Scott taught me to ask a diagnostic
question early in my conversations on campus. A student engages me
in a conversation about the pro-life argument and I say, “Do you
think it would be wrong for someone to kill you? Do you think
unjustly taking your life would be objectively wrong and it would be
right to punish the person who did so?”
The overwhelming majority of people
answer yes. This means they believe (1) in objective moral values,
duties, and accountability and (2) that it is wrong to unjustly kill
human beings. They reject the idea that it is perfectly acceptable to kill
human beings like them. They simply fail to see or understand how
unborn human life – fetal or embryonic – can be considered like
them in morally important ways. Our argument then focuses on making
a scientific and philosophical case that fetal and embryonic human beings are valuable
human lives in the same way the rest of us are.
But what if they say, “No, I don't
think it is objectively wrong to kill me.” What then? Do we just
wring our hands and move on to an easier and less weird objector? We
can't start making the case for life using science and philosophy
just yet because they appear to reject certain important facets of
that argument. What we have encountered is an entirely different
worldview and that requires a step back.
I once was a pro-choice atheist that
rejected the existence of objective morality. What changed my views?
I tell every group that I work with that I was won over by good
arguments from good arguers. Both of those elements are crucial to
success. There was no shortage of judgmental and harsh Christians
willing to condemn me, but thoughtful caring arguers were scarce. I
was not pleasant by any stretch of the imagination - such was my
distaste for the religious folks I knew - but they claimed to
represent some all powerful benevolent force that loved all. I just
thought we were all autonomous jerks in our own right.
How many Christians were able to get
past the nasty assault and draw me into an actual conversation? One.
That precious and disciplined young lady made it possible for me to
change by making room for me in a discussion that was respectful and
cordial even while centered on profound disagreements. She didn't
change my mind while we talked, but she certainly put what Greg Koukl
calls a stone in my shoe. It was nearly a year later and she was
nowhere in sight when the full weight of her work and arguments came
to bear on me. She was not present for the change, but she helped make it happen.
Lately I am giving more and more presentations on the Christian worldview. I passionately believe that in order to engage
objectors it is vital that we understand what we
believe first and how our worldview comes to bear on the topic at
hand. When we appropriately grasp our own beliefs we will more
clearly see the areas of disagreement and help our detractors
better see them as well.
My initial worldview
presentation is not an exhaustive discussion of what everyone who
disagrees with us believes. Such a talk would be a monstrosity of
overkill anyway. It is too much to take on effectively and – more
importantly – most audiences I talk to aren't truly convinced worldview
study matters to them. So I focus on a few foundational beliefs of
the Christian worldview while touching on how those beliefs differ
from others.
How does the resurrection differ from
the experiences of Joseph Smith, Mohammed, and Buddha while answering the claims that Christianity is based on a myth? How does
Trinitarian Monotheism impact the argument that we all worship the
same God so what difference does it make? How does an all powerful
eternal being reveal himself to us and how does that answer the claim
the bible is just a book like any other? What do we mean when we say
that we are God's image bearers and how does that impact our
understanding of consciousness, objective morality, and our place in
the animal world?
These are the very basics of our belief, but the better we grasp these basics the better equipped we are to engage people who misunderstand us. Christians ought
to study their worldview because they will be challenged on it, it is
rationally defensible, and there are people that need good
arguers with good arguments in order to reach them with the grace of
Jesus Christ.
My next three posts will draw out those
last three points.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments are moderated. We reject all comments containing obscenity. We reserve the right to reject any and all comments that are considered inappropriate or off-topic without explanation.