Elon Musk Finally Buys Twitter- Is Truth Now In Jeopardy?

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. 

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. 

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

• 4 Questions to Ask Before You Hit SEND
• 8 Tips to Discuss Politics, Race, Religion, and Other Controversial Topics
• Should Christians Abandon Social Media?
• Finding Common Ground In A Time of Stark Division
• 52 Quotes on the Crisis of Truth Today's Truth
• 45 Quotes About Relativism and Truth
• 10 Quotes on Logic and Christianity
• Before You Hit Send: Preventing Headache and Heartache
• Time for Truth: Living In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
• Come, Let Us Reason

Finding Common Ground In A Time of Stark Division

"While we all want to believe that we are committed to truth rather than a narrative, our actions in conversation—how we mistreat evidence, mischaracterize opposing views and arguments, and attack the challenger rather than the challenge—often tell a different story."- Luke Nix

The Importance of Recognizing Common Ground

In these times of stark division, it is important that we not allow our disagreements to ultimately result in the destruction of our unity as a society, culture, and Church. There is nothing wrong with a society having a diversity of ideas, as long as those ideas are discussed and debated respectfully. When the wrong ideas are identified, such a respectful dialog can result in the dismissal of false ideas and the acceptance of true ideas. This is progress. Progress towards the objective goal of a society that has and lives according to the view of reality as it actually is and not some delusion. 

However, many times discussion is stifled because we do not recognize common ground with those in which we disagree. When we possess and recognize common ground, we have a connection to maintain a healthy relationship when we have stark disagreements and rigorously debate which view (if either) accurately reflect reality. Today I want to point out six different things that we all hold in common that, if recognized by even one side, can help keep relationships healthy despite disagreements. 

8 Tips to Discuss Politics, Race, Religion and Other Controversial Topics

Who has not been exposed to or may be even involved in discussions of controversial topics these days? 

It seems that talk of politics, race, religion, and a whole host of other controversial topics are swirling around us everywhere we go. Some topics we can ignore and avoid, and others we get sucked into. Some discussions we get reluctantly and others we get into too eagerly. There are numerous pitfalls to having these discussions that we all want to avoid, so today I want to offer eight tips for discussing controversial topics that will hopefully help your discussions be more productive and respectful. Being that the USA is in an election year (2020), politics seems to be on everyone's mind, so let's start with this quote from a book that I reviewed a few years ago entitled "Before You Hit SEND: Avoiding Headache and Heartache" by Emerson Eggerichs to set the stage:

"Some people enter politics because they derive personal fulfillment from the 'gotcha' approach to issues. It isn't about what is true but about the political chess game. The key is to put a better spin on a matter than the other candidate and to put the opposition in checkmate...In political circles the rule of thumb is never admit a mistake or that you don't know something. Thus, keep talking in an interview to sound like an expert, all the while aware that you don't know. Feeling on the hot seat, and determined never to be wrong, but fully cognizant that the information is insufficient or incorrect, keep moving your lips, weaving and ducking as best as your polemical skills permit."

If this sounds all too familiar to you and you're tired of it, keep on reading!

Do Humans Have Intrinsic Value?

Introduction

Whether humans possess intrinsic value or instrumental value is a debate that often runs parallel to discussions about the true worldview. This debate also often fuels the passion behind worldview discussions because it has implications for ethics and morality, which are directly tied to how people ought to live and how people ought to hold each other responsible to those expectations. Such accountability can take a range of forms from personal and private conversations to legal and very public repercussions. And because one's politics are an extension of their ethics, the passion associated with politics is also added to the mix.

Because all the emotions that accompany ethical and political discussions can easily cloud the issue, it is important that it is approached more objectively and philosophically, if we are to have a calm and reasonable discussion. Today, I want to take a few minutes to examine the philosophical implications and examine some scientific evidence for one side to assist with bringing calm to this important debate.

