SR Blog

The last of our "Top Ten" arguments that Christians should never use include the following:

The apostles died for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus.
People do not willingly die for a lie.
Hence, what the apostles preached was true.

Problem(s): The second premise is false. People willingly die for lies all the time. Terrorists believe killing the “infidels” will send them to paradise and the Nazis believed Hitler was establishing a superior society. The legitimate insight is “people do not willingly die for what they know to be a lie.” The apostles believed that Jesus was resurrected and was not in the tomb. The disciples may have been mistaken, but they were dying for what they thought was true.

If Christianity is not true, and the person remains an unbeliever, then nothing happens at death.
If Christianity is not true, and the person becomes a Christian, then they will live a good life with no regrets at death.
If Christianity is true, and the person becomes a Christian, then they gain a good life and heaven at death.
If Christianity is true, and person remains an unbeliever, then they will experience Hell at death.
So whether Christianity is true or not, a person should still become a Christian.

Problem(s): The wager only considers two options (Christianity and atheism), why not others (e.g.,  Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.)? Pascal’s Wager can still be useful in certain circumstances where the choices have been reduced to just two (which is probably how Pascal meant it to be used). It may also be used in conjunction with other arguments to great success.

A Christian’s testimony of a changed life is the most powerful apologetic there is (some may say the only apologetic needed) and you cannot argue with a changed life. Therefore, a Christian’s testimony is proof of God’s existence in general and Christianity in particular.

Problem(s): The effect may be real, but what is the cause? Skeptics may say belief creates a “placebo” effect. Further, o Christianity is not the only religion claimed to “change lives.” Many cults use personal testimony (e.g., Mormons), and many atheists claim their lives changed drastically for the better after they stopped believing in God. Personal testimony will always be powerful for the individual, but not necessarily to others, so testimony needs to be supplemented with other factors in order to make sense of the experience. Otherwise, the “experience” may be merely attributable to some psychological factors.

“You just have to have faith”

Problem(s): The implication is that something should be believed for completely arbitrary reasons (which is unreasonable). This assumes an incorrect definition and application of faith. Faith is putting your trust (belief) in someone or something that has evidence of faithfulness. People rightly reject what they have no reason to believe.

Conclusion: Avoiding Bad Arguments

- Read well respected authors.
- Get a reliable and accepted apologetics book and study it carefully.
- Take a class in Logic and/or Critical Thinking.
- Always be on the “lookout” for loopholes in any argument you encounter.
- Be patient in dialogue and study with others (both skeptic and Christian).

The truth of the Gospel does not depend on our ability to develop an argument. Whether the Gospel is true or not is independent of our argumentation. If Christianity is true, then any argument against it must have a fallacy somewhere. If this is the case then Christians should not (and need not) rely on poor arguments to defend the faith. There are many good arguments at the Christian’s disposal to defend the faith – Use them!

Other common, but bad, arguments, include the following:

Evolution is neither repeatable nor experimental.
But science is always repeatable and experimental.
Thus, evolution is not science.

The problem here is that the second premise is false – science encompasses more than experimentation and repetition. Science also considers singularities (forensics). There is a basic distinction between operation science and origin science, and both evolution and creation attempt origin science. It is better to explore other ways to explain the data regarding the origins of the universe and life.

All people that are moral believe in God (“You can’t be good unless you believe in God”).
No atheist believes in God.
Thus, atheists are immoral.

Problem(s): The first premise is incorrect – producing one moral atheist would be a counterexample to the argument
This argument tends to be inflammatory and avoids the “real” issue. The “real” issue is not whether an atheist can be moral or not (many, if not most atheists, are moral), but whether you have an adequate basis for being moral within an atheistic structure. The moral atheist, it is argued, has no foundation for his good behavior.

Hitler and Stalin were atheists.
You don’t want to be like Hitler and Stalin do you?

OR

Mother Theresa and Billy Graham are Christians.
You want to be like Theresa and Graham don’t you?

Problem(s): Just because some atheists were/are wicked individuals does not mean all atheists are wicked individuals. (further, it is debatable that Hitler was an atheist). Nor does it follow atheism is false because of their wicked actions. Many Christians were/are good does not mean all Christians are good individuals, nor does it follow that Christianity is true because of their good actions. What needs to be stressed is the foundations for good or wicked behavior: a Christian acting wickedly is counter to Christian teaching, while an atheist acting wickedly is consonant with there being no moral law.

Einstein believed in God and Isaac Newton was a Christian
You don’t think your smarter than Einstein or Newton do you?

Problem(s): Intelligent people can be wrong and non-intelligent people can be right. There are other brilliant thinkers that were not theists or Christians. This is an appeal to authority, but the issue is not what they believed, but if what they believed is true or not. At best, this would show that theistic belief and Christianity is not only believed by “simpletons” (as is often claimed by many atheists).

Lanny Wilson was our guest this week discussing arguments that Christians should not use.Why is this important? For one, God says we should be reasonable (cf., 1 Peter 3:15; Jude 3; Isaiah 1:18), so poor reason is not glorifying to the Lord. Skeptics will not accept bad arguments, and so to be good witnesses of Christ we need to use good arguments.

So what makes an argument “good”? first, it must be logically valid. This means that it does not commit any formal mistakes. Second, the premises must be true. When you have both correct form and true premises the argument is considered “sound.” It should avoid obvious informal fallacies and addresses the real issues.
Here is an example of a good argument:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The above argument is a good one because it is logically valid and the premises can be shown to be true (via science and philosophy).Compare this to one that atheists commonly use:

Everything that exists needs a cause.
The universe exists.
Therefore, the universe needs a cause – but so does God!

The problem is that we do not argue that “everything” needs a cause. That would mean God needed one as well and the argument would just back up a step and start over.  But not everything needs a cause – only finite, contingent things need a cause, so that is how the argument should be stated.

Atheists are not the only ones who make mistakes though. Christians often make bad arguments in their zeal to prove God exists or that Christianity is true. Here is a common argument that is popular but is too flawed to be useful:

To know God does not exist, you would have to be omniscient
But if you were omniscient, then you would be God.
Therefore you can’t disprove God’s existence and, hence, it is unreasonable to not believe in God.

There are a few problems with this argument. First, this is not really an argument for God so much as it is an argument against arguments against God. It is good to use to encourage the unbeliever to seriously investigate God’s existence, but it is more rhetorical than apologetical. Second, there are many things in which we do not believe even though we are not omniscient (unicorns, leprechauns, elves, etc.). So being omniscient is not a requirement for knowing that certain things do not exist.  Hence, just because mankind is finite does not mean unbelief in God is not justified.

In parts two and three we will examine the other "Top Ten" arguments that Christians should never use.

Lanny Wilson is a graduate of Southern Evangelical Seminary and a part time instructor there.