Defense or Offense?

[theopoesis]

"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." 2 Corinthians 10:15

I came here to learn, and initially just interjected where I felt that a gross mistake was being made, or where an alternate perspective would be helpful. After some time, though, I began to see a common trend of the same basic non-theist arguments being made here again and again and again. I also have noticed that the most frequent approaches by Christians are to sit back and wait for these same arguments to be made, and then to attempt to reply to them. Apologetics seems to be almost exclusively a defensive act. Some offensive apologetics are made, but mostly in the science forum, and it seems that science is the most fortified stronghold of the secularist. It is not necessarily impregnable, but it is their strong point. Why do we limit our offense to the strongest point? Is there no other grounds on which we can challenge the secularist?

I see the status quo as a problem for many reasons. I'll offer three for now:

(1) Defense alone makes an unfair fight

If Christians and other theists spend most of the time defending propositions that often depend largely on faith, the non-theist rarely has to assert anything about his or her own position, and therefore rarely has to defend anything. Christians have nothing to poke a hole in, but the non-theist has hundreds and thousands of opportunities. Eventually, we won't be capable of defending one thing or the other, and so we will lose. The non-theist, needing to defend nothing, cannot lose. It's a battle of attrition.

What's worse, this battle often begins when a new Christian says "hi" in the general chat. Welcomes tend toward the beginning of a refutation, and there is no quarter for the theist of any variety. The secularist or non-theist, however, can spend months here without ever having to defend his own position except for defending the big bang or evolution. This hardly seems a balanced fight.

I'm not saying we start jumping non-theists in the general chat, nor am I saying that there aren't plenty of Christians who come here ill equipped to defend their faith. What I am saying is that if all we do is defend, there are only two outcomes: apostasy or endurance. There is little hope for gaining any ground on the secularist.

(2) Defense alone limits our own learning

It is obvious to any observer that the non-theists here are intelligent and well educated. They know Christianity very well. I believe that a major reason for this is that many of them have spent years here (not considering elsewhere) spending time on threads that are mostly attacks on Christianity and defensive apologetics by Christians. After a few months, they know Christianity much more, and after a few years they are nearing being an expert. They learn. Often, Christians that come here but don't know anything about their own faith don't last long, because they only see Christian perspectives being throttled. Veteran christians can either withstand the onslaught or defend their perspectives, but in doing so they only have a limited benefit. They already know their faith well, so in defending it they learn less that is new about it. Thus, Christians don't learn.

How many Christians here have learned much about what non-theists believe? I've learned about why non-theists don't believe in God, but I haven't learned anything at all about secular models of anthropology, sociology, ethics, or psychology. In short, my education here has been limited because I (and other Christians) rarely attack non-theist positions on these matters in order to be able to hear what they believe and why. Instead, we hear our own perspectives in an echo chamber. I think we could get more out of the forum.

(3) Defense alone limits discussion

There are difficult things in Christianity to believe. I admit that, and willingly. But as long as Christians on the defense admit similar things repeatedly, but non-theists never admit their weaknesses and are never shown them, the assumption here will be that the theist is in weaker grounds. Therefore, the discussion takes the shape of squashing theism instead of dialoguing between two perspectives that can both learn from one another. Until we knock the non-theist down a notch, I doubt we'll be granted the legitimacy we need to enter discussion while viewed as an equal. There are certainly honorable and considerate non-theists here who treat Christians as equals, but there are far fewer who seem to grant that a Christian can intellectually grant anything of equal worth to many discussions if what is offered is distinctively Christian. I came here to dialogue, but I haven't had much of an opportunity.

So that's what I've been thinking. What do other Christians think? Why are we mostly on the defensive? How might we go on the offensive? Would the forum and individuals on it be better off if we did? Or, am I crazy?

[otseng]

Defense or Offense?

I think we should do both.

Some offensive apologetics are made, but mostly in the science forum, and it seems that science is the most fortified stronghold of the secularist. It is not necessarily impregnable, but it is their strong point. Why do we limit our offense to the strongest point?

I participate mostly in the Science and Religion subforum. And in there, most of the time I'm either attacking the opposing position or defending my position. For example, in the Did humans descend from other primates? thread, I'm attacking the position that humans did descend from primates and defending the position that humans are special creations.

Yes, science is a strong point for naturalists, but what's exciting is that there has been a revolution in the past several decades in science to support Christianity. And it will only continue to grow in the foreseeable future.

The secularist or non-theist, however, can spend months here without ever having to defend his own position except for defending the big bang or evolution.

Rarely do they make any positive claims, so there's not much that one can attack or even defend.