Intrinsic Value

If humans are intrinsically valuable, then there are a set of objective (and even absolute) duties that cannot be violated. This view holds that humans possess objective value regardless of their situation, condition, social or economic status, skin color, sex, location, beliefs, or any host of other characteristics that people try to judge others' value. This allows for objective condemnation and consequences of particular choices and behaviors, which many people do not appreciate, especially if they are accused of committing the atrocities. This view also makes even government and governmental officials responsible to the greater reality of this moral law, which justifies political reform- something that certain rulers and politicians do not appreciate.

Instrumental Value

On the other hand, if humans are merely instrumentally valuable, then treatment of them (regardless of the particular treatment- including murder, rape, torture, or any host of traditionally unthinkable treatments) can only be judged based on their utility towards a particular goal. This view permits the affirmation of the "goodness" of even the most egregious behaviors if a "greater" goal is in view. This view allows for anyone to be able to justify any behavior if they can make their goal sound good or acceptable. There is no objective standard by which to judge the morality of a behavior, only to judge its utility. There is also no objective standard by which to judge a particular goal. Since the goal is subjective, so is the behavior, and no moral judgement is actually permitted. This ultimately reduces to "might makes right:" whoever holds the power to punish holds the power to dictate what is "right" and what is "wrong." Political reform has not justification other than a differing opinion of someone who may be able to challenge the power of those currently in power. If one holds to this view, they often confuse legality with morality.

The Christian worldview traditionally has held that humans possess intrinsic value in virtue of being created in the Image of God. If this is true, then the first set of implications described above are features of reality that all humans are subject to. Any worldview that cannot justify intrinsic human value is left with the second set of implications described. And, by necessary logical implication, if one wishes to appeal to intrinsic human value, they must justify that appeal by grounding intrinsic human value outside the human race.

Origins Of The Image of God

If humans have intrinsic value, it had to come from somewhere (or Someone) outside of the human race. Otherwise, the value that is ascribed to humans is merely subjective and instrumental. As I have described in a previous post (Why Is The Image of God So Important), this discussion is tied to one's view of human origins. If someone wishes to appeal to intrinsic human value, they must accept some type of connection between humans and an eternally existing, absolute reality that is outside of (and is not) this universe. The only thing that fits this description is the Creator God of the Bible.

In order to argue for the intrinsic value of humans, Dr. Fazale Rana offers several lines of evidence for the sudden appearance of the Image of God in life's history (which happens to coincide with the sudden appearance of humans on the scene). He calls this sudden appearance a "cultural big bang":

These pieces of evidence include:

1. Advanced cognitive ability
2. The capacity for symbolic thought
3. A powerful imagination
4. Superior craftsmanship
5. Inventiveness and superior adaptability
6. A driving desire for artistic and musical expression

He goes into great detail about the anthropological discoveries of scientists over the years in his book "Who Was Adam." In the third section of the book, he addresses modern challenges to his conclusions and brings in the latest discoveries over the past decade. The cumulative, scientific case presented in the book for the Image of God coinciding with the appearance of the human race, by extension, is a powerful evidential case for humans possessing intrinsic value.

Conclusion

It is vital to a proper theory of ethics (and even politics) that we know whether humans possess intrinsic value or not. Ultimately, if humans are created in the Image of God, as argued by Dr. Rana, then the idea that humans possess intrinsic value accurately describes the reality of our species. If humans are intrinsically valuable, that serves as the foundation for how we ought to treat one another (ethics) and that further guides how we should govern one another. If humans are not created in the Image of God (do not possess intrinsic value), then all sorts of heinous treatment of them are permissible even by those who wield the most power (governments and politicians).

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

 

For more on the topic of the evidence for the Image of God and its implications, see these posts and books:

• Why Must Christians Appeal to Science In Arguing Against Abortion?
• Why Is The Image of God So Important?
• Book Review: The Magna Carta of Humanity
• Book Review: Who Was Adam
• Book Review: Christian Ethics: Issues and Options
• Book Review: Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible

4 Questions to Ask Before You Hit SEND

"My dearly loved brothers, understand this: Everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger, for man’s anger does not accomplish God’s righteousness."

