What is the relationship between logic, debate, and apologetics?

A lot of Christians think that debate is a dirty word - and it is! In 2 Corinthians 12:20, Paul says, "For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and [that] I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest [there be] debates, envyings, wraths, strifes," etc. Isaiah 58:4 also classifies debate with strife; "Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness…" Romans 1:29 describes debate as even more dastardly, including it with the most heinous of sins - 'unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity...'; Obviously, God is not fond of debate!

When we look up 'debate' in Strong’s concordance, it tells us that the stress in this word is on rivalry; Paul teaches that we should refrain from debate because it causes division. In 1 Cor 1:10, Paul writes, "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought." When the world sees Christians arguing and debating with one another, it tends to discredit the whole faith. It makes us appear to not know what we are talking about. I’m not saying that doctrine isn’t important, because false doctrine needs to be corrected. But we need to realize the benefit of having grace and being charitable when it comes to our sisters’ and brothers’ opinions. Paul tells us to “Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.” So we shouldn't have the desire to go out and intellectually pummel a brother or sister in Christ into our way of thinking. But what about when we find our faith being attacked and deconstructed by false teachers or non-Christians? Are we to remain silent? Jesus certainly didn't keep quiet when the Pharisees tried to trip him up. He always had a good answer that not only demonstrated His ability to think logically, but that also displayed his wit.

While the Bible instructs us to avoid debate, it also tells us in Jude 1:3 to contend earnestly for the faith. Consider the verses in 2 Corinthians 10:5; “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God…” and in Thessalonians 5:21; "Prove all things"; "Test everything. Hold on to the good," and the best advice that I have ever read and wished that I had practiced more often, 1 Peter 3:15, "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have, BUT do this with gentleness and respect keeping a clear conscience so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." What these verses are describing isn’t debate, but apologetics. A lot of people think that 'Christian apologetics' is apologizing for having faith in Jesus Christ. It doesn’t mean that. The term ‘apologetic’ comes from the Greek, ‘apologetikos’ which means having a defense; Apologetics is actually a defense of Christian theology.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEBATE, DISCUSSION AND APOLOGETICS?

Both debate and apologetics make use of logic. Logic provides us with a means through which we can determine the truth value of opinions and the arguments that arise from a difference in opinion. Even though both debate and apologetics make use of logic, there is a gross difference between them. Apologetics attempts to explain our faith; its goal is to promote understanding. Discussion is also an attempt to honestly understand another's point of view while presenting one's own view. Debate, on the other hand, is designed to promote one's self. Debate is propaganda. The goal of debate isn’t to determine truth, but to win an argument and win an audience over to your way of thinking. One of the best introductory books about debate that I ever read was titled, “The Art of Deception”, by Nickolas Capaldi. That should give you some insight as to what debate is all about. It can be vicious! All too often, it becomes a study in bad sportsmanship. It’s all about knowing the rules in order to go about breaking them without getting caught. It’s about making other people look foolish and appear stupid in order to win the contest at any cost. It’s probably a compliment, in a way, that a lot of Christians don’t get involved in this type of debate, but when they do, they frequently end up looking like a person caught on the toilet after forgetting to lock the bathroom door. They know that something isn’t right in their opponent’s logic, but they just can’t say what it is for sure. They lose, not knowing why. They are made to feel defeated and puzzled. It isn’t because they lack intelligence, it’s because they aren’t familiar with playing a game of deception.  There are any number of techniques that your opponent can use in an attempt to confuse you and make him appear victorious, without actually having a valid point. For instance, this is one of my favorite recipes:

1. Take a general statement and turn it into a ridiculous and exaggerated absolute.
2. Present a false analogy that will allow you to change the topic to something easier to defend.
3. Sprinkle lightly with witty insults.
4. Bake until half done.
5. Gloat.

This is called “Building a straw man, and burning it down”. The purpose of the following demonstration isn’t to make you think that your opposition will never have a solid leg to stand on; many atheists have valid arguments and present their case quite well. Its purpose is to show you, that even though your opponent’s argument may be full of holes and logical fallacies, it can give him the appearance of winning the debate. Consider this conversation, a variation of an old Dilbert gag ( http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/dnrc/html/newsletter33.html#debate ):

Christian: Genesis 1:29 reads…”I give you every seed bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food…"

Skeptic: That's absurd. If you ate all of the vegetables and fruits in the whole world all at once your stomach would explode...

