Showing posts with label Logic. Show all posts

Must Christians Love Everything "The Left" Criticizes? 🤔

Christians Analyzing "The Left"

Must Christians love everything that those who are not Christians criticize? Just because someone is not a Christian, does that require that they call everything good "evil" and everything evil "good"? I frequently come across both believers and unbelievers who think that the answer to these questions is Yes.

Such agreement requires the view that man is so depraved that unless a person accepts Christ, their judgements of good and evil will always be wrong. On this view, a simple way to find the truth about any matter is to just affirm what is contradictory to what an unbeliever believes about the matter. Christians who hold this view apply this logic to different areas of knowledge including moral knowledge.

Are Atheists "Holier Than Thou?"

Every now and then I come across an atheist who claims that atheists who choose good behavior are more moral than religious people (particularly Christians) who choose the same behavior. The reason that they give for this is that Christians need the fear of hell to scare them away from bad behavior whereas atheists do good for the sake of the behavior's being good. This is simultaneously a character attack as well as a philosophical attack. Both deserve to be addressed; however, today I will focus on the philosophical.

So Elon Musk has finally closed his deal with Twitter. We've been anticipating this purchase for quite some time, whether your anticipation of the inevitable change has been fearful or hopeful. Many people fear that Musk's purchase of the Twitter social media platform will bring a political change in the United States of America and, possibly, the world. They fear that elections in America will be affected due to Elon Musk's claimed dedication to "free speech" and lack of censorship.

It seems that those who fear Musk's claimed dedication fear it because they do not support it. Those who fear free speech and lack of censorship do so because they know that they cannot win in the public marketplace of ideas without suppression of contrary viewpoints, evidence, and arguments. It seems that they fear that they do not have enough logical, rational points to convince an educated and thinking public to accept their policies, so they must resort to fallacious and false appeals and suppression of counter-evidence and counter-points. It seems that such fear and actions are unfounded if those who exhibit this fear truly do have evidence and logic on their side.

If Elon Musk is serious about free speech on his platform and serious about ending censorship, then let the ideas and points be heard. Let them be analyzed. Let them be judged. If you think people are judging incorrectly, educate them on the proper and logical way to judge. Be willing to be educated, yourself, and to change your mind when the evidence and logic point strongly in the other direction.

Will free speech and lack of censorship affect elections in America and around the world? It certainly could. Where there is freedom of speech and freedom to hear and analyze points of view, outcomes have a chance to be different than if the public cannot hear, much less, analyze options. But that is nothing to fear, unless you fear a land that this governed by the will of a thinking and educated people. It is nothing to fear, unless you fear a culture and society that is shaped by the majority and not the elite few who control what information is given to the public. It is nothing to fear, unless you fear open discussion of ideas and the possibility that you may be found to be wrong.

Quote from "Before You Hit Send" by Emerson Eggerichs- “We are free to reject the beliefs we deem false. But civil people do not have a right nor desire to hate those who adhere to systems of belief they find abhorrent. Civility does not mean we sanction their 'truth claims'. However, to bring them out of their false persuasions, we must show them love and respect. If we do not, we will not win their hearts. Furthermore, we sour them to what we believe. When we detest people, they will not listen from the heart to the truth claims of our faith.”

Of course, if the majority is truly wrong, then it needs to be demonstrated, and logical and moral efforts must be made to persuade the majority, not limiting freedom and censoring the false ideas. Limiting freedom and enacting censorship appears weak. If you have the true ideas, why use a strategy that appears weak when you have the strength of reality on your side?

In the Twitter world that Elon Musk claims to be intent on creating, for those who do fear a lack of censorship on Twitter and cannot defend their claims logically, a different strategy will be employed. Truth and falsehoods will be heard. But because both will be heard, they can be analyzed and will be freely accepted or rejected. Falsehood is now in jeopardy of more people on Twitter not believing it, but as a logical consequence, so is truth. Your claims and my claims will be in jeopardy on Twitter in the coming months and years if Elon Musk is serious.

