Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (29 page)

6
.    The professor has made what is known as a
category error.
This mistake is made when trying to assign a certain quality or action to something that does not properly belong to that category of things. If I were to ask, "How much do your thoughts weigh?" or "What does the color yellow sound like?" I would be guilty of this error.

7.
   The term
a priori
refers to that which is known before, or "prior to," a process of discovery, in particular, discovery by sense experience. It is often used to describe philosophical commitments that are brought to the table as defining elements of a debate before other relevant evidence is considered. These commitments determine how the evidence will be viewed or whether it will be considered at all.
A priori
is contrasted to
a posteriori,
that which is known
after
looking at the evidence of sense experience. The deliverances of science can properly be based only on
a posteriori
evidence, not on
a priori
assumptions.

8
.    The phrase
non sequitur
literally means "it does not follow." It describes a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it, a conclusion that does not follow from any earlier statements or evidence. To claim that the Gospels are unreliable because they were written by Christians is a non sequitur. It does not follow that simply because the Gospel writers were
disciples
of Christ they distorted their descriptions of him. In fact, just the opposite might be argued. Those who were closest to Jesus were in the best position to give an accurate record of the details of his life. This is not a non sequitur, but a reasonable conclusion.

9
.    C. S. Lewis opens with this argument in
Mere Christianity,
his fine introduction to the Christian faith. I develop this idea in more detail in
chapter 6.

10
. Of course, I'm not suggesting we never take a strong stand, only that as a tactical consideration, we present our views in a way that keeps our options open. Since our own understanding of truth is fallible, it is wise not to press our point beyond what our evidence allows. This is appropriate epistemic humility.

CHAPTER 6: PERFECTING COLUMBO

1
. I call this approach to abortion "Only One Question" because answering a single question about abortion is the key to cutting the
Gord-ian
knot on this controversial issue. Here is that question: What is the unborn? As I have argued elsewhere (e.g., in
Precious Unborn Human Persons),
if the unborn is not a human being, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human being, no justification for elective abortion is adequate, because we do not take the lives of valuable human beings for the reasons people give to justify their abortions. My theoretical question to the actor's wife trades on that strategy.

CHAPTER 7: SUICIDE: VIEWS THAT SELF-DESTRUCT

1
.    I heard this line from my friend, philosopher David Horner.

2
.    More precisely, "A" cannot be "non-A" at the same time, in the same way or, in Aristotle's words, "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."

3
.    This quip came from my clever friend Frank Beckwith.

4
.    These last three are memorable
malaprops
of Yogi Berra.

5
.    The argument fails, though, as many have shown. There is no inherent contradiction between God's goodness and power and the existence of evil.

6
.    This is not a meaningful limitation on the Divine, however. God's omnipotence ensures that he can do anything power is capable of doing. Yet no amount of power can make a square circle. It would be a limit, though, if God's rational nature were compromised by contradiction.

7.
   According to postmodern thinking, truth does not exist in the sense most of us use the word. There are no claims about the way the world really is that we can know to be accurate. Instead, there are many socially constructed accounts of reality, and each one is literally "true" for those who believe it.

8
.    C. S. Lewis,
God in the Dock
(Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans
, 1970), 272.

9
.    Empiricism, the claim that knowledge is restricted to that which can be perceived by the senses, self-destructs in the same way. The truth of empiricism itself cannot be perceived with the senses.

CHAPTER 8: PRACTICAL SUICIDE

1
.    For the full transcript, see "A Conversation with Lee" at
www.str.org
. It's a delightful lesson in the use of the Suicide Tactic.

2
.    Alvin
Plantinga
, "Pluralism," in
The
Philosophical Challenge of Religious Diversity,
ed. Philip Quinn and Kevin Meeker (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 177.

3
.    C. S. Lewis,
Mere Christianity
(New York: Macmillan, 1952), 5.

4
.    Gregory
Koukl
and Francis Beckwith,
Relativism—Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 143.

5
.    Jeffery L.
Sheler
, "Unwelcome Prayers,"
U.S. News & World Report,
20 September 1999.

CHAPTER 9: SIBLING RIVALRY AND INFANTICIDE

1
.    Incidentally, in the Christian view the conflict is resolved because God's love is not sentimental, but sacrificial. He can execute justice while also making provision for mercy and forgiveness.

2
.    C. S. Lewis,
Mere Christianity
(New York: Macmillan, 1952), 31.

3
.    G. K. Chesterton,
Orthodoxy
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959), 41, as quoted in Ravi Zacharias,
Deliver Us from Evil
(Dallas: Word Publishing, 1996), 95 - 96.

