Docstoc

SS Apologetics Q12010 week 2

Document Sample
SS Apologetics Q12010 week 2 Powered By Docstoc
					Grace Bible Church Sunday School          Introduction to Apologetics                              12/13/09



Week 2
Philosophy: Why? Ideas are powerful. Wars are fought over them. Lives are taken over them. Much of
what we know is taken for granted. We enter a game in the middle, with the rules already established, and
rarely do we stop to ask “Why is it like this?” Thinking about philosophy requires us to think foundationally.
Thinking about first things, or basic truths. Foundational thinking is important because it lays bare all of our
assumptions so we may discover those assumptions that are false and often lethal.

  Branches of Philosophy:

       Aesthetics - the study of beauty, judgments of sentiment, or taste. Aesthetics is closely associated
        with the philosophy of art. See also Axiology.
       Epistemology - studies the nature and scope of knowledge and belief.
       Ethics - study of the right, the good, and the valuable. Includes study of applied ethics.
       Logic - is the study of good reasoning, by examining the validity of arguments and documenting their
        fallacies.
       Metaphysics – studies principles of reality transcending those of any particular science and is
        concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world. (Aristotle’s Metaphysics
        was divided into Ontology, the study of being and existence, Natural Theology, and Universal Science,
        or the study of “first things”..axioms…a proposition that is self-evident, universally true)
             o Ontology - The study of Being and existence; includes the definition and classification of
                  entities, physical or mental, the nature of their properties, and the nature of change.
             o Natural Theology - The study of a God or Gods; involves many topics, including among others
                  the nature of religion and the world, existence of the divine, questions about Creation, and
                  the numerous religious or spiritual issues that concern humankind in general.
             o Universal science - The study of first principles, which Aristotle believed to be the foundation
                  of all other inquiries. An example of such a principle is the law of noncontradiction and the
                  status it holds in non-paraconsistent logics.


Epistemology – “Theory of Knowledge”… why is this important? Because the source of knowledge can either
be from:
     a personal God who has revealed himself to his creation
     a God who is there and is not silent
     or from nothing more than our own selves

General theories of knowledge acquisition:
1) A priori – knowledge that is known independently of experience (rational, arrived at beforehand).
2) A Posteriori – knowledge that is known by experience (empirical, arrived at afterwards)


Worldviews

“A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in
a set of presuppositions (which may be true, partially true, or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or
subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides that
foundation on which we live and move and have our being” (James Sire, “The World Next Door”)

Worldviews frame how we answer questions about our existence. Questions like:

       What is the prime reality – the really real? (why is there something rather than nothing)
Grace Bible Church Sunday School         Introduction to Apologetics                           12/13/09


       What is the nature of external reality, the world around us? (cause and effect? orderly and closed?)
        (closed meaning no reordering from outside)
       Who are we? (animal? machine?)
       What happens when we die? (afterlife? nothing?)
       How do we know what we know? (Reason? Revelation?)
       How do we know right from wrong? (Relativism? Moral Law?)
       What is the meaning of human history? (Linear, determined, with no metanarrative?)