- James 1:19-20 (HCSB)

Introduction

As someone who loves to engage people in deep worldview conversations and steer unbelievers towards the truth of Christianity, my ability to communicate is vital. Whether I am conversing in person or commenting on a post on social media, it is important that the words I speak or write glorify God and work towards the end of bringing more people to the Truth. In 2018 I read and reviewed an important book that helps the reader to accomplish this goal. Communication expert Dr. Emerson Eggerichs (known for Love and Respect) published his book on general communication, called "Before You Hit Send: Preventing Headache and Heartache" to challenge his audience to exercise wisdom and discernment before "hitting send" on their communications to others- whether verbal or written. Because of the insight offered throughout the book, it was included in my Top 5 Recommended Books for Productive Conversations. Eggerichs encourages people to ask four questions of what they are preparing to say or write to ensure that the words will accomplish the goal of the speaker or writer. Today, I am going to highlight those four questions and their importance for the Christian apologist. 

Is It True?

Because the Christian worldview is true and people's eternal destinies depend upon their recognition of this truth, ensuring that as we defend the truth of Christianity we also speak truthfully about other matters is of utmost importance. It is natural for us to doubt someone's truthfulness when they speak something false. I have written many times about the importance of apologists' studying and defending non-essential doctrines, and in those posts, I emphasize this very concern of unbelievers.

For instance, many people have issues with origins and the Bible, and while not all aspects of origins are essential issues, it is important that the apologist be able to speak truthfully on the origins issue. If we speak falsely and the person knows that we are speaking falsely (whether we mean to or not), then we give them a good reason to doubt our trustworthiness when it comes to the more important matter of the Resurrection of Jesus.

Is It Kind?

One of the big issues that I see with Christians, especially on social media and when discussing hot-button issues such as origins, is the unkind attitude with which the Gospel is presented. While we defend the truth, we cannot defend it with contempt for the person we are presenting it to. They are created in the Image of God and are worthy of our love, respect, and kindness no matter what they have done or how frustrated they make us. If we truly wish for them to repent from their sins, accept Christ's sacrifice, and live with us for eternity, would we not want to present the truth in the most kind and loving way so as to encourage them to accept the truth we speak?

Unlike what many think about speaking kindly, it does not require that we speak untruthfully. "True" describes the content; "kind" describes the attitude with which content is presented. If we present true content unkindly, we do damage to the truth by making it appear repulsive.

Is It Necessary?

The necessity of what we speak has two sides. The first is that we must speak what is necessary, and the second is that we must refrain from speaking what is unnecessary. Many Christians refrain from speaking what is necessary because they are fearful that they are not equipped to defend what they believe. They know that the time is right and that it is necessary to say something. They want to defend the truth of the Resurrection and the Christian worldview, and they know that they need to. Doing so is necessary in many of our conversations with friends, family, and coworkers. This is why studying the defense of the Christian worldview (asking the question "Is It True"- apologetics) is important for all Christians.

The second side is that we also tend to speak unnecessarily. For instance (I have to really watch out for this one), if an unbeliever is not struggling with science/faith issues, then bringing up the whole creation/evolution debate is unnecessary and may actually introduce a stumbling block for the unbeliever. No Christian ever wants to introduce more reasons for an unbeliever to reject (or even delay accepting) Christ. We need to listen carefully to the unbeliever's concerns and address those with truth and kindness and do our best to not bring more unnecessary matters into the decision-making process. This is not to say that these issues are not important; they are; but that particular conversation may not be the time to discuss them with a particular person. If the person brings up a non-essential matter, then it is now necessary to address, and we need to be prepared to do so or to refer them to a resource that can address it (all the while reminding them that it is not an essential issue and not a reason to reject Christ).

Is It Clear?

While everything that we speak can be true, kind, and necessary, we may still fail in our communication by not communicating it clearly. Many Christian apologists are familiar with the work of Greg Koukl. In his book "Tactics: A Game Plan For Discussing Your Christian Convictions" he encourages Christians to engage in conversations by asking questions. When we ask ourselves "Is It Clear?" we are essentially taking Koukl's questions and asking them of ourselves: "What do I mean by that?" and "How did I come to that conclusion?" When we answer these questions for ourselves, we are more likely to be able to clearly communicate to others.