Christian: You're not supposed to eat them all at once...

Skeptic: Let me give you an analogy. If one country is more advanced than another, does it have the right to force the less advanced country to can and package its fruits and vegetables?

Christian: That's not the same thing.

Skeptic: Aha! So now you agree with me that slavery is wrong!

Christian: No I didn’t!

Skeptic: Oh you didn’t? So you admit then that the Bible promotes slavery?

Christian: It does not!

Skeptic: It says right here in Leviticus 25:47, “You may buy male and female slaves from the nations around you.” If you go against what the Bible says, you’re a hypocrite.

Christian: But that isn’t what it means!

Skeptic: Are you saying that the Bible doesn't mean what it says? You Christian slave mongers have a lot of nerve coming in here trying to save my soul.

Christian: I wasn’t trying to save your soul!

Skeptic: Oh you weren’t? You mean you don’t even care if I go to Hell??!! What kind of a Christian are you, anyway?

When an audience is less informed about the subject that is being debated than those who are debating it, it ends up relying on the presentation of the argument as much as the content when it makes its decision regarding it; in other words, it only listens with one ear! Now the audience will walk away with the distinct impression that you are a slave monger, a hypocrite, and an uncaring person; a person who doesn't eat his vegetables! This type of debate will not only aggravate you, but it effectively limits your opportunity to discuss anything of importance. You will end up feeding junk food to a person who is spiritually starving, discussing Greek instead of the gospel. When Christianity is attacked or questioned and we attempt to respond with apologetics, frequently we will find ourselves launched into debate instead of a meaningful discussion. When this happens, a Christian needs to be battle savvy in order to present his views with enough intelligence that hopefully will turn the debate back into a dialogue worth having. This example was designed to make you laugh and of course the deception here was blatant. But it’s the same technique that Darrow used in the Scopes trial.

HOW THE SCOPES TRIAL INFLUENCED AMERICA'S PERCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY

In 1925, it was against the law to teach evolution in the public schools, so the ACLU placed ads in newspapers asking for a science teacher to volunteer to teach evolution in a classroom in order that he be arrested so that the law could be examined in a courtroom and hopefully overturned. John Scopes volunteered as the teacher. The ACLU hired a famous trial lawyer, Clarence Darrow, as his defense attorney and William Jennings Bryan, a prominent Presbyterian layman, and three-time Presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket, volunteered his services as counsel for the State. At some point during the proceedings, Christianity was put on trial in an effort to demonstrate the superiority of evolution as opposed to creationism in answering questions concerning the origins of life. Darrow called for a cross examination of Bryan and the debate that followed made Christian fundamentalism appear absurd, self-contradictory and confused.  It affected the entire nation’s attitude concerning religion and science. Because of one man’s inability to defend his religion, all Christian fundamentalists, and Christianity itself, were given a black eye.

Bryan was not an ignoramus. He was intelligent, had authored many books about Christianity and he was a lawyer, but he was not familiar with playing a game of deception that involved his faith. Bryan suffered a fatal heart attack five days after the trial so he had very little opportunity to offer comments from hindsight. But let's examine a segment of the original transcript of the debate, along with an analysis and more appropriate responses in an effort to expose a card trick with words.

THE SCOPES TRIAL REVISITED

To see exactly what Bryan was up against, and what Darrow was up to,  the transcript can be found here: http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/hist409/scopes.html

Darrow--Do you claim that everything in the Bible should be literally interpreted?

            Right away, we know that if Bryan answers 'yes', he will be asked to defend some incredible and irrelevant points. If he says, 'no', then he will be asked how he can decide what is to be taken literally as opposed to figuratively. The former stance will open Bryan to ridicule; the latter may give the impression that Biblical interpretation is so liquid that it can't hold water!