Micro worldviews
From James Sire’s “The Universe Next Door”
    Christian Theism –
           o God is infinite, personal, transcendent, immanent, omniscient, sovereign, and good.
           o God created the cosmos ex nihilo to operate with a uniformity of cause and effect in an open
               system. (not chaotic, Isa. 45:18-19, not programmed)
           o Human beings are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27) and thus possess personality, self-
               transcendence, intelligence, morality, gregariousness, and creativity.
           o Human beings can know both the world around them and God himself because god has built
               into them the capacity to do so and because he takes an active role in communicating with
               them.
           o Human beings were created good, but through the Fall the image of God because defaced,
               though not so ruined as not to be capable of restoration; through the work of Christ, God
               redeemed humanity and began the process of restoring people to goodness, though any
               given person may choose to reject that redemption.
           o For each person death is either the gate to life with God an dhis people or the gate to eternal
               separation from the only thing that will ultimately fulfill human aspirations.
           o Ethics is transcendent and is based on the character of God as good (holy and loving).
           o History is linear, a meaningful sequence of events leading to the fulfillment of God’s purposes
               for humanity.
           o Pantheism – Pantheistic Monism – “Everything is God”, God and the universe are
               synomynous. presupposes that there is no need for a belief to be consistent, or “true” or
               “logical”. Panentheism is similar but views God as extending beyond the universe. Taoism,
               Hinduism, Kabbalah…
           o Greek Philosophy –
                     Socrates (469BC – 399BC) – the “gadfly of Athens” – challenged the Sophism of the
                        day (Sophists – the term comes from Greek meaning “wisest, or one who makes a
                        business out of wisdom) who believed they could answer any question, and did so
                        through clever rhetoric. They were skeptics who denied that there is truth. Gorgias,
                        a famous Sophist said “All statements are false”. He based this on the belief that
                        nothing exists, and if something does, it is unknowable. Protagoras, the most
                        influential sophist, declared “Homo mensura”, or “Man is the measure of all things”.
                        He certainly was well ahead of the official humanist movement in the late 1800’s.
                        Socrates realized that knowledge and virtue were inseparable. So much so, that
                        virtue could be considered right knowledge. He also developed the Socratic method,
                        still used in courtrooms today, where truth is uncovered by asking provocative
                        questions and challenging assumptions as each question probes deeper towards the
                        truth.
                     Plato – (428 BC – 348 BC) – Socrates student, developed a synthesis of two
                        states…being/permanence (Parmenides) and becoming/change (Heraclitus) by
                        conceiving of two separate worlds: ideas (form) and receptacles (matter) and called
                        for relying on the mind to determine the essence of things (from a beautiful object to
                        the essence of beauty). Plato believed knowledge comes not from experience (a
Grace Bible Church Sunday School        Introduction to Apologetics                              12/13/09


                       posteriori) but from reason (a priori). The senses could not be trusted and are like
                       looking at shadows of realities (the Cave in The Republic – knowledge restricted to
                       the material world is at best opinion and at worse ignorance. The task of education
                       is to lead people out of the darkness into the light, out of the cave and its shadows
                       and into the sun. The Latin term educare’s root meaning is “to lead out of”.)
                      Aristotle (384 BC – 324 BC) – “The High Priest of Empiricism” (empiricism is the
                       theory that knowledge arises from sense experience) and most well known for
                       formalizing (not inventing) Aristotelian logic – Aristotle broke from Plato in his
                       separation of form and matter and said all substance is a combination of the two.
                       Forms or ideas don’t exist independently of each other. Acorns do not grow into
                       elephants because they contain the form of oak treeness, not elephantness.
                       Aristotle also explained that the realm of becoming is the realm of change, and
                       change must be caused by something. The ultimate cause of motion must be rooted
                       in something eternal, immaterial and immutable and called this the “Unmoved
                       Mover”. (Stocism – He also The Stoic doctrine is divided into three parts: logic,
                       physics, and ethics. Stoicism is essentially a system of ethics which, however, is
                       guided by a logic as theory of method, and rests upon physics as foundation. Briefly,
                       their notion of morality is stern, involving a life in accordance with nature and
                       controlled by virtue. It is an ascetic system, teaching perfect indifference (apathea) to
                       everything external, for nothing external could be either good or evil. Hence to the
                       Stoics both pain and pleasure, poverty and riches, sickness and health, were
                       supposed to be equally unimportant.).

           o Deism – an impersonal God exists. While Theism cast out Aristotle as the authority in the
             sciences, Deism cast out the scriptures as the authority in theology and ushers in human
             reason as the authority. Inconsistencies led to its relatively short life as a prominent
             worldview, and was quickly replaced by Naturalism. But elements of it exist as evidenced by
             hearing people talk about “God” as a “force” or a “Higher Power”.
                   A transcendent God, as a First Cause, created the universe but then left it to run on
                     its own. God is thus not immanent, not fully personal, not sovereign over human
                     affairs, not providential.
                   The cosmos God created is determined, because it is created as a uniformity of cause
                     and effect in a closed system; no miracle is possible.
                   Human beings, though personal, are a part of the clockwork of the universe.
                   The cosmos, this world, is understood to be in its normal state;’ it is not fallen or
                     abnormal. We can know the universe and we can determine what God is like by
                     studying it.
                   Ethics is limited to general revelation; because the universe is normal, it reveals what
                     is right. (Alexander Pope in his “Essay on Man” wrote:
                     All nature is but art, unknown to thee;
                     All chance, direction which though canst see;
                     All discord, harmony not understood;
                     All partial evil, universal good;
                     And, spite of pride, in erring reason’s spite,
                     One truth is clear, WHATEVER IS, IS RIGHT.”
                   History is linear, for the course of the cosmos was determined at creation.
      Medieval –
          o Aquinas (1225-1274) – “nature and grace”…Aquinas believed that truth is known through
             reason (natural revelation) and faith (supernatural revelation). There can be harmony
             between faith and reason since God is the author of the Bible and the creator, and they
             pertain to the same unity: truth..
            Grace Bible Church Sunday School         Introduction to Apologetics                          12/13/09