We must also not resist if others ask the "Columbo" questions of us. If the questions are asked, it is because we are not speaking clearly enough for a good understanding. In this situation, it should not frustrate us to have to clarify, it should excite us that the person values what we say enough to ask for clarification. When we are given the opportunity to clarify, we are given the opportunity to get the unbeliever intellectually (and many times, emotionally and spiritually) closer to accepting Christ.

Conclusion

As evangelists (Matthew 28:19) and defenders (1 Peter 3:15) of Christianity, it is vital to our purpose to be able and willing to communicate the Gospel in the most effective way possible. And in today's culture, stopping to think carefully about what we say or write is not necessarily encouraged. However, that is what is necessary to be successful ambassadors for Christ. I encourage you to pick up a copy of "Before You Hit Send" and make the decision to consciously exercise the advice provided within it pages, for the benefit of Christ's Kingdom.

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

 

Should Christians Abandon Social Media?

Introduction

With all of the recent news of various social media platforms purposefully hiding and censoring Christian and politically conservative content in the name of "diversity" and "tolerance," many people have abandoned Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and other popular social media outlets in protest. While I have been tempted to do the same, because of their relative popularity (compared to more traditional communication media), I do believe that if we abandon these platforms, we will not only limit our audience but encourage the behavior of limiting reasonable content to and stifling intellectual discussion among the users of these platforms. The new generation of consumers prefers social media for their news, media consumption and discussion of various issues, so it cannot be abandoned by those who hold and can defend the truth with gentleness and respect.

The Liberal View of "Tolerance" and "Diversity"

I recently heard Candace Owens interview Lauren Chen about the modern liberal view of "tolerance" and "diversity." They discuss the deliberate attempt to remove even the slightest (appearance of) disagreement from the public square. This attempted removal is targeting the internet and specifically social media. If you are considering leaving popular social media platforms (or already have), I encourage you to listen to this discussion in full and consider that removing your voice of reason from today's public squares may do more harm than good:

Christians Should Master The Media

The new culture primarily consumes image-driven messages, and social media is the primary avenue to get images before this audience. In his book "Cold Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates The Claims of the Gospels," J. Warner Wallace encourages Christians to not just embrace new media but to master them. Christians must master the content itself, the presentation of the content, and the delivery mechanisms for the content.

Conclusion

Rather than abandoning popular social media channels, we should embrace them and utilize them to their fullest potential! If a challenge arises that limits our reach, it is not to be met with surrender, but with enthusiasm to reach the goal despite the challenges. I have written several posts and reviewed several books on the importance of discussing political and moral issues in a compassionate yet intellectual manner. I encourage you to read the posts and purchase the recommended books to equip you to "always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that you have...with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15):

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

    

Posts:

• 8 Tips to Discuss Politics, Race, Religion, and Other Controversial Topics
• How Should Christians Vote In Political Elections?
• Would Jesus Participate in Politics?
• What Is The Intellectual Cost Of The Pro-Choice Position?
• SCOTUS' Decision on Gay Marriage: A Philosophical Critique

Quotes:

• 25 Quotes on Tolerance
• 52 Quotes On The Crisis of Truth In Today's Culture
• Norm Geisler and Frank Turek: Legislating Tolerance
• Gentleness and Respect In Debate and Discussion

Books:

• Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible
• Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
• Before You Hit SEND
• The Beauty of Intolerance: Freeing A Generation To Know Truth and Love
• The Case for Life
• Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes A Case For A More Reasonable Evidence Christian Faith
• Top 5 Recommended Books on Ethics and Politics
• Top 5 Recommended Books on Having Productive Conversations

Gentleness and Respect in Debate and Discussion

 Gentleness and Respect in Debate and Discussion- Introduction

As a defender of the Christian worldview, I get involved in many discussions with skeptics. These discussions often not only touch on the existence of God, but on the problem of evil, the nature of man, and ethics, which all overlap into politics during certain years. As many have experienced first hand, these discussions often get heated. There is a temptation that is difficult to avoid in these situations, but it must be resisted.

