Brief Answers to Common Challenges
Rebuttal Notes
Brief Answers to Common Challenges
Here are some brief answers to the challenges offered in the preceding four chapters. Pay attention to the way the responses have been framed using some of the strategies and principles we’ve described in Forensic Faith.
Forensic Faith Challenge #1: Faith Is Incompatible with Reason
Skeptics in our culture often argue faith is the opposite of reason. They also typically characterize themselves as the only “reasonable” people in the debate. How would you respond to this common objection given what you now know about the evidential nature of Christianity? Can you think of two or three things you might say to someone who makes this kind of claim? Here is one way to respond:
Although there may be some unreasonable Christians, Jesus never asked us to abandon reason as believers. In fact, the New Testament repeatedly tells us to use reason to determine if Christianity is true. Consider these three points:
We’re told not to be “like unreasoning animals” (Jude 4, 10), and we’re told to love God with our “mind” (Matthew 22:37–38).
Jesus told us to examine the evidence He provided (John 10:37–38), and He stayed with His followers after the resurrection to provide them with additional evidence (Acts 1:2–3).
Jesus’s followers regularly “reasoned” with people to convince them Christianity is true (Acts 17:2–3), and we’re told to “examine everything” carefully (1 Thessalonians 5:19–21).
So while not every Christian you meet may be able to defend what they believe with reason, the Christian worldview can be defended reasonably. I’d invite you to examine the evidence.
Forensic Faith Challenge #2: Christians Are Hypocrites
The hypocrisy of Christian believers is often cited by nonbelievers. One popular Internet meme declares, “I’ve got nothing against God: it’s His fan club I can’t stand.” Author Brennan Manning (himself a believer) once put it this way: “The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians: who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.” How would you respond to this common objection? Below is one example of a reasonable response:
Everyone has an area of their lives where their beliefs are in contradiction with their actions. Hypocrisy describes something more than occasional misbehavior. When someone claims to believe one thing, but continually and unapologetically practices another, they can accurately be described as hypocritical. Given this is the true definition, much can be said about the nature of “Christian hypocrisy”:
True Christ followers are not hypocrites. Christians may fail on occasion, but if they continually and unapologetically deny the teaching of Jesus, they aren’t really Christ followers, no matter what they may call themselves.
True Christ followers are, however, imperfect. We still fail and struggle to change our behavior. Be patient with us; we’re just like everyone else.
True Christ followers are more likely to be called out for our misbehavior. After all, it’s a lot easier to condemn the actions of those of us who are known to hold to an exceedingly high standard than it is to judge people who are quiet about what they believe and can later nuance their values to match their behavior.
There are millions of Christians who strive daily to be more like Jesus. We will fail on occasion, but this does not mean we are hypocrites.
Forensic Faith Challenge #3: Science and Religion Are Incompatible
Ernst Haeckel, the famous German naturalist biologist, once wrote, “Where faith commences, science ends.” Ever heard someone say something similar when they argue science is incompatible with your Christian beliefs? Have you ever been told, as a Christian, that your beliefs contradict what we know is true scientifically? How would you respond to this common objection about the relationship between Christianity and science? Can you think of two or three things you might say to someone who makes this kind of claim? Here’s one option:
Scientists study the “effects” they observe in the universe and then try to determine the most reasonable cause. If the evidence is best explained by the existence of a timeless, non-material, non-spatial personal Being, science may actually confirm the existence of God. But in order to evaluate the scientific evidence properly, you have to keep three things in mind:
Science doesn’t “say” anything. Instead, scientists do. If the scientists evaluating the evidence reject the existence of God before they start, they will never interpret the evidence fairly, even if the evidence points to God as the best explanation.
An over-reliance on science is self-defeating. When people say, “Science is the only way to know the truth,” they are making a philosophical (rather than scientific) claim that cannot be tested or discovered with science.
Many of the world’s greatest scientists have believed in the existence of God, including historic thinkers like Johannes Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, and Max Planck, and current scientists like John Polkinghorne, Francis Collins, Simon C. Morris, and Michael Behe. The discoveries made by these great thinkers weren’t inhibited by their belief in God. Instead, their theistic beliefs encouraged them to discover the immutable laws governing the universe.
Forensic Faith Challenge #4: Christians Are Intolerant
Christians are often called intolerant, especially when we disagree with moral values and ideas held by non-Christians in our culture. Voltaire once wrote: “Of all religions the Christian is without doubt the one which should inspire tolerance most, although up to now the Christians have been the most intolerant of all men.” How might you help people understand the difference between disagreeing and being intolerant? What might you say to help people understand the nature of true tolerance? Here is a reasonable response:
Our culture has confused agreement with tolerance. Tolerance, as it is described popularly, is the notion that all views have equal merit and none should be considered any better than any other. If this definition is true, it’s not surprising that Christians would be labeled intolerant when they don’t agree with something accepted by the culture. But true, classic tolerance actually requires the following:
A true definition: The classic definition of tolerance is much more akin to a “fair, objective, and permissive attitude towards those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality etc. differ from one’s own.”
A thoughtful disagreement: Based on this definition, in order for two people to tolerate each other, they must maintain their disagreement. If they agree, there’s no need for tolerance.
A tactful demeanor: Even though I may hate a bad idea, as a Christian, I’m called to love the person who may hold the bad idea. In fact, I am called to love the people with whom I disagree.
True Christian believers follow the teaching of Jesus. We may disagree with you, but that alone doesn’t make us intolerant.