                    Naturalism –Sire says Naturalists "See no God, no spirit, no life beyond the grave."
                        o Rene Descartes (1596-1650), considered the father of modern philosophy, sought certainty
Reason is the                in the midst of the post-Reformation era. He doubted everything until he found the one
abstract                     thing he couldn’t doubt, was doubt. This led to his famous statement “I think, therefore I
deduction of                 am”. He set the stage by conceiving the universe as a giant mechanism of matter which
one truth from               people comprehended by mind. (splitting reality into the mind and body).
another                 o Baruch de Spinoza (1632-1677) – a rationalist who thought that in principle, all knowledge
                             could be gained through reason alone (as opposed to Bacon and Locke). He believed God
                             existed only philosophically and that God and nature were two names for the same reality.
                        o Francis Bacon (1561-1626) - Established an inductive method called the Baconian method
Reason is the
                             (rank ordering phenomenon to allow you to deduce which factors match the occurrence of
objective                    the phenomenon). Bacon espoused inductive reasoning (from fact to axiom to law). Bacon
drawing of              o supported experience and observation to gain facts in reasoning rather than appealing to
truths from                  universal truths.
observation             o John Locke (1632-1714) an empiricist (believe that knowledge arises from sense experience)
                             who believed the mind was a blank slate and knowledge is gained by experience and sense
                             perception.
                        o David Hume (1711-1776) – Authority had been dethroned as a way of knowing. Hume
                             challenged reason by two primary problems; the problems of induction and causation. Hume
                             said we can’t be sure that things we observe continue that way when unobserved.
                             Therefore, we cannot be sure that an effect we see is actually a result of the cause we
                             observe. Pool ball and cue for example…we cannot know that the cue struck the pool ball
                             and made the ball move. We can only assume it. You could call Hume an anti-rationalist.
                        o Immanual Kant (1724-1804) – Kant saw that if causality was illegitimate, then we cannot
                             know much about the world and have no foundation for science. Kant said that knowledge is
                             not from the mind alone (like Descartes thought) or from our senses alone (as Locke and
                             Hume thought), but from both. Our senses give us information and our minds structure that
                             information. After Kant, knowledge was largely seen as being a matter of interpretation.
                             Kant made it popular to doubt we can know reality and to focus on practical things, like
                             ethics.
                        o G.F. W. Hegel (1770-1831) – challenged the concept that reality is unchanging. Western
                             thought, including Christianity, had long held that behind change is a permanence, and the
                             core of that permanence is an immutable (unchanging) God. Hegel saw reality, including God,
                             as evolving to higher levels.
Grace Bible Church Sunday School         Introduction to Apologetics                             12/13/09