Those who wish to be free thinkers and not allow those with the loudest voice to think for them must prepare themselves to properly analyze the loudest claims that will come and be prepared to accept the truth even when it is not what you originally thought. We also need to be prepared to defend the claims that we believe to be true against both logical and illogical critique. No doubt that Twitter will continue to have plenty of illogical critique of ideas (even false ones), but if Elon Musk is serious about free speech and removing censorship from Twitter, then logical critiques and truth will soon be heard on Twitter once again, and users must prepare themselves to both deliver and consume tweets appropriately.

Quote from "Time For Truth" by Os Guinness- "Truth is true even if nobody believes it, and falsehood is false even if everybody believes it."

See the posts below for more on being focused on truth and using logic to judge the soundness of arguments presented.

Is It Arrogant To Claim That Jesus Is The Only Way?

Is Christianity arrogant to claim that Jesus Christ is the only way to God?

An Arrogant Claim or An Arrogant Christian?

One of the most common concerns about Christianity is its claim of exclusivity. In today's world it is considered evil to not be inclusive of everyone and everything. To show such intolerance is the epitome of arrogance. Many people use the presence of such intolerance and arrogance as a defeater for Christianity, meaning that they reject its truth claims because along with those truth claims comes the claim to be the exclusive way to God. There are a few things to consider when examining this challenge, though.

Introduction: Science vs. Christianity?

It is commonly claimed that Christianity is a science-stopper. What is usually put forth to justify this claim is that many Christians are content to look at nature and say "God did it," without looking further to discover how God did whatever "it" happens to be. For many Christians, questions about the origin and function of the natural world end with that answer. However, for many others, while they recognize that God did indeed do something, they seek diligently to discover how God did it. Christianity does not stop science, a lack of curiosity or concern (not necessarily a bad thing if those are not a person's passion or pursuit) is what could stop science, if no Christian exists who possesses that curiosity. Individual Christians can choose to stop scientific discovery for themselves, but because scientific discovery will continue for other individual Christians, scientific discovery will continue.

On the other hand, atheism actually does stop science. Not because an atheist is content to say "evolution did it" and cease exploratory research, but it is stopped rather for a few other reasons that the atheist cannot escape if their worldview is true. If atheism is true, scientific discovery does not cease just for the atheist whose curiosity and concern are satisfied by the answer "evolution did it," but it ceases for everyone.

If you are a friend of science and an atheist, I implore you to take your thinking to the next level: think about how you can think about discovery of the world around you. In today's blog post, I will present six different ways that atheism mutually excludes science and stops all scientific discovery in its tracks.

Introduction

Over the years Dr. Norman Geisler has had a profound effect on the way that I think philosophically and theologically. Through his defenses of the Christian worldview (the essentials and nonessentials) in his numerous books and lectures I have been better equipped analyze views, defend the Gospel, and "worship the Father in spirit and in truth" (John 4)

One of the early books that set my path to being able to logically evaluate arguments was "Come, Let Us Reason" (click or tap the title for my full chapter-by-chapter review). In the book, he provides Christians with an introduction to logical thinking that will help them in identifying false claims (that may sound correct on the surface) and in defending true claims. I have compiled a few of my favorite quotes from that excellent book in this post. If you have not picked up a copy yet, I highly recommend that you do.

Why Do Christians Need Logic?- Logic and God

"Logic is a way to think so that we can come to correct conclusions by understanding implications and the mistakes people often make in thinking."

"From the standpoint of reality, we understand that God is the basis of all logic. As the ultimate reality, all truth is ultimately found in him. He has created the reality that we know and in which we have discovered the laws of logic. Even Jesus said, 'I am...the truth' (John 14:6). He has structured the world in such a way that these laws cannot be denied; however, we did not know God first and then learn logic from him. He exists as the basis of all logic (in reality), but we discovered logic first and came to know God through it. This is true even if we came to know God through his revelation, because we understand the revelation through logic. In the order of being. God is first; but in the order of knowing, logic leads us to all knowledge of God. God is the basis of all logic (in the order of being), but logic is the basis of all knowledge of God (in the order of knowing)."

