ch-fig9
 The God Hypothesis

The rest of the book is about comparing and evaluating worldviews. As I argued in section 1, you shouldn’t venture into this part of a conversation until you have done your best to clarify the skeptic’s worldview and helped her better understand the true Christian story. In other words, before you start debating worldviews, you need to have a fairly clear picture of the propositions that are under scrutiny. That doesn’t mean that the skeptic needs to be able to recite back all the theology we covered in section 2, but she should be able to sum up the Christian story as a three- or four-part drama.

The main points in the story of Christianity can be divided into Creation, the Fall, Redemption (Ongoing New Creation), and the Final New Creation. God created us out of love and for love, but we use our freedom to love the creation rather than the Creator and put ourselves out of touch with reality. Thankfully, God in his grace made a way for us to be created again through Jesus. We eagerly await and work toward the consummation of that process.

When you are satisfied that the skeptic has a somewhat decent grasp of those basics and that you understand the essentials of his worldview, you can move on to debate which theory of reality is more likely to be true.

Frankly, you may never get to this point in most conversations, and that’s all right. When I was younger, my conversations with skeptics were almost entirely argumentative. I skipped right over all the foundational stuff and went right to the debate. Now many of the discussions I take part in don’t have any debating in them at all. We spend most of our talk just trying to correct faulty views of Christianity. Indeed, sometimes that takes many discussions. I have mentioned in this book only a few of the more common errors, but there are hundreds more. One could take weeks and months with an unbeliever just trying to undo his misconceptions about Christianity. It simply makes no sense to rush into a debate if the skeptic doesn’t have a clear view of the gospel.

You may even find that debate is not necessary at all. After hearing a sound view of Christianity, some people will realize they have been rejecting a view of the faith that is not as universal as they thought, and will want some time to mull over the new information and consider Jesus again. Admittedly, this probably won’t happen very often, especially among the more vocal and aggressive skeptics, but it can. I’ve experienced it many times over the years.

Other folks may realize they don’t reject Christianity based on the arguments anyway. For example, in August 2011, I took a call from a guy named Jason. He had been in ministry for twenty-five years before leaving Christianity to become a self-described “secular humanist.” As we talked, it became clear that he had not abandoned the faith for intellectual reasons. Near the end of the conversation, after I had explained my view of God’s nature and purposes, he blurted out angrily: “If Christianity was about God loving us and us loving God, I would still be a Christian.”98 There was really no sense in moving on to argue about whether Jason’s new worldview was more likely to be true than Christianity. He hadn’t rejected the God of the Bible because he thought Christianity was false, he had rejected him because he didn’t think God loved him. That was the point we needed to talk about.

However, some, perhaps most conversations do need to move on to an argument (in the philosophical sense of the word, not the emotional sense) about why we should or should not accept one worldview over another. How are we to do that? In this chapter we will look briefly at some criteria for worldview evaluation and offer some tips on how to effectively direct the conversation where you want it to go.

First, though, a quick note on the model of apologetics I present in this book. It is not the only way to do evangelism or apologetics. However, I am convinced that it is a good and biblical way that works well in today’s culture. So I practice it and encourage others to do the same. I love what Groothuis has to say in this regard:

Much ink has been spilled over apologetic methodology. Various schools have contended that their way is superior to others. Some apologists have spent as much or more time attempting to refute their fellow apologists’ methods than they have in attempting to bring apologetics to the people who need it most: unbelievers and doubting followers of Jesus. Evangelist Dwight L. Moody was once criticized by another Christian for his approach to evangelism. Moody’s response was that he liked the way he did evangelism better than the way his critics didn’t do evangelism. This lesson applies to apologetic method as well.99

Also, let’s admit that there simply is no foolproof method of reasoning that will work with everyone, or even most people. As Mitch Stokes correctly points out,

Reasoning in real life . . . is extremely complicated, and we can’t artificially distill it to a neat and simple method. . . . More goes into evaluating arguments than our beliefs and the logical relations between them. Our emotions and desires, our likes and dislikes, often influence which new beliefs we’re willing to take on.100

However, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to reason with people. There is a group within Christianity that rejects apologetics altogether. I think they are simply wrong. We are reasoning creatures, and as we saw in chapter 2, God certainly tries to use apologetics with us. He presents evidence that is intended to lead us to certain conclusions. “Come now, let us reason together,” says the Lord in Isaiah 1:18 RSV. J. P. Moreland writes,

Regularly, the prophets appealed to evidence to justify belief in the biblical God or in the divine authority of their inspired message: fulfilled prophecy, the historical fact of miracles, the inadequacy of finite pagan deities to be a cause of such a large, well-ordered universe compared to the God of the Bible, and so forth. They did not say, “God said it, that settles it, you should believe it!” They provided a rational defense for their claims.101

Groothuis adds that Jesus himself was a brilliant thinker and an apologist who debated his interrogators with exceptional intellectual skill and acumen.