The Temptation

The temptation to become defensive in our attitude (especially when the other person already is) is not easy to avoid. Sometimes we permit ourselves some freedom in our rhetorical force combined with our aggressive posture, and before we know it, those freedoms have produced sarcasm, disrespect, belligerence, or dismissiveness. Many times justified as "passion."

While there is nothing wrong about being passionate about the truth and justifying its belief, we must always be careful that we articulate our points "with gentleness and respect." Christians are urged in scripture to do so (1 Peter 3:15b). But this is not merely an arbitrary command, it has real-world negative effects. 

If we do not present the truth in love, then people are less likely to accept it. And if we present the truth in a snide or condescending way, then people are likely to project that condescension onto the truth and be repulsed by it.  

There are two parties negatively affected by the uncontrolled rhetoric and posture: the defender and the skeptic. The defender is demonstrating the evidences that justify belief in Jesus Christ, yet he does so in a very unloving and unChrist-like way. This creates a contradiction in the defender's life: his actions do not seem to match what he professes. This walking contradiction causes the defender to lose credibility.

Hypocrisy in the Church is one of the big stumbling blocks to skeptics. When skeptics see a contradiction in a worldview, they know intuitively that they must question its truthfulness. And if the contradiction includes poor attitudes (as this particular one does), it makes that worldview appear less deserving of consideration and a commitment even if it is true.

Been There, Done That

So what can we do about this? For anyone who is constantly on the lookout for opportunities to share and defend the truth of the Gospel and the whole of the Christian worldview (that should be all of us), we always need to be in prayer that we will remain conscious of our level of rhetoric and postures. When we engage, we need to focus on the concerns of the person asking the questions. This will allow us to address the issue with truth but do so in a way that connects personally with the person. If (when) we find that we have crossed the line of passion into belligerence, we must backtrack- ask the person's forgiveness and permission to start over, reminding ourselves of something. I like the way that Greg Koukl puts it in his book "Tactics: A Gameplan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions":

"Being defensive and belligerent always looks weak. Instead, stay focused on the issues, not on the attitude."

Conclusion

Love, gentleness, humility, and respect in our discussions will go a long way. Whether we are discussing the truth of the Christian worldview with a skeptic, discussing theology, debating politics, or whatever, if these are not present we have no reason to expect our message to be persuasive. We can compromise neither truth nor character. We claim that Christ can transform lives; we need to allow Him to transform ours so we can be His hands and feet that people can see, hear, and touch in this physical world.

12 Quotes From Greg Koukl on Theological Discussions

"Loving God with the mind is not a passive process. It is not enough to have sentimental religious thoughts. Rather, it involves coming to conclusions about God and his world based on revelation, observation, and careful reflection...This is not rationalism, a kind of idolatry of the mind that places man's thinking at the center of the universe. Rather, it's the proper use of one of the faculties God has given us to understand him and the world he has made."

"In order to understand the truth of the Bible accurately, our mental faculties must be intact and we must use them as God intended."

"The Bible is first in terms of authority, but something else if first in terms of the order of knowing. We cannot grasp the authoritative teaching God's Word unless we use our minds properly. Therefore the mind, not the Bible, is the very first line of defense God has given us against error."

"A commitment to truth -- as opposed to a commitment to an organization -- means an openness to refining one's own views. It means increasing the accuracy of one's understanding and being open to correction in thinking. A challenger might turn out to be a blessing in disguise, an ally instead of an enemy. An evangelist who is convinced of her view, then, should be willing to engage the best arguments against it."

Pride in Discourse

Introduction

Those who have followed Faithful Thinkers for quite some time know that I not only defend the truth of the Christian worldview in general, but I also defend a specific view on creation (my reasons for defending specifics are detailed here and here). I have also entered into discussions on the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's free will and have passed by a few on various other topics that are debated within the Christian worldview. As with anyone who has watched these discussions for very long, I cannot help but observe that in every one of these debates (and on all sides of the debates) are people who lack humility in their discussions. They act as if they have infallibly interpreted the Scriptures and nature and have arguments that are completely fallacy-free (though, ironically, their fallacies are easy to spot). Many even have the tenacity to proclaim damnation on those Christians who disagree with them.