Quote from book "Come Let Us Reason" by Norman Geisler: "From the standpoint of reality, we understand that God is the basis of all logic. As the ultimate reality, all truth is ultimately found in him. He has created the reality that we know and in which we have discovered the laws of logic. Even Jesus said, 'I am...the truth' (John 14:6). He has structured the world in such a way that these laws cannot be denied; however, we did not know God first and then learn logic from him. He exists as the basis of all logic (in reality), but we discovered logic first and came to know God through it. This is true even if we came to know God through his revelation, because we understand the revelation through logic. In the order of being. God is first; but in the order of knowing, logic leads us to all knowledge of God. God is the basis of all logic (in the order of being), but logic is the basis of all knowledge of God (in the order of knowing)." #Logic #Reason #Epistemology #Philosophy

"We use logic in the process of knowing God, but that does not mean that God came after logic in reality. without God, nothing could have existence. God is the basis of all logic in reality and he is in no way inferior to logic. Logic comes from God, not God from logic. But when it comes to how we know things, logic is the basis of all thought, and it must come before any thought about anything, including God. For example, I need a map before I can get to Washington, D.C. But Washington must exist before the map can help me get there. Even so, we use logic first to come to know God, but God exists first before we can know him."

"Unless valid inferences can be made from what is known to what is unknown, there can be no theological argumentation. Whether in a discussion between Christians on a matter of interpretation or in a debate with a non-Christian, no one could prove any point without the laws of rational inference."

How Do You Think Correctly?- Using Logic

"Using syllogisms is called deductive logic because it involves deducing particular conclusions from general statements. In inductive logic, we start with the particulars and reason to general principles. Deductive logic starts with the cause and reasons to the effect, while inductive logic starts with the effects and attempts to find the cause. That is why deductive reasoning is called a prior (prior to looking at the facts) and inductive reasoning is called a posteriori (after seeing the evidence). Syllogisms are more philosophical, and inductive arguments are more scientific. The biggest difference, though, is that deductive arguments yield necessary conclusions (that is, the conclusions are necessarily true if the premises are true and the inferences are valid), but inductive reasoning yields only probable conclusions. The conclusions might have a high degree of probability, but they are still not as certain as deductive conclusions."

"You may not know what the significance of some piece of information is, but you must note it in case it becomes important later. Even the smallest clue may change the whole direction of your understanding."

"Analogies can be used to present very strong and effective arguments, but analogies are good only when there are strong similarities and only nonessential differences between the things being compared."

Quote from "Come Let Us Reason" by Norman Geisler: "Analogies can be used to present very strong and effective arguments, but analogies are good only when there are strong similarities and only nonessential differences between the things being compared." #Logic #Reason #Analogy #Philosophy

How Can Thinking Go Wrong?- Fallacies In Logic

"Whenever there is controversy over an issue, the appeal to authority is weakened in direct proportion to the strength of the controversy...All appeals to authority ultimately rest on the evidence that the authority has. The only reason to quote an authority is that he knows the evidence better than we do. The letters after his name don't mean a thing without the evidence to back up his position."

"[Special pleading] is [a] way to make certain the opposing view doesn't get a fair shake. Here only the evidence that supports one view is cited, and the rest is left out...If there are ten studies that show your view to be false, ignore them and make a big point about the one that confirms your conclusion. Really, this argument counts on the listener to be ignorant of the facts. That way anything can be claimed, and no objection can be raised. However, if someone knows about the other ten studies, you're in trouble. This kind of argument can be torn apart easily if all the facts are made known."

Quote from "Come Let Us Reason" by Norman Geisler: "[Special pleading] is [a] way to make certain the opposing view doesn't get a fair shake. Here only the evidence that supports one view is cited, and the rest is left out...If there are ten studies that show your view to be false, ignore them and make a big point about the one that confirms your conclusion. Really, this argument counts on the listener to be ignorant of the facts. That way anything can be claimed, and no objection can be raised. However, if someone knows about the other ten studies, you're in trouble. This kind of argument can be torn apart easily if all the facts are made known." #Logic #Fallacy #SpecialPleading #Philosophy #Reason

"[No] view should be accepted on the basis of ignorance. That is no way to find truth! Let positive evidence be presented and evaluated for both sides, and the truth can be known...If a conclusion is false, it is only a matter of finding the fallacy or the untrue premises (or both)."