What I am saying is that if all we do is defend, there are only two outcomes: apostasy or endurance.

Well, hopefully another outcome is conversion for the non-Christian.

How many Christians here have learned much about what non-theists believe?

Since I spend most of my time in the Science subforum, I've learned a lot.

How might we go on the offensive?

Besides areas of science, I think one ripe area for attack is the veracity of other worldviews. Is atheism true? Is naturalism true?

[fewwillfindit]

Is Atheism true?

This is precisely why they seek shelter under the "non-theist" moniker. Atheism makes a positive claim, non-theism does not. In regards to this, theopoesis has made a brilliant effort to define them as secularists, but they reject this, essentially saying, "we have no world view." If one believes nothing, there is nothing to defend.

If one's warcry is, "I believe in nothing. Now prove that your god exists," victory takes little effort, and even less preparation.

[EduChris]

...I...initially just interjected where I felt that a gross mistake was being made, or where an alternate perspective would be helpful...

This is a good way to get started. Just because you start out defensively doesn't mean you can't progress toward more proactive discussion.

...If Christians and other theists spend most of the time defending propositions that often depend largely on faith...

Which is why I made the move toward the positive argument that theism is at least as reasonable as non-theism.

...this battle often begins when a new Christian says "hi" in the general chat. Welcomes tend toward the beginning of a refutation, and there is no quarter for the theist of any variety...

In general, non-theists seem to have more time on their hands, they are less considerate and less civil, and they get away with more bad behavior. The theist can expend a great deal of energy and thought into an argument, and yet non-theists will simply dismiss the argument as "posturing," "navel-gazing," "word-salad," or some such thing. Non-theists congratulate one another and often believe that they have won the argument simply because a number of non-theists have all summarily dismissed an argument (rather than because any valid counterarguments have been presented).

...the non-theists here are intelligent and well educated. They know Christianity very well...

Can't agree with you here. There may be a few, but in general most non-theists here have a junior-high level of popular Christianity. They have no real concept of literary interpretation, no appreciate for or understanding of the rudiments of philosophical inquiry. In short, and with a few notable exceptions, most non-theists here don't know enough to understand a philosophical argument, much less to refute it or even to know when they've been beaten.

...Often, Christians that come here but don't know anything about their own faith don't last long, because they only see Christian perspectives being throttled. Veteran christians can either withstand the onslaught or defend their perspectives, but in doing so they only have a limited benefit. They already know their faith well, so in defending it they learn less that is new about it. Thus, Christians don't learn...

I've learned what non-theists are saying now. The questions they raise do change over the years, and it's helpful to keep up with this. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the non-theists are the ones who never learn anything--and this is because they most often argue against their own presuppostions and preconceptions; they are unable to understand what the theist is actually saying, because the non-theists filter everything through their own preconceived notions.

...I haven't learned anything at all about secular models of anthropology, sociology, ethics, or psychology...

Most non-theists here don't have the foggiest understanding of such things. How do you get the fish to see the water?

...Until we knock the non-theist down a notch, I doubt we'll be granted the legitimacy we need to enter discussion while viewed as an equal...

Most non-theists here believe they have nothing to learn from theists, and there is no way to "knock them down a notch" unless they first become able to step outside themselves and really consider other viewpoints.

...There are certainly honorable and considerate non-theists here who treat Christians as equals, but there are far fewer who seem to grant that a Christian can intellectually grant anything of equal worth to many discussions if what is offered is distinctively Christian. I came here to dialogue, but I haven't had much of an opportunity...

That is the moderators fault more than anything. If moderators would enforce civil discussions, then there would be more fruitful dialogue.

...How might we go on the offensive? Would the forum and individuals on it be better off if we did?

I think we need to be more selective about who we engage in dialogue. Some people, in my view, have demonstrated repeatedly that they are incapable of civil, thoughtful debate. Moreover, I think we need to support each other more. How often do we find a single theist simultaneously responding to multiple non-theists? I don't know how we should go about doing this, though, because often I'm unsure about whether I would be helping my fellow theist or merely veering off from his or her intended direction. Would more private messaging help? I don't know.

[WinePusher]

I think we need to be more selective about who we engage in dialogue. Some people, in my view, have demonstrated repeatedly that they are incapable of civil, thoughtful debate. Moreover, I think we need to support each other more. How often do we find a single theist simultaneously responding to multiple non-theists? I don't know how we should go about doing this, though, because often I'm unsure about whether I would be helping my fellow theist or merely veering off from his or her intended direction. Would more private messaging help? I don't know.