      Humanism – believes that humanity must seek truth using reason and observation through scientific
       skepticism and the scientific method. Decisions about right and wrong must be based on the
       individual and common good. Humanism rejects any belief in the supernatural. The Humanist
       Manifesto was crafted in 1933, updated in 73, and again in 2003. It referred to Humanism as a new
       religious movement to replace supernatural religions. The most recent manifesto has six core beliefs:
            o Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.
            o Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.
            o Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.
            o Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.
            o Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
            o Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.
      Pragmatism – a philosophical movement that includes those who claim that an ideology or
       proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the
       practical consequences of accepting it, and that unpractical ideas are to be rejected.
            o Charles Darwin (1809-1882) – needs no introduction.
            o John Dewey (1859-1952) a signer of the original Humanist Manifesto, his influence on the
                public education system has been profound. He was a reformer who sought to break down
                the system of authoritarian, strict, pre-ordained knowledge and emphasize the
                understanding of students actual experiences and biological evolution as core values.
      Nihilism – Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or
       communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns
       existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than,
       perhaps, an impulse to destroy. . This is the natural result of Naturalism, and is quite depressing.
       Sire says, "The first reason naturalism turns into nihilism is that naturalism does not supply a basis on
       which a person can act ~ are not self conscious, we are machines." Really, it is a virtual worldview,
       because no one really lives like nothing matters. The “Nihilist” wakes up and takes a shower and
       brushes his teeth with the rest of us “other-Worldviewists”. If he really believes it, then he is
       institutionalized. Not making a joke here.
            o Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) "Every belief, every considering something-true,"is
                necessarily false because there is simply no true world". He was a self-proclaimed
                “immoralist” and attacked religion, coining the term “God is dead” – and felt that the hidden
                drive behind all creatures is the desire for power.
      Existentialism – rose after the World Wars, partly due to the growing skepticism of the naturalist
       view that progress is inevitable. “I doubt if there has been any philosophical system that has had as
       much influence on American culture in the twentieth century as this school of thought” (RC Sproul)
            o Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) – considered the “father of existentialism”, felt that
                modernisms emphasis on analysis and reason weakened vital aspects of the human life, and
                felt that commitment and passion were at the core of life. Truth and things that really
                matter in life are not object, but subjective. He and Nietzsche focused on subjective human
                experience rather than the objective truths of mathematics and science, which they believed
                were too detached or observational to truly get at the human experience..
            o the “absurd”, or life is absurd beyond what meaning we give to it (as opposed to the Nihilists
                who believe we can’t even give meaning to life).
            o Existence precedes essence (doing is more important than being)
            o reason is inadequate (stresses passion and the will)
            o subjectivity over objectivity.
      Relativism – Truth is relative…personal. There are no absolute truths, but we determine truth for
       ourselves. There is no metanarrative. Language is constantly changing and cannot be trusted to
       effectively communicate truth.
Grace Bible Church Sunday School       Introduction to Apologetics                           12/13/09


           o   Michel Foucault (1926-1984), a Marxist who broke ranks with the communist party in 1951
               believed the individual is dominated by societies idea of knowledge, and considered
               knowledge a product and tool of oppression. In the 70’s, Foucault challenged the view that
               meanings within language and culture are stable and so can be definitively analyzed.
           o Jacques Derrida (1930 - 2004) charged that meanings are always changing, or “at play” and
               definitions depend on dynamic things like experience. But, at the same time, thought that
               we have no access to reality apart from language. Cambridge gave Derrida an honorary
               Doctorate, which was greeted by nineteen professors publically protesting his work as
               “incomprehensible gimmickery”. Institutions agendas can often be determined by who they
               revere…as in the case with the Nobel Peace Prize institution…
           o Richard Rorty (1931- 2007) a neo-pragmatist who considered the idea of truth as a myth. In
               his view, statements are judged by criteria that differe from one culture to another. Since
               there is no way to get outside ourselves to some objective viewpoint, there is no way to see
               if the criteria are correct.
           o Jean-Francois Lyotard (1924-1998) rejected the legitimacy of metanarratives (explanations or
               mental commitments that people use to give legitimacy to other beliefs or activities) –
               Lyotard felt that metanarratives oppress minorities and should be rejected in favor of
               diversity, pragmatism, and micropolitics. This obviously undermines the traditional
               assumption that there are higher principles which all viewpoints can appeal.
      Atheism - There is no God. Some refer to this growing trend as “The New Atheism”, and it is led by
       men like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchins who are promoting “Aggressive Atheism”. This
       seems funny to me since why would they care if Christians go around loving each other and their
       neighbors? The new atheists job is not to just refute Christian evangelism, but rather to evangelize
       their own disbelief as truth.
           o Richard Dawkins (1941 - ) wrote “The God Delusion” and is a popular speaker at universities
               and on TV.
           o Christopher Hitchins (1949- ) wrote “God is not Great” is a secular humanist and anti-theist
               who believes free expression and scientific discovery should replace religion as a means of
               teaching ethics and defining civilization.

      Theist: (personal God)
      Deism: I am a cog in the Watchmaker’s universe. (impersonal God)
      Naturalist: I am only matter and machine.
      Nihilist: I find no meaning to life.
      Existentialist: I create value in an absurd universe.
      Eastern Pantheist: I am one with the cosmos.
      New Age: I seek a higher consciousness.
      Postmodernist: I create my reality through language.

