Transcript Session 7 - Hartshill Bible Church

Strategies and Tactics
How 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 questions
Three 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, when
questioned on the frequency of headaches, as in the
following 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 been
changed or corrupted. Therefore, its authenticity
and 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.)
Columbo tactics: Step 2
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 times
You don’t need God to have morality
 These are opinions; they are not reasons or
arguments!
… reversing the ‘burden of proof’

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.
… reversing the ‘burden of proof’
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
… reversing the ‘burden of proof’
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.
Columbo tactics: Step 3
Step 3: Lead the other person in the direction you
want 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.
….leading questions
Example 1
GK met a lawyer who didn’t understand why he, a Jew,
needed Jesus. He believed in God, and he was doing
his best to live a moral life. It seemed to him that those
were the important things – how he lived, not what he
believed.
 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.’
….leading questions


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.’
….leading questions
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?’
….leading questions


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?’
….leading questions
Example 3
Critic: The Bible is a bunch of myth.
GK: What makes you think that?
Critic: I know the Bible is a myth because it has
miracles 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?
….leading questions
Critic: Because science has proven that miracles don’t
happen.
GK: Would you please explain to me exactly how the
methods 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!!
…. flaws and weaknesses
GK was having a friendly conversation with a nonChristian 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.
…. flaws and weaknesses



"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!
…. flaws and weaknesses
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.
…. flaws and weaknesses


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.
…. flaws and weaknesses
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?
…. flaws and weaknesses
Here are some other straightforward examples of self
refuting 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?
…. flaws and weaknesses
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 selfrefuting, 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