The worst mistake you can make when defending the Christian worldview

I have a key that will unlock a puzzling mystery
I have a key that will unlock a puzzling mystery

So, this is just an advice post for doing apologetics.

Here are three situations I’ve run into while doing apologetics in the last month.

First situation. I was talking with a lady who is an atheist. I had a copy of “God’s Crime Scene” in my hand, and she asked me about it. I told her that it was a book written by the guy who solved the homicide case that I asked her to watch on Dateline. She remembered – it was the two-hour special on the woman who was killed with a garrotte. She pointed at the book and said “what’s in it?” I said, it has 8 pieces of evidence that fit better with a theistic worldview than with an atheistic one, and some of them scientific. Her reply to me was – literally – “which denomination do you want me to join?”

Second situation. I was talking with a friend of mine who teaches in a Catholic school. She was telling that she got the opportunity to talk to her students about God, and found out that some of them were not even theists, and many of them had questions. So she asked them for questions and got a list. The list included many hard cases, like “what about the Bible and slavery” and “why do Christians oppose gay marriage?” and so on.

Third situation. Talking to a grad student about God’s existence. I’m laying out my scientific arguments for her, holding up the peer-reviewed papers for each discovery. I get to the Doug Axe paper on protein folding probabilities, and she holds up her hand. One question: “Am I going to Hell?”

So think about those three situations. In each case, the opponent is trying to reject Christianity by jumping way, way ahead to the very end of the process. When you do Christian apologetics, you do not take the bait and jump to the end of the process dealing with nitty gritty details until you have made your case for the core of the Christian worldview using your strongest evidence. Let me explain.

So, your strongest evidence as a Christian are the scientific arguments, along with the moral argument. Those would include (for starters) the following:

  1. kalam cosmological argument
  2. cosmic fine-tuning
  3. galactic and stellar habitability
  4. origin of life / DNA
  5. molecular machines / irreducible complexity
  6. the moral argument

The problem I am seeing today is that atheists are rejecting discussions about evidence because they think that all we are interested in is getting them to become Christians. Well, yes. I want you to become a Christian. But I know perfectly well what that entails – it entails a change of life priorities. Both of the women I spoke to are living with their boyfriends, and the kids in the Catholic school just want to have fun. None of them wants to believe in a God who will require self-denial, self-control, and self-sacrifice. Nobody wants God to be in that leader position in their lives. Christianity is 100% reversed from today’s me-first, fun-seeking, thrill-seeking, fear-of-missing-out travel spirit of the age.

So, how to answer all these late-game questions? The answer is simple. You don’t answer any late-game questions until the person you are talking with accounts for the widely-accepted data in your list. These are things that have got to be accepted before any discussion about minor issues like one angel vs two angels at the empty tomb can occur. When we discuss all the basic issues where the evidence is the strongest, then we can go on to discuss issues where the evidence is debatable, then finally, in the last bits before the end, we can discuss these other kinds of questions.

How to explain why this process must be followed to the person who asks specific questions about minor issues? Simple. You explain that your goal is not to get them to become a Christian right now. That you want to let them believe anything thing they want. That’s right. They can believe anything they want to believe. As long as what they believe is consistent with the evidence. And what I am going to do is give them the evidence, and then they can believe whatever they want – so long as it’s consistent with the evidence.

So, for example, I’m going to tell them 3 pieces of evidence for a cosmic beginning of the universe: the expanding universe (redshift), the cosmic microwave background radiation, and the light element abundances. That’s mainstream science that shows that the universe came into being out of nothing, a finite time in the past. And I will charge them not to believe in any religion that assumes that the universe has always been here. For example, Mormonism is ruled out, they believe in eternally existing matter. See how that works? Hey, Ms. Atheist. You can believe anything you want. As long as what you believe is consistent with the evidence. 

I think this approach of not letting them rush you to the end at the beginning is important for two reasons. First, we can get our foot in the door to talk about things that are interesting to everyone, in a non-stressed environment. Everyone can talk about evidence comfortably. Second, we show that we hold our beliefs because we are simply letting evidence set boundaries for us on what we are allowed to believe. We can’t believe not-Christianity, because not-Christianity is not consistent with the evidence. And you start with the most well-supported evidence, and eliminate worldviews that are falsified by the most well-supported evidence. Atheism actually gets falsified pretty quickly, because of the scientific evidence.

So, that’s my advice. Had a friend of mine named William try this out about a week ago. It went down like this:

William to me:

This guy I know messaged me and bragged for a while about how easy he can dismantle Christianity. He said: “present the gospel to me as you understand it. I’ll simply ask questions to demonstrate it is not worth your belief.”

WK to William:

First of all, he isn’t allowed to just sit there and poke holes in your case, he has to present a positive case for atheism. Second, don’t discuss Christianity with him at all until you first discuss the evidence for theism – start with the good scientific evidence.

And William wrote this to his friend:

The way I’m wired is that I process all competing theories and go with the best one. By doing a comparative analysis of worldviews I find that Christian theology easily explains the most about the world I find myself living in.