Jesus deftly employed a variety of reasoning strategies in His debates on various topics. These include escaping the horns of a dilemma, a fortiori arguments, appeals to evidence, and reductio ad absurdum arguments. Jesus’ use of persuasive arguments demonstrates that He was both a philosopher and an apologist who rationally defended His worldview in discussions with some of the best thinkers of His day.102

The apostles also made great use of apologetics. They worked hard to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5) and to make sure no one was taken captive by “hollow and deceptive philosophy” (Colossians 2:8–9). They also admonished their followers to contend for the faith entrusted to them (Jude 3). Paul’s discourse on Mars Hill (Acts 17:22–31) is considered by many to be a blueprint for apologetics.

Those who object to apologetics often assert that no one gets argued into Christianity. People believe based on their hearts, not their heads, it is claimed, or based on a direct experience of God. They never get reasoned into the kingdom.

First, this is simply not true. Some people, such as C. S. Lewis, do become followers of Jesus based largely on the arguments for theism and Christianity103 (more on this in chapter 13). Also, write Kreeft and Tacelli, even if the heart moves people more than the head, “apologetics gets at the heart through the head. The head is important precisely because it is a gate to the heart. We can only love what we know.”104

Groothuis notes, “Although reasoning with unbelievers can prove frustrating, this may be more the fault of poor arguments, poor presentations or poor character than of the fruitlessness of apologetics per se.”105 Skeptics already have enough obstacles to hurdle in order to get to God. They don’t need anti-intellectualism thrown in their paths as well. Believers can and should welcome apologetics as a helpful tool in bringing people to Jesus.

Worldview Evaluation

In Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, Groothuis presents a model of apologetics he refers to as “worldview hypothesis evaluation and verification.” In this approach, “the Christian worldview is taken as a large-scale hypothesis (or metanarrative) that attempts to explain what matters most.”106 This nicely sums up what we talked about in chapter 1. We are to understand Christianity as a “broad-ranging theory of everything, in that it tries to account for the nature and meaning of the universe and its inhabitants”107 and compare it to other belief systems that do the same in order to discover which worldview is most likely to be true. Through a variety of arguments, we can show that Christianity alone makes the most sense of what matters most and is therefore superior to its rivals.

Groothuis notes that some might object that the term hypothesis doesn’t seem right in describing the Christian faith, as it is a relationship to a personal God more than a commitment to a list of propositions that may or may not be true. I understand the concern. Certainly I regard my faith in God as more than a hypothesis. However, let’s remember that the unbeliever does not yet have that relationship. To him, Christianity is still, at best, just a possibility.108 We need to help him realize that it is not only possible, but almost certain to be true.

Also, there may be some concern over the idea that we are only trying to figure out which worldview is most likely to be true. Can’t we have 100 percent proof? Well, not based on the style of apologetics we are recommending in this book. That is not to say that proof is not possible. I think Thomas Aquinas offered some valid proofs of God’s existence, for example. It is also not to say that we cannot be certain of God’s existence and our relationship with him. The knowledge of God we get from direct experience of him and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is certainly more than just a probability. However, skeptics don’t have that and we can’t force it on them. God does not generally overwhelm people with his presence to the point where their free will is overcome. Rather, he woos and persuades and proclaims, using evidences and arguments to back up his message. That is what we are trying to do as well. The type of argument presented in this book does not offer certainty to skeptics who don’t yet know Jesus, but it can help them in the right direction.

So how do we go about doing that? Here are a few guidelines for comparing and evaluating worldviews.

A Worldview Should Have Explanatory Power

As we have already established, a worldview is a theory about the nature of reality. As with any theory, we should measure the viability of a worldview by its explanatory power. A worldview must be able to adequately and comprehensively deal with the data. It must be able to account for life as we experience it every day.