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

For more great quotes from Dr. Geisler on various other topics, see these posts:

Here are my chapter-by-chapter reviews of other books he (co)authored:

The Court-Ordered Death of a Child

UPDATE (7/7/17)- A new hearing has been scheduled. See a quick alert here.

Original Article:

As a parent, can you imagine being in a situation where you trust a doctor to save your child's life but he betrays that trust and seeks legal permission to kill your child instead? That is the stuff of any parent's worst nightmare, yet it is the reality of Chris Gard' and Connie Yates' recent experience.

Eleven months ago Charlie Gard was born to the couple in London. Doctors quickly discovered that the newborn's brain was malformed, and he could not breathe on his own. These issues were caused by a rare genetic condition that the hospital has been treating Charlie for since his birth. The doctors recently concluded that no further treatment could be given to the Charlie without causing "significant harm," and their solution was to seek a court order granting them permission to end Charlie's life by denying all life support. The court did the unthinkable by granting the request. The devastated parents requested that instead of killing their baby boy, that they be permitted to have their son transported to the United States to undergo an experimental treatment that offered some hope. To make the situation worse, the court denied their request, so life support will be removed and Charlie's life will be taken by the very people trusted to save it. The full story may be found here.

As a parent, I cannot imagine the agony this couple is being forced to endure. Even merely thinking of such a nightmare coming true causes emotions to run wild: sorrow, anguish, anger, confusion. But these emotions are not merely feelings with no grounding in reality; these emotions are triggered by an innate understanding that violations of reality are taking place. What are those violations that spur such emotions?

Intrinsic human value is violated- Humans have intrinsic value, regardless of the level of development. Intrinsically valuable lives must be protected, also, regardless of the level of development.

Logic is violated- Just because the single medical facility does not have the resources to continue treatment does not mean that all other medical facilities lack the resources to continue treatment. The parents know of a facility in the US that could continue treatment, and they informed the court and explicitly requested they be allowed to transport their son. That is a most reasonable and logical request. The denial of the parent's request was based on the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. The court's ruling on the parents' request was unreasonable and illogical.

Ethics (Hypocratic oath) are violated- "I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery...I will prevent disease whenever I can but I will always look for a path to a cure for all diseases." I do not know if the doctors involved took the Hypocratic oath (or any modern version), but if they did, they are in clear violation of, at least, these two lines.

Trust is violated- If we trust doctors to do everything they can then refer to someone else once their resources are exhausted (based upon the three previous points), yet they violate that trust by instead seeking a court order to end the life of their patients, on what logical basis should we trust these doctors? Even if the doctors treating Charlie did not know of the experimental treatment at the time the order was requested, the moment they discovered it, they should have dropped their court request and sought resources to get Charlie to the new facility as soon as possible.

In order to not seek a different solution for Charlie (namely a different treatment), a denial of these violations is necessary. And there is only one way to deny that all these have been violated: to deny that they are features of reality, and to accomplish that one must deny the existence of God.

The United States of America was founded to escape this over-reaching of the government into our lives. In America we have enjoyed the benefits of a government that recognizes that people are created in the Image of their Creator, with certain unalienable rights. If we do not stand up and defend the truth of Christianity in the marketing place of ideas, this is what we can expect to come to become our reality, our kids' reality, our grandkids' reality; we and they can expect to lose the right to live at all. We will live in a world without reason, without trust, without life, and without God.