4
.    I don't think this is a sound way of reasoning because it commits
the is
/ought fallacy. I am only adopting this claim for the sake of argument (see
chapter 10
, "Taking the Roof Off").

5
.    Lewis,
Mere Christianity,
31.

6
.    
Richard Taylor,
Ethics, Faith, and Reason
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Pren
-
tice
-Hall, 1985), 83 - 84.

7.
   
The Quarrel,
directed by Eli Cohen, distributed by Honey and Apple Film Corporation, Canada, 1991.

8
.    This problem could also be stated as a Sibling Rivalry: (1) God does not exist as moral lawmaker. Therefore, there are no moral laws to break. Therefore, evil does not exist. (2) Evil exists. Therefore, transcendent moral laws exist. Therefore, a transcendent moral lawmaker exists. Therefore, God exists. Either there is no God and no evil, or evil exists and so does God. The option that does not seem possible is that evil exists, but God does not. These notions are in conflict, victims of Sibling Rivalry.

9
.    If the atheist does not affirm the existence of objective evil, but is merely pointing out what appears to be a contradiction in the theist's worldview, he escapes this particular dilemma. Usually, however, the atheist raising this objection actually believes in genuine evil.

10
.
J. P. Moreland,
Christianity and the Nature of Science
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 104.

CHAPTER 10: TAKING THE ROOF OFF

1
. Francis Schaeffer,
The
God Who Is There,
in
The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer
(Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1982), 1:138.

2
.    
Ibid.,
140 - 141.

3
.    
Ibid.,
110.

4
.    Romans 13:3 - 4, 1 Peter 2:14.

5
.    This tale is almost certainly an urban legend. I include it for two reasons. First, even if apocryphal, it still illustrates this tactic well. Second, this story has circulated so widely that you might encounter this "proof" of atheism and need a response.

6
.    I owe this insight to Scott
Klusendorf
.

7.
   This was the very approach I took with the witch from Wisconsin in
chapter 1
. It is possible that the person would counter that a fetus is not a human being in the same sense that a one-year-old is. My response is, "I suppose you could also say that a fourteen-year-old is not a human being in the same sense that a one-year-old is — as in growth and maturity—but that person is still a human being in every way."

CHAPTER 11: STEAMROLLER

1
.    You might be wondering how being in the hot seat (mentioned in
chapter 4)
is different from getting steamrolled. In the former, you are merely
overmatched.
With steamrollers, you are
overwhelmed.
You may be up to the task of answering the objection, but you are never really given the opportunity.

2
.    William
Dembski
, ed.,
Darwin's Nemesis
(Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity
Press, 2006), 102.

CHAPTER 12: RHODES SCHOLAR

1
.    
Norman
Geisler
and Ronald Brooks,
Come Let us Reason Together
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 99.

2
.    Douglas
Geivett
, "A
Particularist
View," in
Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World,
ed. Dennis
Okholm
and Timothy Phillips (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan
, 1996), 266 - 67.

3
.    Douglas
Futuyma
,
Science on Trial:
The
Case for Evolution
(Sunderland, MA:
Sinauer
Associates, Inc., 1983), 12; emphasis added.

4
.    
Richard
Lewontin
, "Billions and Billions of Demons,"
New York Review of Books,
January 4, 1997; emphasis in the original.

5
.    Robert Funk, Roy Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar,
The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say
? (New York: Macmillan, 1993), 5; quoted in J. P. Moreland and Michael Wilkins,
Jesus
Under
Fire
(Grand Rapids:
Zondervan
, 1995), 4; emphasis added.

6
.    I owe this insight to J. P. Moreland.

CHAPTER 13: JUST THE FACTS, MA’AM

1
.    Dennis
Prager
,
Ultimate Issues,
July - September, 1989.

2
.    Donald
McFarlan
, ed.,
Guinness Book of World Records 1992
(New York: Facts on File, Inc., 1991), 92.

3
.    
John
Eidsmoe
,
Christianity and the Constitution
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 43.

4
.    Find a detailed response in "The
Da
Vinci Code Cracks" at
www.str
.
org.

5
.    Dan Brown,
The
Da
Vinci Code
(New York: Doubleday, 2003), 231 - 34.

6
.    Philip
Schaff
,
History of the Christian Church,
Vol. III (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans
, 1994), 623, 629.

7
.    Brown,
The
Da
Vinci Code,
125.

8
.    Find a video clip of this conversation at
http://www.leestrobel.com/
videoserver
/
video.php
?clip
=strobelT1123.