strategies and tactics how to engage the sceptic

Strategies and TacticsHow to engage the sceptic

Dr. C.K.Tan BPharm MSc PhD MRPharmS

PgCertMedEd PgCertPsychTherap

St. James’ church, Audley

Apologetics

What is apologetics? The English word “apologetics” comes from the

Greek word ‘apologia’ which means “to give a reason or defense”.

1 Peter 3:15: Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.

Colossian 4:6 ‘Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.’

…. apologetics

What do apologists do? They defend the faith They defeat false ideas They destroy speculations raised up against the

knowledge of God Apologetics is both defensive and offensive

…. apologetics

Set yourself modest goals Engage with the sceptic In cricket terminology, you don’t need to hit a

boundary. You don’t even need to hit a run. Just getting up to bat – engaging others in friendly conversation – will do.

You do not need win an argument; just leave him/her something to think about

…. apologetics

What do you need to be an apologist? You require three basic skills:

I. Knowledge – an accurately informed mind

II. Character – an Godly character and attractive manner

III. Wisdom – an artful method (‘tactical wisdom’)

This presentation deals with the third.

Strategy and tactics

Strategy: the ‘big picture’. It refers to a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal. Eg. world evangelism, helping the persecuted, training our children in the way of the Lord.

We rest assured and are confident that the reasons for our faith in Christ is very strong and credible.

Tactics: ‘the art of arranging’, the focus on the immediate situation at hand. Tactics help you to manoeuvre effectively in the midst of disagreement. Tactics involve the art of navigating through the conversation itself.

The Columbo tactics

Based on Greg Koukl’s book, ‘Tactics – a game plan for discussing your Christian convictions’.

Named after Lt. Columbo, the brilliant TV detective with a clever way of catching a crook

His key is to go on the offensive in an inoffensive way by using carefully selected questions to productively advance his investigation.

Introduction to the use of questions

What do we use questions for? To start a conversation To engage and interact with the other person Demonstrate a friendly interest To obtain precise information from the other person To focus attention upon a specific area

….questioning

In terms of tactics, questions can be used: To assess the other person’s knowledge and

understanding of what they are saying To keep you in control of the conversation To allow you to buy valuable time To present YOUR views without being pushy

….questioning

Classifications of questionsThree main types: Open Closed Leading

….questioning

Open questions Allows a person to answer in whatever way he chooses More likely to start with words such as: How... Why... When... Where... What... Who... Which… Venn (2004)

….questioning

Closed questions Asks for a specific piece of information, a yes/no

response or an answer that is restricted to one or two words

Often starts with words of phrases like: Do... Is... Can... Could Will... Would... Shall... Should... (Venn, 2004)

….questioning

Combination of open and closed

questions ‘Funnel’ approach: open to closed questions ‘Inverted funnel’: closed to open questions

….questioning

Leading questions- encourage (or even force) the other person to give the

answer you expect or want e.g. ‘The Bible has been changed and translated so

many time over the centuries you can’t trust it.’ How do you know the Bible’s been changed? Have

you actually studied the transmission of the ancient documents of the text of the Bible?

No. I’ve never studied it.

….questioning

Wording of a question can influence the answer (Loftus E, 1975). A group of individuals, whenquestioned on the frequency of headaches, as in thefollowing manner: ’Do you get headaches frequently and, if so, how

often?’ the average response was 2.2 headaches per week

‘Do you get headaches occasionally and, if so, how often?’ the average response was 0.7 headaches per week

What’s the difference in the two questions?

Columbo tactics: Step 1

Step 1: Gain more information‘What do you mean by that?’ (or some variation)

What type of question is this? An open ended question.

This questions helps you know WHAT another person thinks.

…. gaining more information A request to the other person to clarify his meaning

so that you don’t misunderstand or misrepresent it Invitation to thoughtful discussion Puts you in control of the conversation Forces the other person to think more carefully about

precisely what he does mean when he tosses out a challenge.

Tactic: Stop the other in his track, turn the tables, and get

him thinking. You do not need to make a defence (yet)

…. gaining more information

‘Everything is relative’ What do you mean by ‘relative’? ‘Is everything relative?’ ‘Would that apply even to your own statement?’‘It’s not rational to believe in God’ What, specifically, is irrational about believing in

God? Since you’re concerned about proof for God’s

existence, what kind of evidence would you find acceptable?

