mistake error

The worst mistake you can make when defending the Christian worldview

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.

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

    1. That would be a departure from the example of Jesus, who frequently used evidence with people who rejected him. Not to mention Paul (Acts 17) and Peter (Acts 2) who also appealed to reason and evidence with non Christians.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I’m not talking about reasonable people seeking answers . Most atheists I’ve come across have only one goal, to rudely shout down and twist what they assume Christians believe . Jesus condemned the ones who he knew were hypocrites seeking to kill him. He talked to the ones he knew wanted the truth . But maybe I’m missing an example of him reasoning with an unbeliever ? I prefer to ask the questions so I can see where they’re coming from and not assume anything and save us both time . I found that a Muslim friend was quite well versed in Christian doctrine . But his own beliefs were too strong to overcome. He did have a couple things wrong based on the Muslim beliefs about Jesus . So I just pray for him.

        Liked by 2 people

  1. Well said. Atheists like to own people claiming they have superior intellect. Yet, don’t. It’s a feel-good fad and if the conversation get out of line, I state that, then show it in statistics. If asked “Am I going to Hell?” I say, that’s up to you. If they start to smear and sneer, I show the articles by psychologists stating that’s a large sign of coming to a battle of wits half-armed. I would rather debate Muslims. At least they can think and are trained to debate, not play let’s-pretend. His peace on you.


  2. Dear WK,
    I commend you for your aim to share the Good News and your method to draw non-believers into Christianity.

    My suspicion (and that’s all it is) is that a high proportion of people reject God not due to the New Testament but due to the Old in which it is easy to see Him as angry and vengeful. Out of this comes a retaliatory response against the scientific evidence pointing to God as the the Creator of all that exists.

    Questions arise as to how an omnipotent and benevolent Being can allow so much evil to exist and why good people are murdered by bad?

    Another question raised to me by a non-believer is why was it necessary for an omnipotent Being to create the vastness of the universe in order to bring life to one planet and produce beings in His likeness?

    I have resigned myself to being as kind as I can be to other people but only to ask questions rather than to answer them as I believe that only God can provide the answers to doubting and disbelieving individuals.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Because that vastness points at the vastness of God. If you look at ancient synagogues, you find the Zodiac, but, not to do fortunetelling, but to foretell the church age. It begins with the Virgin and Child, and on to the end of the age.


    2. Most claims of God being mean and vengeful in the OT is also due to ignorantly reading ancient literature with a modern view and interpretation.

      People take parts literal that no person when it was written or during the time of christ would have taken literal. Ex literally killing everyone in the land with no grace or exception and not recognizing that the interpration would be of removing a wicked culture that sacrificed children and many other bad things. Along with conquering their God’s and showing them a better way with the loving God Yahweh.

      Actual knowledge of how to do hermeneutics to interpret the Bible are needed as basic English classes do horrible things to people and teach them to find hidden meanings when it isn’t there and many other bad ideas

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yes! When God states He is a jealous God, point out God is jealous for, just as any father would. If you can, make them look up what they claim. If they answer, then there’s the science, archeology and DNA to fall back on. “God KILLED everybody in the world!” God had Noah talking for a century about a horrible world disaster to come. It all goes back to humanity sold out to evil, so evil had every right to slaughter everyone.


  3. I will at times tell someone I can give you an answer but I assume you want a one line answer or a soundbite. If you want to spend an hour or two where I lay down Christian worldview for context I can answer this question.

    So far no one has asked again for my answer because they just want an out of context answer. Because if a question to a hard idea is answered to one that doesn’t process things by a Christian framework it will be wrong.

    Make an atheist deal with all the problems of their worldview and lay it out in a discussion and clarify a difference in the Christian world view because they get no free pass

    Liked by 2 people

  4. I’m almost 100% sure that you made up your examples. People just really aren’t that stupid. In fact, making up conversion stories is one of the more used tactics of apologists. It doesn’t actually convert anyone, but it makes the flock happy.

    But, I’m open minded. Give me your best evidence, or best argument, or whatever. Thanks!


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s