I've recently been sending private messages to theists and atheists alike who post good arguments. But this trend is intriguing, atheists tend to be more active on the internet (specifically on youtube and other outlets such as that). Personally, I kind of cherish the fact that there are only a few Christian Apologists on here (I distinguish between Christians and Christian Apologists because there are some people on here who claim to be Christian but rarely defend the faith.)

One of the things I like about this specific forum is that it is challenging for Christians because there are so many non-theist posters and very few Christians who defend the faith, it makes it more fun. The only thing I find annoying is when an atheist or a liberal references another poster or post and tells you to rebutt that post without formulating an argument of their own. It's like cheating and copying off another user, and if that's all you can do then you minus well just refrain from posting then.

[EduChris]

...The only thing I find annoying is when an atheist or a liberal references another poster or post and tells you to rebutt that post without formulating an argument of their own. It's like cheating and copying off another user, and if that's all you can do then you minus well just refrain from posting then.

Agreed, and it seems that the non-theists tend to think an argument is invalid if it fails to convince them (even apart from any evidence that they have tried to understand the argument).

But the fact is, Theopoesis has gone "supererogatory" in his pursuit of mutually productive dialogue; the fact that he has not been able to enjoy such dialogue here tells us that something is definitely wrong here, and we need to work on ways to elevate the level of discourse on this forum.

[WinePusher]

...The only thing I find annoying is when an atheist or a liberal references another poster or post and tells you to rebutt that post without formulating an argument of their own. It's like cheating and copying off another user, and if that's all you can do then you minus well just refrain from posting then.

Agreed, and it seems that the non-theists tend to think an argument is invalid if it fails to convince them (even apart from any evidence that they have tried to understand the argument).

But the fact is, Theopoesis has gone "supererogatory" in his pursuit of mutually productive dialogue; the fact that he has not been able to enjoy such dialogue here tells us that something is definitely wrong here, and we need to work on ways to elevate the level of discourse on this forum.

I don't really care whether an argument convinces an atheist, per say. My concern is how an atheist responds to an argument they face. There are some atheists who give a point by point, logical and substantive refutation which makes for productive debate. While there are other atheists who respond to an argument by asking questions or by pointing out the theists lack of understanding, which is unproductive.

[Amadeus]

I agree that we must defend and attack. This is biblical.

something that helps the christian do both is presuppositional apologetics. I am just learning the basics of this system, but it is the only God honoring one because It does not allow the "non-theist" to get you into a "what-if-god-isn't-real" mindset. It is dishonoring to God to say "if there is a God..." we KNOW there is a God and we can boldly proclaim that the christian worldview is the only worldview that accurately describes the universe. I will be participating in a class soon, so I hope I will know more concretely what this entails at a later date.

[Slopeshoulder]

I agree that we must defend and attack. This is biblical.

something that helps the christian do both is presuppositional apologetics. I am just learning the basics of this system, but it is the only God honoring one because It does not allow the "non-theist" to get you into a "what-if-god-isn't-real" mindset. It is dishonoring to God to say "if there is a God..." we KNOW there is a God and we can boldly proclaim that the christian worldview is the only worldview that accurately describes the universe. I will be participating in a class soon, so I hope I will know more concretely what this entails at a later date.

We don't "know" there is a God. We have faith without knowing. And that faith shapes our reality, our lives, and ourselves. But that isn't knowledge, it's merely a truth for us (that could be true for all, but we don't know).

And we have no basis for saying that Christianity accurately describes the universe, particularly to someone who uses science. We're just talking to ourselves. But that is not apologetics. I don't presuppositionalism gets us past that.


I think presuppositional apologetics fails in its earlier versions due to it's circularity. If it is a basis for fideism, I'm all for it. But when it is applied in an evidentiary way to non-believers, it is misapplied. It only serves to deepen sectarian apartness.
However, it does have the virtue of calling into question or decentering the alleged verities of reductionsistic scientism, positivism, and rationalism. And it helps us validate our beliefs to ourselves. Lastly, it allows us to find a reasonable ground for talking to entrenched moderns about a post-modern fidestic belief.
But again, if it used as a tool in rational evidentiary debate within a modern context, it fails. When I see it in the hands of premodern- or modern-minded fundamentalists, this misapplication is always evident. Not so when adopted by postmodern fideists.

In other words, give me millbank over van til for a start.

Also, I'm all for offense if it evens out the playing field vs. an assertive secularism, but not to convince the world that I/we have all the answers. I think God laments and laughs at that hubris and exclusivism.

God is in every person and religion, including in a whole mess o' atheists.

[Amadeus]

1 John 5:13
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

1 John 5:20
And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

The Bible doesn't leave room for "we think we are right". We have a blessed assurance that these things are true and that is what is meant by HOPE.