Bryan--I believe everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there. Some of the Bible is given illustratively. For instance: "Ye are the salt of the earth.'' I would not insist that man was actually salt, or that he had flesh of salt, but it is used in the sense of salt as saving God's people

            This was a good answer, but Bryan didn't take a stronger, offensive position. We see that Darrow keeps hold of the ball with his next statement:

Darrow--But when you read that Jonah swallowed the whale--or that the whale swallowed Jonah, excuse me please--how do you literally interpret that?

            Oh, Krikey! Look at the fangs on that one! See how Darrow is going to make the absurd even more absurd by feigning an error where Jonah swallows the whale! A nasty, dirty, but effective tactic! You have to admire that type of deviousness, even when it comes from the opposition.

Bryan--When I read that a big fish swallowed Jonah-- it does not say whale.

            Bryan is correct when he makes the point that the account of Jonah in Jonah says that he was swallowed by a great fish, but he should have kept his mouth shut, instead of playing right into Darrow's game. Bryan should have been aware of Jesus referring to the great fish as a whale, in Matthew 12:40, and let Darrow slide, instead of trying to show that he knew the exact phrase used in Jonah in an effort to show that Darrow didn't. Bryan is guilty here of underestimating his opponent and of not thinking two or three moves ahead. What purpose would it have served for Bryan to bring up this point? At best, Bryan could have specifically named the verse, Jonah 1:17, and corrected Darrow in a more specific manner that wouldn't have allowed him to get caught in the upcoming fundy trap: "When I read that a big fish swallowed Jonah, in Jonah 1:17, the term used was 'fish', not whale." At worst, however, this would only provide Darrow with an opportunity to make the allegation that the Bible is filled with contradictions.

Darrow--Doesn't it? Are you sure?

            Look at this! Darrow is now giving Bryan an opportunity to bring up the verse in Matthew. When your opponent asks you a question, such as, "Are you sure?", it should be an immediate tip-off  that he knows something that he thinks you do not. Now is not the time to be humble! Bryan should have been searching his mental banks for that passage in Matthew and spewing it.

Bryan--That is my recollection of it, a big fish; and I believe it; and I believe in a God who can make a whale and can make a man, and make both do what He pleases.

            Oh! He misses the hint entirely! He is too anxious to defend the absurdity itself.

Darrow--Mr. Bryan, doesn't the New Testament say whale?

Bryan--I am not sure. My impression is that it says fish; but it does not make so much difference; I merely called your attention that to where it says fish, it does not say whale.

Darrow--But in the New Testament it says whale, doesn't it?

Bryan--That may be true; I remember in my own mind what I read about it.

            Ouch! Bryan just proved the point of many skeptics who claim to know the Bible better than Christians. Don't let this happen to you. If you haven't read the Bible, or studied it, you shouldn't be attempting to debate it. I'm sure that Bryan knew his Bible, but he didn't know it to the degree necessary to debate it. Skeptics read the Bible in order to legally pick it apart; Christians read the Bible in order to understand it. If you are going to debate a skeptic, you have to learn how to think like one. Just pretend that you are going to have a fight with your nit-picky, quarrelsome spouse about what the Bible really says. This should generate the right frame of mind.

Darrow--Now, you say, the big fish swallowed Jonah, and he remained- how long--three days, and then he spewed him up on the land. You believe that the big fish was made to swallow Jonah?

            O.K., it's easy to see where the rest of this is going. How could Bryan have turned the tables on Darrow right from the start? Here is how the debate may have gone, had Bryan taken a stronger offensive position:

Darrow--Do you claim that everything in the Bible should be literally interpreted?

Bryan--I believe that the Bible should be literally interpreted in the truth it intends to reveal.

            This is a loaded statement, and a very useful one, because it gives a Christian the leverage to get to the meat of any issue without getting eaten alive in the process.

Darrow--But when you read that Jonah swallowed the whale--or that the whale swallowed Jonah, excuse me please--how do you literally interpret that?

Bryan--Is that what you think the story of Jonah is about? The structural anomalies of marine life that would permit the swallowing of a man? If that's what you think the story of Jonah intends to reveal, I would question your reading comprehension.

Darrow--Do you, or do you not believe a big whale swallowed Jonah?