I’m pretty sure that a God of some sort exists because of the scientific evidence for the origin of the universe and the fine tuning in physics. From there I find it quite intuitive that if a God went through the trouble of creating and tuning a universe for life that this God likely has some sort of interest in it and has revealed Himself to humanity in some way.

From there I can look at the major world religions and compare them to see which one explains the past and the present the best. Christianity easily comes out on top.

And then a few days later, I got this from William:

I finally got the agnostic to tell me what he thinks about origin and fine tuning. When I started pointing out that his views were unscientific, he blew a gasket, called me dishonest and told me he didn’t want to discuss anything further.

And that’s where you want to be. Cut off all discussions where the challenger tries to jump to the end and get you to debate the very last steps of your case. Present the strongest evidence for your core claims, and get him to account for this evidence within his own worldview. Lead the discussion with public, testable evidence. All warfare depends on picking the terrain, weapons and tactics that allow you to match your strength against your opponent’s weakness.

15 thoughts on “The worst mistake you can make when defending the Christian worldview”

  1. Hey WK,
    I’ve changed my profile from Boneless Pizza to Theophilus. I agree with Magoeba. Geat article. I also like Frank Turek’s “If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?” question when skeptics and atheists try to jump way ahead or go way off-topic.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. I read this post this morning (Pacific Time where I am at). I have to say, your piece is very informative and actionable. I consider myself an evidentialist, but from your advice here, I want to prioritize doing apologetics as a classicalist *again.* Nice insights!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yes, classicals can use every argument and evidence. I don’t think it’s worth going for the resurrection unless they accept a Creator and Designer first, in all honesty. After all, who is there to do the resurrecting if there’s no Creator and Designer?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Yeah, that’s what I recognized as well. I mainly was convinced by Tim and Lydia McGrew that evidentialism was the way to go until evidentialists have to make larger unnecessary cases for their one step process.

        It’s also unnecessarily difficult to argue for the resurrection when the person you’re talking to has a presupposition that largely finds a resurrection to be impossible.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. I join the party in really liking this very instructive post. It’s a bit beyond me to make the types of arguments you suggest, as I’ve yet to get them down in a way in which I can speak on them coherently. I could adapt that William fellow’s remarks, as they are rather general in nature, and encourage the non-believer to check into those cases made by others who can better articulate them. To this point, I haven’t had many deep conversations with anyone who wasn’t a personal, long-time friend, so I’ve been able to hold my own just by virtue of repeated opportunities for discussion. For others, I’ve generally gone with minimal facts explained by those like William Craig and a simple reference to how archeology has never uncovered anything that proved anything in Scripture false.

    I’m saving this post, however, for quick reference of specific areas of evidence to study. Even if I can only handle one or two, that should be sufficient for most atheists I encounter.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I am often suspicious of people throwing down little details of disagreement like you listed.

    Because if you go through their world view it will have crazy points from the list of either eternal universe, universes coming from absolutely nothing. Multiverse. Aliens. Life and information coming from nothing.and that list of assumptions can be extensive and all skeptics have some unbelievable views.

    So if they want to act cocky and arrogant around me about being intellectually superior I tend to the questions about what they beleive.

    And as the article states it isn’t about making people beleive before they are ready or even against their will. It is my God’s timing and only if the person truly believes otherwise they are free to deny the existence of God if they choose.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. This is one reason why I read Apologetics blogs as opposed to just Apologetics books.

    The books are good, but they quite often don’t give you any wisdom on how to deploy the arguments properly. You can go out and fall for every red herring and every trick in the book.


  6. Excellent advice. I used to be afraid to click on atheist websites claiming to debunk this argument for God, or that one, because I was afraid I would run across an objection that I couldn’t answer. And thus my faith would be shaken.
    But now, after years of frequenting WK’s website, and listening to tons of debates by William Lane Craig, Walter Bradley, Luke Barnes and many others, I am happy to issue the following statement:

    BRING. IT. ON. !!!!!

    Now I find their arguments incredibly weak, and I’m able to spot logical fallacies from a mile away. They indulge in question-begging, ad hoc reasoning, ad hominem attacks, and they rely on some of the most outdated science imaginable. They are decades behind the latest discoveries, and they erect so many straw-man arguments you’d think they were at an audition for The Wizard of Oz.

    I try to be polite in the comments section, but I don’t know if I’m having an impact or not. I would just suggest the following question for the hardcore skeptic: “If I could prove to you beyond reasonable doubt that God exists and raised Jesus from the dead, would you become a Christian?” If they say “No!”, then I would reply, “You haven’t got a problem with your mind, then, but with your will.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It’s not like they are going to overturn your core arguments. And there is no reason to be concerned about the nitpicking on the edges that they traffic in so often. They’re not looking for truth – it is a problem with their will, not their mind.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Exactamundo. But who knows? Maybe someone else, reading a respectful dialogue between a well-informed Christian theist and a hardcore atheist will be persuaded. You never know who’s watching.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s