If you would like to go deeper into this and prepare yourself to defend our God-given rights, check out these more in depth posts and books:

Book Review: Come Let Us Reason

Introduction

It is necessary that Christians be able to think properly. As we discuss our worldview with unbelievers and present arguments for God's existence and the resurrection of Jesus Christ it is necessary that we present sound arguments. It is also necessary that we be able to properly identify mistakes in arguments for other views so that the unsaved will see that their view is actually false and they need to change it. I read "Come Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking" many years ago, and it helped me greatly with being able to order my thoughts and identify incorrect thinking. This has helped me tremendously as I "tear down arguments against the knowledge of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5) and "provide a reason for the hope that I have" (1 Peter 3:15). I recently read the book again to refresh my memory and to write this review. As usual, the review will provide a chapter-by-chapter summary of the book's contents and conclude with my thoughts about the book.

Introduction

In any discussion in which we are defending a particular view, we must present both a positive case and the negative case. The positive case shows the evidence for the view we are defending, while the negative case shows the problems with the alternative being presented. Both are necessary in the overall case. The negative case is necessary because the adherent of the other view needs a logical reason to abandon their view for an alternative. The positive case is necessary because if an adherent is provided a logical reason to abandon their view, the other view being presented may not be the only option. The way that a view is shown to be incorrect is that its claims are put to the test against reality and reason. If the claims are found to not reflect reality or they are not logical, then the view is false. However, the claims of a view can be of (at least) two different types that require a different approach. Today I want to discuss the differences in the assertions and the implications of a view or model. Understanding the differences will help us be more aware of how to properly address them in other views, and the understanding will also assist us in our formation and critique of our own views. This applies to worldviews, scientific models, philosophical theories, and really anything view that makes claims about reality, regardless of which area of reality it is.

Introduction

"Were you there?" When I was younger that is a question that I was taught to ask a naturalist when they tried to tell me that the universe was started by the big bang. Before I recognized the big bang as powerful evidence for the Creator (I vehemently rejected it as an atheistic theory), when presented with evidence for the big bang, I would respond by asking, "were you there to witness all those events you say happened...no?...I didn't think so, so how can you be so sure that God didn't create the universe like the Bible says?" I remember using this in several occasions in college and came across a couple students who turned the question around on me: "you weren't there either?...then how do you know it didn't happen as I described?" I realized that this was not a very good way to defend the idea that God created the universe (and the Christian worldview).

I have not seen this question used in quite some time as an apologetic strategy; however, it did come up last year in an article from the popular young-earth creationist organization, Answers in Genesis. The author proposed that the way the question was asked (similar to how I was taught) was unwise but that there is a proper way to use the question. Please read the original article here before you continue; I want you to be sure that in my critique, I am accurately representing the author.

Faith vs. Apologetics

Last week I read an article that I found to be quite disturbing. The title is "Christianity's New F-Word". In short the author takes issue with the current revival of Christian philosophy and apologetics- saying that Christians are so scared of being associated with "faith" that they succumb to the world's reason and methods. The author believes that instead of testing the truth of Christianity or historical reliability of the Bible, we should simply assume that they are true, and our faith will be more rewarding. I have many concerns with this article; however, I want to address just three of them today.

"Secular" Reason?
I have written many times about the coexistence of faith and reason (the most recent is "Is Faith Logical or Emotional?"), so I'm not going to rehash that information here. However, I would like to point out that the author undermines their own argument by implying that "secular" reason and methods can't be trusted. If we are to follow and understand the author's argument, we must first accept the basic laws of logic. If those are not reliable, then neither is any argument made that follows the rules of logical reasoning reliable.

So many people, both religious and non-religious, believe that faith is purely emotional, and in most contexts people imply the word "blind" before "faith". While few others believe that faith is logical- that it is firmly grounded on something. Lately, I've been reading the book "Emotional Intelligence" by psychologist Daniel Goleman and a few thoughts came to mind regarding this seeming dichotomy between faith being based on emotion versus being based on reason. Before I go into that connection or disconnection, though, I want to establish what I mean by "faith".

Faith in Time
I hear people all the time say that they "have faith". It seems to inspire them and those around them, but it often leaves me confused. Sure, someone can say that they "have faith". But when I hear this, I am compelled to ask a few questions:

"What do you have faith in?"
"What makes you believe that thing is worth placing your faith in it?"
"Why do you need to put 'faith' in something anyway?"