The idea that a theory should have explanatory power is a staple of detective stories and scientific research, but it is also used by everyone every day. Philosophers call it inference to the best explanation. It works like this: When faced with certain facts (pieces of data we know to be true), we posit a theory to explain those facts or at least shop around for a theory that could do it. The theory that best accounts for the data is the one we should accept.

For example, just yesterday I found a football lying in the middle of our backyard that I had never seen before. What could account for this phenomenon? I quickly went through a few theories.

Perhaps my wife purchased the ball for our kids while I was at work. That would account for the ball’s presence in the yard, but it wouldn’t easily make sense of the fact that the ball looked weathered and well used, so I moved on to another theory.

Could it be that the ball came from one of my children’s friends? Maybe it was a gift, or some kid left it at our house by mistake. That would explain the presence and condition of the ball. However, I also knew that my children hadn’t been with their friends that day and don’t usually play football anyway. So this theory also had some weaknesses. It could explain the data, but was unsupported by any corroborating evidence and therefore seemed less than plausible.

In the end I went with a third theory: Perhaps the children from next door had accidentally thrown their old football over the fence. This theory didn’t seem to stumble at any level; it explained all the data and was supported by the evidence of my previous experience. The neighbor kids love to throw things around, and we have a long history of sending Frisbees, balls, and other items back over to them. I didn’t have 100 percent proof that my theory was correct. However, in light of the data that I had available, the “neighbor” theory was superior to the others in that it explained all the data and was supported by outside evidence. Put another way, the third theory was the most plausible because it didn’t require that I ignore any of the data or go to great unwarranted lengths to stretch my theory to make it fit.

For example, let’s say I really wanted to believe that my wife bought the football that day. However, the football clearly seemed to have been used for more than one afternoon. I could add some more levels of detail to my theoretical story to make it work out. I could posit that my wife bought the ball at a used sporting goods store, for example. That would account for its location and its appearance. Or how about this for a theory: My wife bought a new ball but then she and the kids took it to a gravel pit and ran over it several times with the SUV. That would explain the data as well. However, adding unsupported claims to the theory makes it much less plausible. Do I have any evidence that they drove over the ball with a truck? No. Is it likely that my wife shopped at a used sporting goods store for the very first time in her life to buy something the kids wouldn’t really enjoy? Not really. The theory is becoming shakier by the minute. The more unsupported and improbable propositions I have to accept in order for a theory to account for the data, the less likely a theory is to be true, especially if there are competing theories that account for the data just as well.

So we should go with the theory that (a) accounts for all or most of the data (it doesn’t have to ignore the data or leave it unexplained) and (b) does so with stories supported by evidence. After all, it’s very easy to come up with a story that explains the data. I could have theorized that an eagle carried the football from another state and dropped it in my backyard. Or it was beamed down from the starship Enterprise. Or we all live in the Matrix and the ball wasn’t really there. The data can always be explained. The key is to explain it without resorting to a just so story109 that lacks any evidence whatsoever. As Greg Koukl points out, “It’s not uncommon for someone to say, ‘Oh, I can explain that,’ and then conjure up a story that supports her view. But . . . giving an explanation is not the same as giving an argument—or refuting someone else’s argument.”110

Perhaps history’s most famous example of inference to the best explanation is the Copernican revolution in astronomy. As measuring equipment became more sophisticated and accurate during the Middle Ages, more and more data came to light that caused problems for the Ptolemaic idea that the earth was fixed at the center of the universe. For example, that model couldn’t readily explain why some planets seem to retrograde (reverse their direction of orbit for a time before returning to their original pattern). To account for this fact, Ptolemaic scholars developed increasingly complex geocentric models. They postulated that the sun and moon orbited around the earth, but the rest of the planets and stars orbited around the sun while embedded in invisible spheres that rotated around other invisible spheres that rotated around other invisible spheres, and so on. These complex theories explained more of the data (not all), but astronomers really had to stretch it to make it work. There was an unwieldy amount of math involved in predicting planetary motions, and even then the model wasn’t entirely accurate. Copernicus, on the other hand, suggested a model that explained the data more simply and predicted the planetary motion much more precisely. Thus, his view that the planets orbited the sun rightly won out as the superior theory. It had much greater explanatory power.

We can evaluate worldviews the same way. There are many worldviews that can account for the data. That is not the issue. The issue is which one best accounts for the data. Which story of the world has to ignore the evidence or stretch to great lengths to make it fit? As we will see in the examples of the next few chapters, the Christian worldview holds up much better than the others.