Bryan--I am saying that whether a person does or doesn't choose to believe that a whale literally swallowed Jonah is totally irrelevant to the truth being revealed in the story of Jonah. You are missing the truth entirely.

Darrow--What is the truth about Jonah, if not being swallowed by a whale?

Bryan--Thinking that the story of Jonah is about a man being swallowed by a whale is a rather superficial and inadequate summary. It would be the equivalent of saying that the story of Romeo & Juliet is about two disobedient kids who have no respect for their parent's wishes. While both summaries are true, they both miss the entire point of the stories involved. The story of Jonah is about a man who hears God quite plainly, but tries to escape his duty as God's prophet because he knows that God's message will not be well received.

            Now the ball is in Bryan's court. From this point, I can't speculate how this particular line of discussion would have progressed, but you can see that there is a way to debate that allows you take the lead instead of being jerked around by your opponent. 

When you debate a master of deception, you have to be familiar with the tricks of the trade. You have to be able to think 2 or 3 steps ahead of him and you have to be as wise as a serpent, yet gentle as a dove. Put yourself into the character of Pat Morita as Mr. Miyagi in the 'Karate Kid', and you won't go wrong. When your opponent tries to make a fool out of you, you have to make a fool out of your opponent - just once - but in a very witty way that intimidates him into not trying to make you appear foolish again. Bryan lacked the attitude that is necessary when one debates a vicious opponent and his inability to defend Christian fundamentalism shouldn’t be taken to indicate that fundamentalism is indefensible. However, that was the impression that the public got out of that trial, and not many Christian fundamentalists are doing much to correct it.

I played this game as an atheist for 12 years. Trying to trip Christians up in their faith became my hobby, and I discovered that I wasn't alone in my past time. I found a whole pack of rabid atheists on the Internet who shared my philosophy and who were intent on destroying Christianity, one believer at a time. Some of them were university professors and scientists. Some of them were college students. Most of them were extremely bright and driven by a hatred of Christianity. We would converge upon Christian forums and turn the places upside down with our relentless arguments and endless attacks.  We would attack the false pillars of a Christian's faith.

I remember one 16 year old kid who was typical in that he struck up a dialogue with me in an effort to bring me to Christ. He told me the usual personal witness, about how Christ had changed him. I recall receiving a lengthy e-mail from him, describing in loving detail how Jesus had died and suffered on the cross. He wrote about how the nails were placed in his wrists and through his feet and how the weight of his body would tear at these wounds, causing him unbearable pain. He described how crucifixion caused a person to slowly asphyxiate. The he tried to lay the guilt trip on me, telling me that Christ took this punishment on my behalf and that I owed Jesus my love. I wrote him back a reply: " You obviously have never read the recent Oxford study concerning 'Cruci-fiction'. This study, conducted in the archaeological digs of Rome in 1989, conclusively proved that Roman crucifixions did not take place prior to 350AD. It would have been impossible for Christ, in 33AD to have been executed in such a manner. You have bought into a lie. Christ did not die on a cross. He didn't die at all because he never lived. You need to grow up, accept the facts, and move on."

Of course, this was an outright lie that I had manufactured on the spur of the moment. I didn't even think that this kid would buy it, because it contained an obvious fallacy. If we had copies of the gospels dating to 250 AD and if the original gospels were dated to have been written within 100 AD, then how could they contain accounts of a method of crucifixion that didn't happen until 250 years later? At the very least, I thought that he would check to see if the reference was real. But he didn't. He replied, "I can't be a good person without believing in Christ. All of my friends are into drugs and sex, and I can't handle that kind of pressure without faith in God".

I wrote back, "You are giving me a fallacy that is known as an appeal to pity. In other words, you are begging me to allow you to persist in a belief that is false because you can't handle reality without it." I didn't have contact with this kid again until almost a year later. I saw him in an agnostic forum, and he had become one of the most foul mouthed critics of Christianity.

When I had first met him, this young man was no less born again than anyone making the claim. But the foundation for his faith was built upon the historical evidence for Jesus, and when that evidence was called into doubt, it destroyed his faith. He didn't love the truth enough to question a lie and he wasn't familiar with logic, which would have allowed him to spot such a glaring contradiction.