   Worldviews in scripture:

          Paul tailored his starting point to where the audience was. With the heathen at Lystra he began
           by an appeal to nature (Acts 14) and ended by preaching Jesus to them. With the Jews he began
           with the OT moved on to Christ (Acts 17:2-3). But with the Greek thinkers Paul began with
           creation and reason to a Creator and on to His Son Jesus who died and rose again (Acts 17:24f),
           at one point, quoting the stoic philosopher Epimenides, “In him we live and move and have our
           being” (Acts 17:28).
          Jesus (Rev. 3:14-18) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o1QrnKbCqU 3:16)
Grace Bible Church Sunday School          Introduction to Apologetics                             12/13/09


Four essential principles of knowledge..attacked by atheists (taken from RC Sproul’s “Defending your faith”)
1) The Law of non-contradiction –
   a) Definition: “Something cannot be what it is, and not be what it is at the same time and in the same
        sense or relationship”. A cannot be A and non-A at the same time.
   b) Example – the Bible cannot be contradictory AND be the inspired word of God.
   c) Contradiction and paradox: What is a paradox? (para = against dox = what it seems).
        What about the trinity?
        God is one in essence or one person
        God is three in essence or three persons
        would be a contradiction. But, the trinity is NOT a contradiction but a paradox. The proper logical
        statement for the trinity is:
        God is one in essence
        God is three in person. That does not violate the law of contradiction.
   d) Use: The Law of Contradiction is a useful tool to determine the relationship between two statements
        to see whether they are contradictory or whether a persons’ conclusions validly follow from the
        premises.
2) The Law of Causality –
   a) Definition: Every effect must have a cause. Must define the terms – what is an effect? Something
        that was caused. So, “All causes have effects and all effects have causes.”
   b) Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) wrote a book called “Why I am not a Christian” in which he explained,
        that "if everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.” Did you hear the subtle change
        in the law? From “Every effect must have a cause” to “Everything must have a cause”.
3) The basic (although not perfect) reliability of the senses – Hume and other’s eroded the trust in
   perception. While the senses cannot give us an exhaustive or comprehensive understanding of reality,
   the link between our minds (what we think) and the external world (those objects outside our minds) is
   reliable. This is true for the Christian and the scientist alike. The atheist may reject the eyewitness
   accounts of the resurrection by rejecting the reliability of the sense but will support a scientists reliable
   sensory perception in the collection and analyzing of data to support evolution or some other belief.
4) The analogical use of language – Thomas Aquinas distinguished between three kinds of language:
   - Univocal – two uses of the word with the identical meaning.
   - Equivocal – two uses, but they share no similiarity. (After eating dinner, Earl got sick. That move Earl
   put on Drew was sick).
   - Analogical – two uses and they are partly alike, but partly different. (“This chili is good” and “God is
   good”). What this means is we can use a term like “God is good” and it can carry a legitimate element of
   reliability in the communication…we are made in God’s image (Gen. 1:27), thereby giving us an analogy
   of being…the very grounds upon which God’s communication to us becomes significant and intelligible.



Logic

“Faith is not irrational. Authentic biblical truth demands that we employ logic and clear, sensible thinking.”
(John MacArthur from “The Truth War”

Logic, from the Greek λογικός (logikos) *1] is the study of reasoning. Logic examines general forms which
arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies. It is one kind of critical thinking. As a
discipline, logic dates back to Aristotle, who established its fundamental place in philosophy. Logic is often
divided into two parts, deduction and induction.

       Deductive logic (the only acceptable formal logic). Deductive reasoning concerns what follows
        necessarily from given premises (if a, then b – drawing conclusions from specific examples).
Grace Bible Church Sunday School          Introduction to Apologetics                             12/13/09


       Inductive reasoning is the process of deriving a reliable generalization from observations (drawing
        conclusions from definitions and axioms…I observe a, b, and c, therefore, I conclude “d”)

Logic is a valuable tool in witnessing, particularly when using proofs of God's existence. Consider the
following basic approach using logic:
     1. The universe exists.
     2. The universe cannot be infinitely old; because if it were, it would have entered into a state of entropy
         long ago.
              a. Entropy is the second Law of thermodynamics which states that all things are moving toward
                 chaos and non-usable energy. In other words, everything is running down.
     3. The universe is not in a state of non-usuable energy; therefore, it is not infinitely old.
              a. If the universe were infinitely old, the universe would have run out of usable energy long ago.
     4. Since the universe is not infinitely old, it had a beginning.
     5. The universe could not have brought itself into existence.
     6. Something before the universe and greater than the universe had to bring the universe into
         existence.
     7. That something is God.