…. gaining more information

Most Muslims claim that the Bible has beenchanged or corrupted. Therefore, its authenticityand divinity are in doubt. How does that work? ‘How could all available manuscripts of the Bible have

been corrupted so completely and worldwide that not a single copy survived? Such a preposterous vandalism could never have gone undetected in history, recorded both by the friend and the foe.’

Dr. Abdul-Haqq (This would be like trying to secretly remove a

paragraph from all the copies of yesterday’s Daily Telegraph. It can’t be done.)


Step 2: ‘Reverse the burden of proof’ The ‘burden of proof’ is the responsibility someone

has to defend or give evidence for his view. It’s not your duty to prove your critic wrong. It’s his duty to prove himself right.

It is not only Christians who need to defend their beliefs – sceptics must also defend their beliefs. He has to given REASONS, not just his point of view.

Reversing the ‘burden of proof’

How did you come to that conclusion?’ ‘Why do you say that?’ ‘What are your reasons for holding that view?’ ‘What makes you think that’s the right way to see it?’ These questions help you now WHY he thinks the

way he does.

… reversing the ‘burden of proof’

Difference between an argument and an assertion An assertion simply states a point. An argument gives supporting reasons why the point

should be taken seriously. Someone may come up with these sort of challenges:

The Bible’s been changed so many timesYou don’t need God to have morality

These are opinions; they are not reasons or arguments!


Giving an explanation is not the same as giving an argument. Three questions you should always ask whenever someone offers an alternate explanation: Is it possible? Is it plausible? Is it probable?

First, is it POSSIBLE? Example: the view that the teaching of reincarnation

was secretly removed from the Bible sometime during the fourth century.

Such editing would require deleting selected lines of text from tens of thousand of handwritten new Testament documents that had been circulating for three hundred years. This could not happen.


Secondly, is it PLAUSIBLE? Is it reasonable to think something like this might

have taken place, given the evidence? Many things are possible that are not plausible.

Example: some people claim that the miracles recorded in the Gospels were an invention of the early church to help consolidate its power over the people. Is there any evidence that this is what actually took place? It may be theoretically possible, but is it plausible? Does it fit the facts?

e.g. the resurrection


Third, is it PROBABLE? Is it the best explanation, considering the competing

options? The person you are talking to must be able to show why his view is more likely than the one you are offering. He needs to give reasons.


Step 3: Lead the other person in the direction youwant the conversation to go Leading questions can be used to accomplish a

specific purpose, e.g. to inform, to persuade, to set up the terms, or to refute.

Tactic: You ask a series of questions that you know will get a favourable response. By getting approvals for each successive link in the process of reasoning, you move the conversation in the direction you have in mind. In that way, you carefully guide the other person to your conclusion.

….leading questions

Caution: this requires knowledge of some kind. When we know what we want to accomplish (e.g., to inform, to persuade, to set up the terms, or to refute), we can us leading questions to achieve our purpose.


Example 1GK met a lawyer who didn’t understand why he, a Jew,needed Jesus. He believed in God, and he was doinghis best to live a moral life. It seemed to him that thosewere the important things – how he lived, not what hebelieved. GK: ‘Let me ask you a question. Do you think people

who commit moral crimes ought to be punished?’ Lawyer: Well, since I’m a prosecuting lawyer, I guess

I do.’ GK: Good. So do I. Now a second question: Have

you ever committed any moral crime?’ Lawyer: ‘Yes, I guess I have.’


GK: ‘So have I. But that puts us both in a tight spot, doesn’t it? We both believe people who do bad things should be punished, and we both believe we’re guilty on that score. Do you know what I call that? I call that bad news.

GK: This is where Jesus comes in. We both know we’re guilty. That’s the problem. So God offers a solution: a pardon, free of charge. But clemency is on his terms, not ours. Jesus is God’s means of pardon. He personally paid the penalty in our place. He took the rap for our crimes. No one else did that. Only Jesus. Now we have a choice to make. Either we take the pardon and go free, or we turn it down and pay for our crimes ourselves.’


Example 2 Critic: ‘You’re intolerant.’ GK: ‘Can you tell me what you mean by that? Why

would you consider me an intolerant person?’ Critic: ‘Well, it’s clear you think you’re right and

everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.’ GK: ‘I guess I do think my views are correct. It’s

always possible I could be mistaken, but in this case I don’t think I am. But what about you? You seem to be disagreeing with me. Do you think your own views are right?’


Critic: ‘Yes, I think I’m right. But I’m not intolerant. You are.’

