that the full scope and depth of biblical rationalism can never be reduced to a manageable formula. The one in this chapter is nothing more than a convenient way to remember one small aspect of biblical apologetics.
Of course, even when using this formula, the believer should usually vary his expressions. He could keep on saying, "So? So? So?" But unless he is trying to humiliate his opponent by the obvious use of a rigid line of questioning, he should demand proof of relevance in other ways. For example, he could say, "How is this relevant to the debate?" Or, "Even if this point is correct, how does it refute Christianity?" Or, with the question of validity, he can say, "I asked you to justify your assertion and you gave me an argument, but your conclusion does not really follow from your premises. Just because A and B are true does not mean that C is true."
I cannot stress enough the need to be weaned from the use of formulas and rigid tactics in apologetics. The strength and beauty of the biblical approach is unleashed only when we move on from bullet points and memorized answers to where we can maintain natural interaction with unbelievers using a biblical way of thinking. What we call biblical rationalism is just another name for the mind of Christ, and when we interact with the unbelievers from the mind of Christ, our encounters with them will have less to do with methods and techniques, but for them it will become more and more like an actual conversation with the Risen Lord. The biblical apologist is one who thinks like Christ, not just one who has memorized tactics and answers.
November 08 2006 | Apologetics, Spirituality