Deductive reasoning is significant especially when we consider it in conjunction with worldviews. In
deductive reasoning, it is necessary to establish the premises as truth in order to ensure that the conclusion
follows. Worldviews are one primary way in which we establish our central premises.

There are different kinds of logical fallacies that people make in presenting their positions. Below is a list of
some of the major fallacies. It is a good idea to be familiar with them so you can point them out in a
discussion, thereby focusing the issues where they belong while exposing error.
It is true that during a debate on an issue, if you simply point out to your "opponent" a logical fallacy that
he/she has just made, it generally gives you the upper hand. But then, merely having the upper hand is not
the goal: truth is. Nevertheless, logical fallacies hide the truth, so pointing them out is very useful.
      1. Ad hominem - Attacking the individual instead of the argument.
              a. Example: You are so stupid your argument couldn't possibly be true.
              b. Example: I figured that you couldn't possibly get it right, so I ignored your comment.
      2. Appeal to force - Telling the hearer that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the
          argument.
              a. Example: If you don't want to get beaten up, you will agree with what I say.
              b. Example: Convert or die.
      3. Appeal to pity - Urging the hearer to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions,
          sympathy, etc.
              a. Example: You owe me big time because I really stuck my neck out for you.
              b. Example: Oh come on, I've been sick. That's why I missed the deadline.
      4. Appeal to the popular - Urging the hearer to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.
              a. Example: The majority of people like soda. Therefore, soda is good.
              b. Example: Everyone else is doing it. Why shouldn't you?
      5. Appeal to tradition - Trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or
          believed for a long time.
              a. Example: This is the way we've always done it. Therefore, it is the right way.
              b. Example: The Catholic church's tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true.
      6. Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular.
              a. Example: God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is inspired. Therefore, we know
                  that God exists.
              b. Example: I am a good worker because Frank says so. How can we trust Frank? Simple: I will
                  vouch for him.
Grace Bible Church Sunday School          Introduction to Apologetics                              12/13/09


   7. Cause and Effect - Assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together.
           a. Example: When the rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to
                rise.
           b. Example: When the fuel light goes on in my car, I soon run out of gas. Therefore, the fuel
                light causes my car to run out of gas.
   8. Circular Argument - See Begging the Question
   9. Division - Assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts.
           a. Example: That car is blue. Therefore, its engine is blue.
           b. Example: Your family is weird. That means that you are weird too.
   10. Equivocation - Using the same term in an argument in different places but the word has different
       meanings.
           a. Example: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Therefore, a bird is worth more than
                President Bush.
           b. Example: Evolution states that one species can change into another. We see that cars have
                evolved into different styles. Therefore, since evolution is a fact in cars, it is true in species.
   11. False Dilemma - Giving two choices when in actuality there could be more choices possible.
           a. Example: You either did knock the glass over or you did not. Which is it?
           b. Example: Do you still beat your wife?
   12. Genetic Fallacy - Attempting to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant
       history of the claim.
           a. Example: The Nazi regime developed the Volkswagen Beetle. Therefore, you should not buy
                a VW Beetle because of who started it.
           b. Example: Frank just got out of jail last year; since it was his idea to start the hardware store, I
                can't trust him.
   13. Guilt by Association - Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone
       whom is disliked by another.
           a. Example: Hitler liked dogs. Therefore dogs are bad.
           b. Example: Your friend is a thief. Therefore, I cannot trust you.
   14. Non Sequitur - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the
       conclusion.
           a. Example: We know why it rained today: because I washed my car.
           b. Example: I don't care what you say. We don't need any more bookshelves. As long as the
                carpet is clean, we are fine.
   15. Poisoning the Well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to
       discredit the person's argument.
           a. Example: Frank is pompous, arrogant, and thinks he knows everything. So, let's hear what
                Frank has to say about the subject.
           b. Example: Don't listen to him because he is a loser.
   16. Red Herring - Introducing a topic not related to the subject at hand.
           a. Example: I know your car isn't working right. But, if you had gone to the store one day
                earlier, you'd not be having problems.
           b. Example: I know I forgot to deposit the check into the bank yesterday. But, nothing I do
                pleases you.
   17. Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a standard to another that is different from a standard
       applied to oneself.
           a. Example: You can't possibly understand menopause because you are a man.
           b. Example: Those rules don't apply to me since I am older than you.
   18. Straw Man Argument - Producing an argument about a weaker representation of the truth and
       attacking it.
           a. Example: The government doesn't take care of the poor because it doesn't have a tax
                specifically to support the poor.
Grace Bible Church Sunday School          Introduction to Apologetics                             12/13/09


            b. Example: We know that evolution is false because we did not evolve from monkeys.
    19. Category Mistake - Attributing a property to something that could not possibly have that property.
            a. Example: Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday.
            b. Example: Saying logic is transcendental is like saying cars would exist if matter didn't.

