Today’s New Reason To Believe

Kenneth Richard Samples

Attack the argument, not the person!

By necessity, any apologetics venture, including that of Christianity, entails critiquing other people’s arguments, positions, and overarching worldviews. Defending the faith often involves clash because two viewpoints that genuinely contradict (negate or deny) one another cannot both be true. The Law of Noncontradiction states that “A cannot equal A and equal non-A.”

Unfortunately, when you strongly disagree with someone over a critical issue it is easy to lose sight of that person’s argument and instead attack or impugn the person’s character. This human proclivity illustrates man’s flaws of both mind and moral fiber.

In logic, assaulting an opponent’s character is considered an informal fallacy known as the ad hominem or “attack against the man.” If a person’s character is not the logical issue at hand, then any appeal to character-related issues is logically irrelevant. Even morally flawed people can present cogent logical arguments.

The Golden Rule exhorts us as Christians to treat other people the way we want to be treated (Matthew 7:12). And since this ethical principle applies to every action, it includes the enterprise of apologetics (1 Peter 3:15-17). In an apologetic context, the Christian needs to treat other people’s beliefs, viewpoints, and arguments the way they want theirs treated; recognizing, of course, that no one keeps this rule perfectly and that believers are saved solely by God’s unmerited favor (“grace”) in Christ (Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 3:5).

Avoiding the Ad Hominem Fallacy

As forgiven sinners, Christians are certainly not immune to engaging in “name-calling” or impugning the character (or motives) of others. However, to steer clear of this fallacious practice during an apologetic encounter involves intellectual concentration and moral discipline. When critiquing the position of an opponent, stay focused on the central argument at hand. Realize that uncovering the truth of an issue is itself a noble task. And arguing cogently and fairly is certainly much more important that winning an argument by appealing to illegitimate and/or dishonest tactics.

If you are the victim of an ad hominem attack while engaged in an apologetic debate, resist the temptation to respond in kind. Rather, clearly identify the irrelevant attack on the part of your challenger. Then you can refocus the discussion by getting the discourse back to the logically relevant issue.

Often times those listening to the discussion will appreciate the care and fairness that you have exhibited and will be more open to your viewpoint. Even your opponent may be positively impacted by your show of intellectual integrity.

Remember, attitude and demeanor may carry as much weight toward ultimate persuasion as do the apologetic arguments themselves (1 Peter 3:15).

Ensuing articles will address other ways in which the Golden Rule of Apologetics can be appropriately applied.

For more on building intellectual virtue in the area of apologetics, see chapters 3-4 of my book A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test.

Kenneth Richard Samples

In his famous play No Exit the French atheistic existential philosopher and writer Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) wrote:

Hell is other people.

Engaging in apologetic discourse sometimes involves talking with people who have very strong opinions and who are not favorably predisposed toward Christianity. A clash of worldview ideas can sometimes result in a confrontational personal encounter. Often people who hold antithetical positions concerning the big philosophical questions of life end up doing little more than simply talking past each other. And after such an encounter we are sometimes left feeling there is an element of truth in Sartre’s description.

In parts one and two of this series, I discussed the biblical ethical principle known as the “Golden Rule.” This article continues to demonstrate the importance of following this principle while engaging the critical enterprise of Christian apologetics (the defense of the faith, Jude 3).

The Golden Rule in a Debate

To be candid, I like to argue. My fellow RTB scholars who regularly meet with me for lunch at Subway can attest to the truth of this admission. I enjoy formulating and presenting logical arguments as well as critiquing the arguments made by others. However, I have to say that I don’t always enjoy it as much when others critique my arguments.

When I’m in the midst of a truly heated dialogue I am usually not concentrating upon understanding in a dispassionate manner my opponent’s argument. Rather I’m thinking about what to say next once he or she stops talking (in order to stay ahead in the debate). I’ll bet many of you “A-type personality” apologists can relate to my somewhat temperamental condition.