The Difference Between An Attack and A Critique

"Someone's Wrong On The Internet!"

As I have defended the Christian faith against challenges on Facebook, I have come across several posts in various discussion groups that I feel need to be addressed. I have seen these posts in Christian groups that debate different theological positions and in general debate groups that discuss worldviews. I have also seen these from those who agree with me and disagree with me on various issues. So, please do not think that this is aimed only at those with whom I disagree; there are plenty who agree with me who have posted these also.

The Posts

Generally, the posts are targeted towards a specific "side" in the group. They are often written in the language of a "locker room pep talk" to the members of the team. Usually, the posts call out everyone who disagrees with them as attacking them through ridicule. These posts rarely differentiate between those who disagree with them regarding the general worldview and those who disagree in the details of the same general worldview. They encourage the teammates to "keep up the good fight" and offer some kind of existential or eternal "reward" for sticking to their belief. Some of the more rhetorical posts even go so far as to present an eternal threat to those who disagree.

Convenient Explanations

A Convenient Explanation Offered
As a defender of Christianity I want to be sure that I am engaging with the most powerful evidence for opposing worldviews. Engaging with weak evidence tends to show that I am unaware of the more powerful evidence or simply cannot answer the more powerful evidence- both of which often would result in my arguing against a straw man. In so many of my discussions with fellow Christians about different worldviews I like to play "devil's advocate." This is my effort to inform them of the stronger evidence for opposing worldviews and give them some pointers for responding to what skeptics will use to show their worldview as true.

The other day I was in discussion with several friends about naturalism. We were discussing some of the weaknesses of the view from a scientific perspective. One person confidently offered a challenge and explained that there was no way for naturalism to explain the observations he cited. Now, I'm no supporter of naturalism; however, I explained to him how a naturalist could not only explain the observations, but that their models even predict the observation he cited. His response was a dismissive, "well, how convenient."

Internal Debates and Twisting Scripture

Debates Within The Church

A little over a month ago I wrote about the importance of internal debates to the apologist. To sum it up in one sentence: Internal debates are necessary for the apologist to engage in, so that when they present a case for the truth of Christianity, they are not defending something false that could be used as a defeater for their conclusion of Christianity's truth.

As an apologist, I not only defend the truth of the Christian worldview, but I also defend specific views within the Christian worldview. In many of my interactions, it often comes out that I defend the truth of a view that is not very popular. Sometimes I take a stand against a doctrine that has been held traditionally but, I contend, is false. I receive much resistance and am forced to defend the doctrine scripturally, philosophically, and scientifically (not that I mind that at all). Many Christians are involved in these debates (whether apologists or not). I've written on several occasions about the danger of being emotionally committed to a doctrine that is shown to be false, but today I'd like to look at a more sincere and valid concern that people have when a traditional view is challenged.

Opinion vs. Truth-Claim

This post is more of an addendum to my post "Positive vs. Negative Arguments". Please read that post first.

Opinions reflect feelings and may or may not be true. If one claims that their thoughts are simply "opinions" (not claiming to actually be truth- even though it might be) then they have no responsibility to provide a reasoned defense of the position.

🤔 Positive Arguments vs. Negative Arguments?

Introduction
It seems like everywhere I go, people want to point out what's wrong with the opposition's arguments. It does not matter if we are talking about political views, religious views, or any other view that is tied to a deep conviction. So many people focus so tightly on the opposition that they forget about their own point of view. This is not a very good strategy. The reason I say this is for one simple reason. Let's say you have a plan to accomplish something, and one of your teammates expresses great dissatisfaction with your plan and even provides every reason in the world not to use it. It would come natural to you to ask if your teammate had a better plan. If no other plan was proposed, then the team would have to stick with the original, no matter how many flaws it had.