Now you may say that you will just stay away from the Internet and avoid having to deal with this onslaught of anti-Christian badgering . But what do you think happens when people log off of their computers? They don't stop being outspoken when they go back to the classroom or workplace. Most of the mail that I receive comes from college students who are experiencing intellectual doubt for the first time in their lives. They are bombarded with snide comments and introduced to every conceivable criticism of the Bible, by both their professors and fellow students. We have to face it; We can't hide from this type of attack and it's time for Christians to step up and begin equipping ourselves with the tools of intellectualism. We don’t need to be  intellectuals to have faith in God, but we shouldn’t be afraid of acquiring the ability to intellectually defend our faith. We shouldn't be afraid to pick up a book, other than the one God has given to us, and take the time to read and study it. God instructs us to love Him with all of our heart, all of our soul, all of our strength and all of our mind! Loving the Lord with all of our mind may involve getting our butts into a library, now and then. We can't afford to be lazy stewards of the truth that God has given us. If we don't take the time to learn how to contend earnestly for the faith, I fear that more and more people will be able to casually dismiss Christianity altogether, without ever having examined it with any depth.

INTRO TO LOGIC FOR CHRISTIANS  WHO LIKE TO DEBATE

Christians need a quick logic course designed just for them ... And here it is! This small presentation is in no way complete; it is just an introduction to the basics, but it is geared to the arguments of religious matters.

BASIC ELEMENTS OF LOGIC

Logic is the science of correct reasoning. It is a tool that can be used to determine the truth value of opinions.

When opinions conflict, they can result in an ‘argument’. This type of argument is not synonymous with a 'quarrel', although an examination of an argument can indeed lead to one.

The Structure of Argument

Every argument begins with a claim in the form of a proposition. A premise is an assertion that serves as a basis for an argument.

Examples of propositions: Frank is a Catholic. Susan is a member of Church X. Pastors can't be trusted. The pews in my church are old and creaky.

Each proposition is either true or false, but logic analyzes how the truth of propositions is connected with the truth of other propositions.

An argument is a set of two or more propositions that are related to each other in a way that lends support for a conclusion to be drawn. The logical progression in thought that takes a thinker from proposition to conclusion, is called 'inference'.   "Frank is a Catholic," "Susan is a member of Church X," "Pastors can't be trusted,"  "The pews in my church are old and creaky," is just a collection of unrelated propositions; they are not joined in a way where the truth or falsity of one would have any bearing on the truth or falsity on another and there is no inference.

We can construct a simple argument by taking one of the above propositions and supplying it with other supporting propositions and then analyze the relationships between the propositions in order to infer a conclusion.

1.      Susan is a member of Church X.

2.      All members of Church X tithe 10% of their income.

3.      Therefore, Susan tithes 10% of her income.

When the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion, the inference taking place is called 'deductive reasoning'.

Deductive inference can be obvious, for obvious reasons!

When the truth of the premises make the conclusion only conceivable or likely to be true, the inference taking place is called 'inductive reasoning'. Inductive reasoning is considered logical when its premises present reasonable evidence or support for the truth of its conclusion.  

This is why it is inappropriate for Christians to claim they can 'prove' that God exists. 'Proving' involves a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion, and outside of axiomatic and self-evidential truths, very little of value can be 'proven'. But  Christians can certainly claim that they have evidence and use inductive reasoning to support their conclusions.

A violation in the rules of logic results in a fallacy. The best way to not commit a fallacy is to know what one is. Here are some fallacies designed especially for you!

COMMON FALLACIES IN LOGICAL THINKING

  Stay tuned for updates and more detailed analyses! In the meantime, look up logic sites online. Logic doesn't have to be a drab, emotionless pursuit. It's an exciting adventure that will help you to make your case for faith!