GK: ‘That’s the part that confuses me. Why is it when I think I’m right, I’m intolerant, but when you think you’re right, you’re just right? What am I missing?’


Example 3Critic: The Bible is a bunch of myth.GK: What makes you think that?Critic: I know the Bible is a myth because it hasmiracles in it.GK: And why does that mean the Bible is myth or fable?Critic: Because miracles don’t happen.GK: How do you know that?


Critic: Because science has proven that miracles don’thappen.GK: Would you please explain to me exactly how themethods of science have disproved the possibility of supernatural events? (No such scientific evidence exists! GK knows that.) See how, with leading questions, you need

some knowledge

Finding the flaws and weaknesses

ARGUMENTS THAT COMMIT SUICIDE These are commonly known as self-refuting views,

that is, ideas that defeat themselves. These views commit suicide because they express

contradictory and therefore self-defeating concepts. A self-refuting view is necessarily false, even though

it seems true at first glance.

…. flaws and weaknesses

Moral Relativism Self-Destructs Whenever someone says, "You shouldn't force your

morality on me," always ask, "Why not?" Usually the response is going to be an example of

her forcing her morality on you. To make sense out of the objection, she'll have to

state a moral rule while denying any moral rules exist. Such attempts reduce to, "You're wrong for saying people are wrong," or more bluntly, "You shouldn't judge, you narrow-minded bigot.“

But she’s doing the same she accuses you of!!


GK was having a friendly conversation with a non-Christian when the subject of homosexuality came up.He immediately took offense at GK’s "judgmental" view. "You see, that's the problem with Christians," the

critic said. "They're always judging other people's morals."

He was momentarily struck dumb when GK pointed out that this was an interesting moral judgment of his own. Backpedalling, he regrouped and tried a different angle.


"Okay," he conceded after some chin-scratching. "I guess it's all right to judge, as long as you don't try to force your morality on others." He thought this would solve his problem. He was wrong.

"Is that your morality?" GK asked. He nodded. "Then why are you forcing it on me?"

The critic was back to square one!


Religious "Suicide" The notion of religious pluralism, that all religions are

equally true, is also self-refuting. If all religions are true, then Christianity is true. But

part of the truth of Christianity is that other religions are false. Either Christianity is correct and others are false, or some other view is true and Christianity is false. Either way, all religions can't be true.


A common objection to the notion of biblical inspiration goes something like this. The Bible was only written by men. It's a book filled with human ideas, and all human ideas are flawed. Therefore, the Bible is flawed.

If all human ideas are flawed, however, then the idea that all human ideas are flawed is also a flawed idea, forcing the contradiction. The objection self-destructs.


Try some examples "There is no truth."

Is that a true statement? "There are no absolutes."

Are you absolutely sure? "No one can know any truth about religion."

And how, precisely, did you come to know that truth about religion?

"Science is the only sure method of finding truth.“Oh? What scientific experiment taught you that truth?


Here are some other straightforward examples of selfrefuting statements. How would you reveal their flaws? "You can't know anything for sure“

Are you sure of this? "Talking about God is meaningless“

Why are we talking about God? "You can only know truth through experience“

If you and I have different experiences how do you decide which is true?

"I don't think we should push anyone's values“Why are you pushing yours on me?


Summary Always be alert for arguments with suicidal

tendencies. Ask the question, "Does that position carry with it the seeds of its own destruction?"

Don't feel like you have to do all the work refuting a bad argument. Keep you eyes open and stay alert. When you discover an opponent's view is self-refuting, ask a question that exploits the problem. Then let him sink his own ship.

Conclusion

Step 1: Gain more information

What do you mean by that?’

Step 2: ‘Reverse the burden of proof’ ‘How did you come to that conclusion?’ ‘Why do you say that?’

Step 3: Lead the other person in the direction you

want the conversation to go

…. conclusion

Be alert for views that self-destruct (‘commit suicide’) because they express contradictory and therefore self-defeating concepts.

Ask a question that exploits the problem. Then let him recognise the weakness of what he is saying.

Do it gently. Preface your comments with statements such as, ‘Have you considered…’, ‘How about looking at it this way…’, ‘What do you think of my putting it this way…’, ‘Can I suggest an alternative..?’

Resources

Book and website Tactics – a game plan for discussing your Christian

convictions.

Gregory Koukl (2009). Zondervan. Stand to Reason.

http://www.str.org/site/PageServer

strategies and tactics how to engage the sceptic

Documents