Double-Edged Sword of Authorities

We all like to cite and appeal to people who are well trained in the discipline that we are talking about. We also tend to denigrate arguments or claims of someone who is not trained in the area being discussed. The fact that someone has mastered a subject means that they are an extremely valuable resource that should not be dismissed, while someone who has not studied as in-depth, by necessity of the situation, does not have as much knowledge. It seems only logical to prefer the word of the person with the greater knowledge to the person with lesser knowledge.

All arguments consist of premises and conclusions. A proper authority is preferred when supporting the truth of a premise, but that does not mean that their logic is valid. If the logic is not valid, then the conclusion does not follow. Because of this, appealing to a proper authority does not guarantee that the conclusion follows. So, even though appealing to an authority is helpful, it is not sufficient. It is in this case that someone with lesser knowledge, but good reasoning may have an advantage, but not necessarily. More knowledge could still be used to demonstrate that the conclusion is over-stated.

Appealing to "proper" authorities when making an argument requires more than just someone who can support the truth of the premises. There should also be an appeal to someone who can support the logic of the argument. Interestingly, most of us support our premises with citations, but we rarely support our logic by citing proper authorities on reasoning.

But just as citing an authority to support a premise does not necessitate the truth of the premise, neither does citing an authority to support our logic make the conclusion necessarily follow. This brings up the reason that we all need to make sure that we understand proper reasoning. We have to be able to accurately assess arguments and determine if the conclusions actually do follow. A great introductory resource that I recommend is Norman Geisler's Come, Let Us Reason. Its not too long and is easy for the beginner. All apologists should be familiar with this resource as it may be one that they can recommend to help people understand and evaluate the logic of the arguments presented to them. .

Many great resources regarding proper reasoning and logic can be found at Apologetics 315.

More posts regarding appeals to authorities:
Do You Rely Upon Authorities?
Peer-Reviewed Only, Please

Questions That Are Off-Limits- Part 2

Last week we looked at questions that atheists tend to shy away from for whatever reason, and we looked at questions that are truly off-limits to those in an atheistic world. Today, we will see if Christianity has any such questions.

What is Off Limits In The Church?

One of the great advantages of Christianity over atheism is that the questions that are off limits in atheism are central to Christianity- God exists and He does have a purpose for all the pain and suffering that we experience. But does Christianity have its own questions that it says are off limits that may cause the worldview to implode?

The Culture of "Questions Not Allowed"

Around the age of 12 or 13, I discovered that my asking questions was quite annoying to many people. Generally, people didn't mind my asking a couple basic questions here and there. But when I started asking a lot of questions, or my questions began to point out a real issue between two of their claims, their demeanor changed. I noticed this especially in church. People didn't mind my asking some basic questions about Christianity, but when I started getting into deeper theology, they ran. Some rebuked the questioning. This gave me a very sour feeling around many fellow Christians as if asking tough questions about what we believed was off limits. This was one of the reasons that I drifted away from the Church. My thoughts were these: if Christianity is true, why are Christians so afraid of being challenged? Christianity was for the intellectually weak and emotionally driven.

When a Strawman Becomes A Red Herring

A couple weeks ago I wrote a post that makes the distinction between the logical implications of a view and what the adherent actually believes. The implications necessarily follow, but the person's beliefs do not necessarily follow. I pointed out that it is important when critiquing a view that if an adherent does not believe the implications, we should make that clear- we are critiquing the logical consistency of the worldview, not what the person believes. I explained that if this distinction is not made clear, the adherent to the worldview will likely see this as a strawman of their view and dismiss the critique as not applying.

When this distinction is not made clear, the adherent may focus on the proposed implications- the accusation of the commission of the strawman fallacy. Ironically, if the person offering the critique of the view makes the distinction clear, then the adherent is actually maintaining the strawman- they are claiming that the person critiquing the view is attributing the implications to the adherent even though they make it clear that they are not.

Introduction
A couple weeks ago, I addressed an argument that I heard being used as evidence against theism and against my view of the age of the universe (you can read it here). I received a message that I was offering a strawman of the opposing view. While in discussion, I realized that it was probably a good idea to go into some more detail about properly identifying when someone is arguing against a strawman. It applies, not just to that particular conversation, but to all discussions of defenders of any worldview.