PRACTICAL DEBATE TIPS

A good debate will carry both the promise of intimacy and the risk of your argument's destruction. In order for your opponent to destroy your argument, he must first seek to understand it.  In order for you to successfully rebut his counter-argument, you will have to make an attempt to grasp his line of reasoning. Personally, the prospect of being understood has always outweighed the risk of defeat for me. Here are some practical debate tips:

1) Never address your opponent as 'Sir', 'Mr. Soandso', 'Mrs. Soandso', 'Dr. Whosoever', or 'Professor Noitall', even if your opponent has professionally acquired the last two titles. It will give your audience the impression that your opponent has somehow earned your respect and that he is your superior.  If your rival insists on calling you by your earned title or traditional formality, let him but don't reciprocate. You can successfully conduct an entire debate without ever having to refer to the opposition by name. Embedding your opponent's first name in every other sentence can be very condescending:

                    Well, Marvin, perhaps you are unable to comprehend the complexity of what I am demonstrating. You do realize, Marvin, that one plus one equals two?

Don't be the first to resort to this nonsense, but if your adversary does, I suggest that you match his attitude, only for the sake of an even argument.

2) Refrain from using sarcasm in text-only debate forums. If the meaning of a statement depends on the tone in which it is read, you are taking the chance that it will be misinterpreted. I occasionally give in to my affinity for sarcasm and the results are never good! Even though my intentions are to display some good natured ribbing, they are frequently misconstrued as sincere hostility. For example, In the Morality & Meaning Debate, which took place recently on TheologyWeb.com, I sarcastically blamed my opponent for causing discord when the conflict was very obviously caused by a fellow Christian. Overall, it is better to sacrifice humour and wit for clarity in serious discussion. Save your biting barbs for the less intelligent, name-calling type of foe who hasn't the capacity to understand or carry on an intelligent conversation.

3) Stay focused and limit your discussion to the main argument. Every now and then, you will meet a hyper individual who hops around the discussion like a kangaroo with a hot foot. The debate will start off simple enough. He will ask one question or make one comment and you will return a paragraph explaining your position. He will then send you a 15 page rebuttal, filled with misconception about what it was that you said, and introduce a dozen new points of contention. He will expect you to return a 45 page counter-argument, addressing every point and misunderstanding, and will claim victory by default when you fail to spend the rest of your life replying to him. This type of person usually doesn't know the difference between presenting an argument and being argumentative. If you are intent on showing such a person the error of his ways, you will have to constantly keep the original debate on track and ignore all of the flapping red herrings. Keep your presentation as short and concise as possible, because the more you write, the more he will misconstrue. Dissecting his argument into its basic syllogism for your analysis can be very effective because it will limit his ability to wiggle around. Be relentless and keep pressing home your point, even if it means repeating yourself.

4) End the debate with The Final Word.  There are those who believe that whoever has the final word wins the debate. Obviously, this mindset  could severely restrict one's non-debating activities! You need not continue to beat a dead horse; just make sure it isn't twitching and pronounce it dead. Say something to the effect of "I believe that we have exhausted all avenues of the subject at hand. I maintain my position that [insert position here] is correct and that you have failed to demonstrate how your position overcomes [insert his argument's shortcomings here]". 

5) Realize that disagreement does not constitute refutation. I get the impression that many people think that their disagreement with another person's argument disproves the argument. Unless your opponent can logically demonstrate where your argument fails, his disagreement remains an opinion. There is no shame in agreeing to disagree. 

6) Realize that agreement does not constitute substantiation. Conversely, unless you can logically present your argument, agreement with your point of view is mere opinion.

7) Keep your integrity. It's all right to be hard hitting, but it isn't fair to sucker punch a potential rival. Don't copy and paste private e-mails to debate forums or web sites where the author of the e-mail isn't even present to defend his points against attack. 

8) Always let a good opponent know that he or she is appreciated. Some people who engage in religious debate are sincerely interested in the truth. Most, atheists and theists alike, are not. When you find such a rarity, thank them for their participation and perhaps they will agree to debate with you again. 

CHECK OUT A REAL DEBATE:

I recently took part in a debate on TheologyWeb and posted under the name 'Hired Gun'. The content included the basis of morality and 'meaning' (purpose of life). Folks, debate doesn't get any better than this! Sit back, relax and enjoy. This debate is still open, so feel free to post your comments.

Morality and the Meaning of Life!