As a child growing up in an evangelical home, I took an apologetics class taught by a friend\u2019s father who was also a seminary instructor. I also read books of apologetics (I absolutely adored my church\u2019s well-stocked library), and for a while, I participated in the apologetics category at homeschool speech tournaments. One of the sources I often turned to was Answers in Genesis.<\/p>\n
Answers in Genesis, a creationist organization, promotes something called \u201ccreation apologetics,\u201d which essentially involves first convincing someone that the earth is young and that evolution cannot explain its origins, and then convincing them that the Genesis creation story is the only one that makes sense of the world\u2014leading, of course, to the assertion that the rest of the Bible must then be true too.<\/p>\n
I thought of all of this when I came upon an Answers in Genesis article promising to prepare reader<\/a>s to effectively and easily refute other religions. Curious, I took a look. I was underwhelmed, to say the least.<\/p>\n Scripture calls Christians to refute (i.e., prove false) false views (e.g.,\u00a02 Corinthians 10:4\u20135<\/a>).\u00a0<\/span>And with just a little knowledge, they can usually easily refute false religions and beliefs.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n See the promise that this will be easy? That ought to set up some red flags this is going to be simplistic and probably ineffective right off the bat. In fact\u2014statements like that arguably make the apologetics work being done more about reinforcing the beliefs of the refuter<\/em> than about changing the beliefs of the refutee. In other words, it\u2019s about making you feel confident about your own beliefs.<\/p>\n But check out the sort of thing on offer here:<\/p>\n Christians can refute false beliefs by using God\u2019s Word (the absolute standard).\u00a0<\/span>It is important to know what the Bible teaches because using God\u2019s Word is the best refutation method.\u00a0<\/span>All other authorities are lesser authorities, so appealing to lesser authorities to trump the ultimate authority winds up in a\u00a0false authority fallacy<\/a>\u00a0every time.\u00a0<\/span>(A\u00a0fallacy<\/i>\u00a0simply means that an argument has been refuted or is false.) Even so, sadly, many will still ignore the Bible\u2019s refutation of their religion and continue believing false beliefs.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Read it again if you\u2019ve finished the paragraph confused. The argument is that the Bible is the \u201cultimate authority,\u201d so any appeal to other authorities is automatically a fallacy\u2014the \u201cfalse authority\u201d fallacy. That is not how logic works<\/em>.<\/p>\n The link, by the way, does not help matters. It is about something called the \u201cfaulty appeal to authority\u201d fallacy, which is closer to being an actual<\/em> fallacy. Except not quite. The article asserts that appealing to scientific expert is an authority is a fallacy because it represents a failure to consider how that individual\u2019s worldview might influence their scientific claims. That\u2019s not quite how this fallacy works<\/a>. But even if it were, this is not what the paragraph above was about.<\/p>\n We could close the curtain here, but let\u2019s go on.<\/p>\n Another way Christians can refute a false belief or religion is by showing that the religion or belief is fallacious internally within its own story or set of beliefs.\u00a0<\/span>There are three ways this can be done.\u00a0<\/span>These religions can catch themselves in inconsistencies or arbitrariness, or those claiming to adhere to a false religion or belief have to give up their belief system and borrow from the Bible to make sense of things (this is called preconditions of intelligibility\u2014my favorite type of refutation).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So we\u2019ve got: (1) inconsistencies; (2) arbitrariness; and (3) their religion has to borrow from the Bible \u201cto make sense of things.\u201d<\/p>\n Before we go on to see what this apologetics looks like in action, check out the self-assurance of the article\u2019s author, Bodie Hodge:<\/p>\n Refutation usually grabs people\u2019s attention by showing that these beliefs are really sinking sand.\u00a0<\/span>And any\u00a0one<\/em>\u00a0refutation of a false set of beliefs (e.g., worldview, philosophical system, or religion) is enough to refute the whole thing.\u00a0<\/span>It\u2019s that simple.\u00a0<\/span>So let\u2019s look at some quick, easy refutations.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s that simple.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n When someone tells you it\u2019s that simple, it\u2019s probably not.<\/p>\n At this point, Hodge offers a series of one-paragraph refutations of various religions and belief systems. He starts with \u201cmaterialism\u201d:<\/p>\n Materialism<\/em>, a belief that asserts that all things that exist are made up of matter and energy, is itself not material or energy, but a nonmaterial\u00a0concept<\/em>.\u00a0<\/span>This means materialism cannot exist within materialism.\u00a0<\/span>Thus, materialism is self-defeating and refuted.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Um. No.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t think Hodge actually understands the \u201cbelief\u201d he is refuting. The idea that matter is all there is is not consistent with brains made of matter that think thoughts. The idea that matter is all there is is a rejection of the existence of the supernatural (gods, miracles, divine realms), not a rejection of the mind (which, by the way, is made of matter).<\/p>\n Eastern religions, like Taoism and Hinduism, have an impersonal \u201cgod\u201d (e.g.,\u00a0Brahman<\/i>\u00a0or ultimate reality).\u00a0<\/span>How then can anyone know that this \u201cgod\u201d is impersonal?\u00a0<\/span>After all, this \u201cgod\u201d cannot communicate anything\u00a0about\u00a0<\/span>itself to man since communication is personal.\u00a0<\/span>This is arbitrary, to say the least, and self-refuting.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n What. Maybe ask a Taoist or a Hindu if you\u2019re confused? But short of that, just off the cuff, you can know that your neighbor exists (and perhaps is anti-social or reclusive) without ever talking to her, and without her communicating anything to you. But again\u2014ask a Taoist or Hindu, because this simplistic response does not strike me as containing an actual understanding of what they\u2019re probably claiming.