Positive and Negative Arguments
A Positive Argument is an argument for your particular position. A Negative Argument is an argument against an opposing position. Both are necessary if we wish to convince someone that our view is to accept at the expense of their current understanding. I must point out that I am not about to defend a reason for only using positive arguments. The fact is that the negative arguments have their important place. They are used to convince your opposition that their idea is not as solid as they might believe. Depending on the person, and depending on how many holes are poked in the opposing idea, the person may be open to an alternative idea- your's, but only if you can show why it is superior to the original and does not suffer from the same problems (or create new ones) that the opposing idea had.

Too Much Hostility
Of course, making negative arguments should never be abused. A person can only take so much negative information about their point of view before they start to believe you are not just attacking their point of view, but attacking them. Even though you may not intentionally make a personal attack, it may be perceived as one. You can recognize when they are starting to think this by their body language, before they say anything that would indicate it. If you don't notice this and continue with your negative argument, the person may "tune" you out and not "hear" anything else you have to say (this includes your positive argument). If you do notice the "offended" body language, ask them to provide a positive argument for their view. By doing that, you reinforce that you respect their view, and open doors to provide a positive argument for your point of view later in the conversation.

Establishing Common Ground
Providing a positive argument is what can ultimately convince someone to your point of view. Before you can do this, though, you need to investigate your point of view as deeply as you can. I like to start my positive argument by establishing some common ground. If there is no common ground then there will be nothing to build upon. If you decide to appeal to someone or something that you believe is an authority, make sure that the opposition recognizes your authority as you do. It makes no sense to appeal to something or someone they don't believe to be an authority. It also helps to use sources that may not be totally on your side, but do allow for your point of view as a possibility- this will let your opposition know that others with opposing points of view, at least, recognize the possibility that your point of view may be true. Defining sources is a great way to establish common ground.

Once common ground has been established, you can start making claims and backing them up with evidence. I would make sure to appeal specifically to things that the person would understand. If you are not sure what all they may understand, ask them about their interests, especially when they were in college. It does you no good to appeal to astronomy if the person is a paleontologist. It also does little good to appeal to the Bible if the person is not a Christian. Evidence based on unfamiliar disciplines can come in later, but should not be introduced immediately.

The Lack of Common Ground
The danger in introducing evidence of a foreign nature is that the person will not understand why an argument is powerful or not. They will not know what questions to ask in order to understand the argument better. This may also cause a person to think that you are trying to talk down to them (unfamiliar technical terms), or elevate yourself over them. If you are unsure how a person will react to evidence from a certain discipline, ask them if they've considered the evidence from that discipline. If not, and they don't show interest in it, don't introduce it.

Be A Listener and Provide Answers
Of course, part of giving a positive argument is listening to and answering questions. You can expect many questions for two reasons: first, the person is skeptical of your argument and second, the person is unfamiliar with the evidence you have provided. If the person bombards you with many questions at one time, ask them to select one to focus on for the moment. Assure them that when you have answered their question to their satisfaction or when you determine that you need to do more research later, you will tackle the next. Don't try to answer too many questions at the same time. If you do, you and the other person may lose focus of a specific issue. This is extremely frustrating to the person if they are unfamiliar with the evidence you are providing.

The same Q&A technique goes the same for both sides. When you are providing a negative argument, don't bombard them with too many questions. Allow them to answer one question, then ask the next.

Conclusion- It Goes Both Ways
Something very important to remember is that which ever strategy you are using will be the opposite of what the other person is using (if you provide a positive argument for your view, they will present a negative argument against your view). A conversation will typically flip back and forth many times. The key to keep the conversation constructive is to treat the other view exactly how you expect your view to be treated.

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

 

For More Please See:

• Opinions vs. Truth Claims
• Evidence For vs. Proof Of
• The Power of the Cumulative Case
• Is Consistency Important
• Consistency Among Disciplines
• Providing Alternative Explanations
• Avoid Over-Stating Your Case
• Convenient Explanations
• Reasons In And Out Of A Worldview