So, what should we do?
    1. Set Christ as Lord (1 Pet. 3:15a) “I have little doubt that the single greatest obstacle to the impact of
       the Gospel has not been its inability to provide answers, but the failure on our part to live it out. I
       remember well in the early days of my Christian faith talking to a close Hindu friend. He was
       questioning the experience of conversion as being supernatural. He absolutely insisted that
       conversion was nothing more than a decision to lead a more ethical life and that, in most cases, it
       was not any different from other ethical religions. I had heard his argument before. But then he said
       something I have never forgotten: “If this conversion is truly supernatural, why is it not more evident
       in the lives of so many Christians I know?” ... Notice (in 1 Pet. 3:15) that before the answer is given,
       the one giving the answer is called to a certain prerequisite. The lordship of Christ over the life of the
       apologist is foundational to all answers given. This means the apologist’s task begins with a godly
       walk. One ought to take time to reflect seriously upon the question, Has God truly wrought a miracle
       in my life? Is my own heart proof of the supernatural intervention of God? That is the apologist’s first
       question.

    2. Pray
           a. It is the Lord who opens the heart and mind, not you (Acts 16:14). Ask God for guidance (John
               14:14). Ask for blessing in your understanding (James 1:5) and your speech (Col. 4:6). Ask the
               Lord to also open their understanding to God's word (Luke 24:45).
    3. Study
           a. READ! - The knowledge of others is invaluable. Isaac Newton said, "If I have reached the
               stars, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." In other words, he learned from
               others.
           b. Study what you don’t know.
    4. Memorize Scripture
           a. Few things are as powerful when defending the faith as being able to cite chapter and verse
               of a particular verse (Psalm 119:11; 2 Tim. 3:16).
    5. Interact appropriately and effectively
           a. Listen to what is being said to you
           b. Don’t interrupt
           c. Respond to what is said. It is by listening that you will then know what to say. Listen for
               errors in logic. Listen for motives, for hurts, for intent.
           d. Ask Questions - Think of yourself as a detective trying to get to the real truth. “What makes
               you say that?” and “Why do you think that?” are great questions to start uncovering the
               presuppositions.
           e. Don’t be afraid - to make mistakes or take chances - One of the best ways to improve is to
               discover your weaknesses. The best way to discover your weaknesses is when mistakes
               uncover them for you. You can rest knowing that “Salvation is of the Lord”. Don’t be afraid
               to say “I don’t know – I’ll have to get back to you on that.”
           f. Be humble and gentle – patient -
Grace Bible Church Sunday School   Introduction to Apologetics   12/13/09




What is a worldview?


Why do they matter?


The evolution of worldviews:
Grace Bible Church Sunday School              Introduction to Apologetics   12/13/09


    1.    Socrates (469BC – 399BC)
    2.    Plato – (428 BC – 348 BC)
    3.    Aristotle (384 BC – 324 BC)
    4.    Aquinas (1225-1274)
    5.    Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
    6.    Baruch de Spinoza (1632-1677)
    7.    Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
    8.    John Locke (1632-1714)
    9.    David Hume (1711-1776)
    10.   Immanual Kant (1724-1804)
    11.   G.F. W. Hegel (1770-1831)
    12.   Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
    13.   John Dewey (1859-1952)
    14.   Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)
    15.   Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
    16.   Michel Foucault (1926-1984)
    17.   Jacques Derrida (1930 - 2004)
    18.   Richard Rorty (1931- 2007)
    19.   Jean-Francois Lyotard (1924-1998)
    20.   Richard Dawkins (1941 - )
    21.   Christopher Hitchins (1949- )

Worldviews in scripture:


Logic:




Four essential principles of knowledge:

    1.

    2.

    3.

    4.

So what?

    1.

    2.

    3.

    4.

    5.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:11/20/2011
language:English
pages:12