<\/p>\n Agnosticism<\/em>, which claims that one cannot know if God exists, has no basis for the existence of knowledge and thus is stuck in a catch-22.\u00a0<\/span>The agnostic cannot even know if he can or cannot know if knowledge exists.\u00a0<\/span>Thus, he cannot even know if he is in a position to determine if God exists or not.\u00a0<\/span>(Confusing, isn\u2019t it?) Thus, it is inconsistent and self-contradictory.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If you\u2019re confused\u2014and you should be\u2014the way to make sense of this paragraph is to remember that Hodge and his fellows at Answers in Genesis claim that there is no basis for the existence of knowledge outside of the Bible. Anyone who does not believe in the Bible, they claim, has no grounds for rational thought or even for making<\/em> claims. Outside of the Bible, you cannot know anything, because only the Bible offers the premise or grounds for rational thought.<\/p>\n This claim, of course, is bizarre. Outside of other religions, which frequently also have explanations for intelligibility, scientists, too, have created explanations for the rise of communication, intelligibility, reason, logic, and so forth. While scientific research on the brain is ongoing (and fascinating), any claim that intelligent thought is only possible (or explained) when one starts with the Bible is nonsense.<\/p>\n The Koran (Qur\u2019an) affirms that the Bible is true and the Word of God1<\/a>\u00a0but then contradicts it,2<\/a>thus showing that the Koran has erred.\u00a0<\/span>The Koran says that no one can change the Word of God (Surah 6:34, 10:64), but then claims the Bible has been changed (Surah 2:75, 101; 3:70, 78, 187; 4:46), though there is no textual witness of such an occurrence.\u00a0<\/span>Then the Koran states that\u00a0its<\/em>words\u00a0have<\/em>\u00a0changed (Surah 2:106; 15:90\u201393;3<\/a>\u00a016:101).\u00a0<\/span>Thus, the Koran contradicts both the Bible and itself.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If we\u2019re going by contradictions in holy books, Hodge has a problem, because his holy book has its own fair share of contradictions. And sure, he probably has all sorts of answers and solutions that explain these contradictions\u2014but if he\u2019s going to give himself that grace, he should offer it to Muslims as well.<\/p>\n Atheists say there is no God.\u00a0<\/span>To make this claim, the atheist must be omnipresent to observe that God does not exist in the past, present, or future heavenly or physical realms; the atheist must be omnipotent to have the power to stop an all-powerful God from taking his place as God; and lastly, the atheist must have all knowledge (omniscience) to finally know for sure that God doesn\u2019t exist.\u00a0<\/span>Therefore, the atheist must be an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscience \u201cgod\u201d to say there is no omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient God.\u00a0<\/span>They must have the attributes of God to claim God doesn\u2019t exist.\u00a0<\/span>Thus, the atheistic position is self-refuting.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Far from \u201cgrabbing people\u2019s attention\u201d and showing them that their beliefs rest \u201con sinking sand,\u201d these \u201crefutations\u201d instead highlight the lack of understanding of the one making them. Indeed, making the argument above to an atheist would simply give that atheist the opportunity to talk about their beliefs (or lack thereof), and to explain how atheists actually approach this issue.<\/p>\n This is not the \u201cgotcha\u201d argument Hodge clearly thinks it is.<\/p>\n Atheists continually attack God, whom they lump as mythical with the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus in books, articles, lectures, journals, memes, billboards, and so on\u2014yet they don\u2019t spend the effort to do this with the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.\u00a0<\/span>This is arbitrary and inconsistent.\u00a0<\/span>When it comes to suppression of the truth (Romans 1), actions speak louder than words.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n What. No one outside of children believes the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, or Santa Claus actually exist\u2014and children only believe in them because adults consciously lie to them. If Hodge actually made this argument to an atheist, he would be walking into a trap, because atheists typically love<\/em> talking about God in the same sentence with the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and Santa Clause.<\/p>\n I once had an atheistic evolutionist criticize me for believing in a literal Genesis as he argued that we were no different from squirrels.\u00a0<\/span>All the while, the evolutionist was wearing literal clothing\u2014unlike a squirrel\u2014which was instituted by man (not animals) in a literal Garden of Eden, after the first literal sin, with the first two literal people (Genesis 3).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hodge gets an F in listening. If he had made his \u201cgotcha\u201d observation out loud, and then listened, he might have heard an actual answer. Instead all he seems to have come away with is smugness.<\/p>\n Naturalism<\/em>, which is a belief that nature (all that is physical) is all that exists, is itself not part of nature\u2014being conceptual and nonphysical<\/em>.\u00a0<\/span>Thus, naturalism stands opposed to naturalism.\u00a0<\/span>This is inconsistent and self-refuting.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Um no. See my answer on materialism above.<\/p>\n Those in\u00a0relativism<\/em>\u00a0criticize the absolute truth of Christianity by arguing that \u201cabsolute truth doesn\u2019t exist.\u201d So ask them why they are professing an\u00a0absolute truth<\/em>\u00a0about\u00a0<\/span>absolute truth not existing.\u00a0<\/span>It\u2019s that simple to refute.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I am not a relativist (strictly speaking, at least), but I\u2019m pretty sure that this, like so much of what Hodge offers above, is a caricature.<\/p>\n