Hi Andrew,
I thought these points might give you some pause for thought
regarding the 'structure' of our 'discussions' and depending
on your view point, a guage as to whether or not they are
worthwhile continuing for either of us.
Respectfully and with love,
Christianity has a built-in defense system that effectively
wards off attackers with the flick of a cliché or pat answer
and a retreat to Bible verses considered relevant for
supporting 'proof'. Here are a few examples.
(1)The non-believer cannot understand the things of God
because he doesn’t believe; if you would only believe,
then you would understand. This is clearly a circular
argument, but one usually used with confidence
nonetheless. Such a statement further presupposes that
there is some mystical, epistemological window of
understanding opened up in the mind of the believer
because he or she has taken the “leap of faith”. Thus
according to most Christians, anyone, regardless of
their education, will a priori have a deficient
understanding of reality unless and until they become a
believer in the Bible.
(2)The Bible is the Word of God; therefore, anyone who
disagrees with it must be wrong. This, again, presupposes
the very thing it sets out to prove. Nevertheless, it
serves as a very effective shield against rational and
critical thinking that might undermine the believer’s
trust in the Bible. To undermine this presupposition, one
would have to convince the Christian to doubt the
veracity of the Bible, but then this presupposition
automatically dismisses any such argument to do so
outright. So, we end up going in a vicious circle:
Christian: “The Bible is the Word of God.” Critic: “But
what about verse x and it’s blatant contradiction with
verse y?” Christian: “The deficiency is not with the
Bible, but with our understanding of it. After all, it is
the Word of God and thus cannot be in error.”
(3)Jesus said we should expect unbelievers to try and lead
us astray. This might be stated in any number of ways
using words like “persecution”, “deceive” and “Satan” to
give additional support to the idea that Christianity is
the truth and anything that seems to be subversive
should instantly be relegated as a “lie”. The Christian
worldview tends to be very dualistic: that is, most
things are interpreted as either God’s will or Satan’s
doing. The everyday events of life are often perceived
as either being orchestrated by God or the Devil, and
often believed to contain warnings or messages to help
guide one through his or her day. Thus, anything you
present as contrary to biblical truth (however they
might interpret it) is often automatically interpreted
as deceptive, originating from some evil source, since
it could not be from God.
(4) The Bible is backed by scientific proof. There is a
great deal of Christian literature that tries to
establish the Bible’s truthfulness using evidence from
various scientific fields: physics, astronomy and
cosmology, medicine, microbiology and archaeology just
to name a few. But again, most of these writings are
fueled by the same adamant presuppositions that they are
setting out to prove (i.e., that the Bible simply must
be literally true). Thus, the “evidence” is almost
always very selective, very biased and often
inaccurately interpreted. Christian professionals are
quoted and non-Christian professionals often misquoted
(or taken out of context) in order to shift empirical
weight to whatever biblical claim being staked. In
brief, this answer is often given with a cluster of
quotations and “did you know…?” trivia, but it hardly
has the kind of backing Christians would like to think.
Nevertheless, the literature available to buttress this
kind of defense of the Bible is plentiful and gives the
Christian the rather confident feeling that they’re
using their opponent’s arsenal against him while giving
strength to their own position. Pseudo-science and
misapplied good science supply a false sense of
certainty to beliefs, but don’t expect it to go away
anytime soon. And don’t expect to change too many minds
set in this way…no matter how much evidence you bring to
the table.