Yet I have discovered an application of the Golden Rule that often helps when engaged in such a debate where you and your antagonist seem to be moving in different conceptual directions.

I stop, take a breath, listen carefully to my opponent and then seek to accurately repeat his argument back to him. I will say something like, “Your central claim seems to be _ _ _ _ _ and your support for it consists of _ _ _ _ _. Now, am I correct in my understanding of your argument?”

Being able to repeat your opponent’s argument usually produces four direct benefits.

First, it ensures that you are not misrepresenting your opponent’s argument (fallacy of the “straw man”). You show that you respect them enough to fully consider their case.

Second, people like to know that they have been heard and that their argument has been correctly recognized. They may even be more open to criticism of their argument when they know that you have endeavored to understand their position correctly. Attitude and demeanor directly affect personal persuasion.

Third, you can only effectively criticize an argument when you have a correct understanding of it. By first seeking understanding you inevitably help your subsequent apologetic critique.

Fourth, this practice helps illustrate to your opponent (as well as to others who may be listening) that you care more about understanding truth than you do about winning an intellectual argument.

After getting a handle on what my opponent is genuinely arguing, I will then ask them if they can repeat my argument back to me. Because I have sincerely sought to understand their perspective, they will often attempt to return the favor in kind. And if they cannot or will not, then it becomes quite evident who is really seeking truth in the dispute.

In ensuing articles I will address other ways in which the Golden Rule of apologetics can be applied.

For more on building intellectual virtue in the area of apologetics, see chapters 3 and 4 of my book, A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test.

Kenneth Richard Samples

Two of the most important virtues that a Christian apologist can exhibit are the qualities of intellectual honesty and charity.

In part one of this series I discussed the biblical ethical principle known as the “Golden Rule.” In [Matthew 7:12], Jesus states:

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

While no one keeps the Golden Rule perfectly in life, Christians who are saved by grace (Titus 3:5) nevertheless need to strive toward this critical moral ideal. And since the Golden Rule applies to every action, it includes the critical enterprise of Christian apologetics (the defense of the faith, 1 Peter 3:15).

In an apologetic context, believers ought to treat nonbelievers or fellow believers the way they want to be treated. This includes treating other people’s beliefs, viewpoints, and arguments the way you want yours to be treated. Since we want our beliefs to be handled fairly and respectfully, we owe the same to our apologetic opponents.

The Golden Rule’s application means that Christians should operate according to the highest standards of intellectual integrity. As I stated in Part 1, our enterprise of defending the faith should be characterized by honesty, fairness, civility, and charity.

The Writings of Others

Christian apologists should take care not to misrepresent the arguments of others. Those who distort an opponent’s argument engage in the informal logical fallacy known as the “straw man”. All criticisms uttered against a misrepresented argument are logically irrelevant.

One specific application of this rule relates to how we treat what others have written. Apologists should avoid misquoting the works of others. Similarly, taking others’ arguments out of their original and intended written context shows a lack of respect and honesty. Sloppy scholarship severely damages intellectual integrity.

On top of intellectual honesty, we should also endeavor to be charitable to others and state their arguments in the strongest form possible. We may be tempted to interpret what our opponents have written in the worst light possible, but that goes against our fundamental value of fairness. Certainly we would not want our writings treated in this manner. For example, if a critic of Christianity states his argument in a weak or questionable way, give him the benefit of the doubt and respond to the stronger argument.

It isn’t always easy to regard another person’s view with the same care and respect that you want afforded to your own. But it is critical that Christian apologists strive for these invaluable intellectual virtues. When non-Christians become convinced that believers in Christ prize truth and honesty highly, then the power of the Christian apologetic witness will be greatly strengthened.

In ensuing articles I will address some other practical ways in which the Golden Rule of Apologetics can be appropriately applied.

For more on building intellectual virtue in the area of apologetics, see chapters 3 and 4 of my book, A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test.