Strategies and Tactics How to engage the sceptic

1. Strategies and TacticsHow to engage the sceptic Dr. C.K.Tan BPharm MSc PhD MRPharmS PgCertMedEd PgCertPsychTherap St. James’ church, Audley

2. 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.’

3. …. 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

4. …. 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

5. …. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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

9. ….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

10. ….questioning Classifications of questions Three main types: • Open • Closed • Leading

11. ….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)

12. ….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)

13. ….questioning Combination of open and closed questions • ‘Funnel’ approach: open to closed questions • ‘Inverted funnel’: closed to open questions

14. ….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.

15. ….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?

16. 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.

17. …. 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)

18. …. 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?

19. …. 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.)

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. … 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!

23. … 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.

24. … 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

25. … 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.

26. 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.

27. ….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.

28. ….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.’

29. ….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.’

30. ….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?’

31. ….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?’

32. ….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?

33. ….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

34. 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.

35. …. 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!!

36. …. flaws and weaknesses 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.

37. …. 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!

38. …. 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.

39. …. 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.

40. …. 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?

41. …. 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?

42. …. 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 self-refuting, ask a question that exploits the problem. Then let him sink his own ship.

43. 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

44. …. 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..?’

45. 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