I have posted in the past about the importance of avoiding the strawman argument. Unless I take that seriously and address accusations that I have presented a strawman, that post is quite hollow. I will be using parts of that initial message as an example in this post, but the specific challenge is not the focus of this post, so if you wish to challenge the specifics, please post the comments on the other post.

The accusation of a strawman proposed that I was applying a specific heretical view of Christianity to an entire view within the Christian Church (young-earth creationism [YEC]). I've been in conversations with the this person in the past, and I suspected that he knew that I wasn't applying it to all YEC adherents, but he wasn't sure how to express where he sensed a strawman. Of course, my sense could be wrong; but nevertheless, I identified four different areas where a strawman could be offered in a description/critique of a worldview that we all should be familiar with when composing our own arguments/material and consuming others' arguments/material:

Lately I've been having a lot of discussions with fellow Christians about different ideas. Typically we're are on different sides of the debate and are trying to come to either an agreement, compromise, or understanding. One of the things that I have noticed all too often (I wouldn't worry about a couple times) from too many people and from the same people after I've pointed it out, is that they will offer a challenge that does not even apply to my view. Last week I discussed "zombie" topics in Christianity. One of the identifiers of a zombie (person) is that they continue to argue against "strawmen".

"Um, that's not what I believe."
The strawman is a slight (or not so slight) variation of an argument or position that is easier to defeat than the real argument or position. This is a fallacious way to argue because it does not actually address the challenge at hand. Its power comes by the fact that the nuances of the incorrect argument or position can be so close to the actual one that those listening may not recognize the difference, and believe that the actual challenge has been addressed and defeated when, in fact, it has not been addressed, much less defeated.

"I believe that anyone sincerely seeking Truth is going to find it. The problem is, most people are not looking for Truth, they are looking for evidence to support their assumptions. It takes a lot of humility to actually pursue Truth sincerely."- Rachel Oja*

In so many of my interactions with people, I have found that they have already made a commitment one way or the other to certain worldviews and are looking for intellectual reasons to either maintain that commitment, be public about the commitment or escape another commitment. I know people who are ready to accept any worldview except for X and others who are committed to accepting any form of worldview Y. Some are currently in worldview Z but are looking for intellectual reasons to either remain in or to get out.

I have found that Christianity is not immune to this observation. Some people are looking to get in but need intellectual reasons, while other are looking to get out but need intellectual reasons. I have seen people leave Christianity because someone asked them "well, who created God?". I have seen people come to Christianity for "fire insurance". Neither of those being logical reasons.

Not too long ago I was discussing naturalistic evolution with an atheist. After a while of being unable to convince me of its truth, he told me that if I understood it, I would believe it. And further that since I didn't believe it or understand it, that any arguments I offered would be strawmen, and he didn't have to respond to them. I let the discussion rest at that point. Not because I saw the problem with what he was saying, but more because I was caught "off guard" and saw that he had actually come to that conclusion before we even began the conversation.

I wasn't too worried about it at the time, but I've come across similar claims from those who don't agree with me on other things as well. So I'm going to take a few minutes to put together a response for such claims.

Have you ever played the electronic game 20 Questions? If you haven't, this is what it is: You think of an object and the computer will ask you "yes/no" questions until it narrows down what you are thinking about. If you answer 20 questions, and it can't figure out what you're thinking about, you win. I've tried it a few times, and I've been able to stump it a couple. :) What the computer does is ask questions to get answers. It uses these answers as premises in an argument. Let's say that I'm thinking of something. It asks me if it is an animal; I tell it "yes". It asks me if it is fury; I say "no". It asks me if it is black; I say "no". If it asked only these three questions, and told me that me that I was thinking of a frog, it would be wrong (I'm thinking of a lizard). A frog does match the answers that I gave (the premises of the argument), but it does not match exclusively. The conclusion that the only thing that I could possibly be thinking about is a frog, is an overstated conclusion.