Other Criteria for Evaluating Worldviews

There are also many other criteria that can be used to evaluate worldviews. For example, a worldview should be logically consistent. If the essential elements of a worldview are self-contradictory, it is false. Also, one should be able to live according to the tenets of one’s worldview. Many people deny that objective morality exists, yet they certainly don’t live that way. In Christian Apologetics, Groothuis also offers six other excellent criteria for evaluating worldviews. They include coherence (if the essential elements of a worldview are meaningfully interconnected conceptually, it is more likely to be true than if its propositions are not connected in this way) and factual adequacy (the claims of a worldview must not contradict historical and empirical facts about reality).111 Groothuis does a masterful job in this area and I encourage you to check out his book.

Again, we will see examples of how to apply these criteria in the following chapters. Before we get to that, however, a few practical tips for comparing worldviews with skeptics.

Dealing With the Data

First, it is important that you each agree on the nature of the data that needs to be explained. You need to establish a point of discussion at which you are both comfortable starting. For example, if I were to enter into a debate with someone about the best explanation for the football in my backyard, we would both have to agree on some of the basic facts of the case. Can we both accept that the ball was there? Do we both agree that the ball had not previously been a part of the family sports equipment inventory? How about the idea that it looked old—can we agree on that? If we can agree on some or all of these points, then off we go. However, if there is a dispute as to the nature of the data, then that has to be established first. If the other person does not accept that the ball looked used (or whatever), then we either need to establish the facts of the case in regard to the appearance of the ball or not allow that alleged piece of data into the discussion at all.

This is very important when discussing data with a skeptic. You need to establish a starting point on which you both agree. If you present as fact that the Bible is the inspired Word of God as your piece of evidence, and then try to build your case for a Christian worldview from there, it simply won’t work. The skeptic isn’t going to accept biblical inspiration as fact. You need something that he can agree is true. In the same way, the unbeliever can’t present as fact that matter is all that exists. You won’t accept that. Neither side should present as evidence something that the other side thinks still needs to be proven.

To accomplish this, you may have to take some time to establish the facts of the case. For example, if one of the pieces of data presented by the skeptic is an assertion that the New Testament was written 400 years after Jesus, you will obviously reject that as false. Either you can debate that idea or the skeptic can choose to leave it and try to find something you do accept.

In the same way, if you start your argument for a Christian worldview with the proclamation that the tomb was empty and the unbeliever does not accept that, you will have to try to establish that as a fact. This can get cumbersome and leave you easily sidetracked, which is why I don’t recommend presenting such a claim in your initial argument.

A List of Indisputable Facts

Indeed, I don’t recommend presenting just one claim. Rather, present a quick list of evidences that you think are much better explained by Christianity than any other worldview. This list should include pieces of data that most people will find impossible to deny. For example, I always include as part of my initial package of evidences the fact that the New Testament exists and the church exists. We have the document and we have believers, right here, right now. No one can deny this. What is the best explanation for their current existence? I think you can work from these two truths to defend the reliability of Scripture and the historicity of the resurrection of Christ and build a very strong case for Christianity from two easy-to-affirm pieces of data. However, I don’t just rest my case on those two pieces. I also include several other facts, including:

This is not an exhaustive list by any means, but presenting it performs a very handy function: It sends the message that you do not base your case for Christianity on one or two disputable claims. Rather, it is based on a large variety of verifiable and widely known facts about the world we live in. Certainly some of these may be denied by the skeptic, but by and large they are not very controversial in and of themselves. The data is accepted. How that data is explained is the controversial thing.

For example, notice that I don’t claim that people interact with supernatural powers (although I certainly think that they do). Rather, I base my case on the fact that people claim to interact with them. I don’t state as a fact that we have free will; I state that it seems like we have free will. By doing this, I can almost always reach an agreement with the skeptic as to the nature of the data. We can agree that people have near-death experiences, for example. We might disagree as to how to explain them, but the fact of the phenomenon itself is not in dispute. When it comes to the Bible, I don’t claim up front that it is trustworthy or divine or anything else that the skeptic will immediately deny. Rather, I build my case for those other truths from a starting point that everyone can agree on.

I realize that this may seem like silly semantic games. After all, in the course of the discussion I will still have to defend the idea that the Bible is trustworthy, and people actually do interact with angels and demons, and that they really do make free choices. Shouldn’t we just jump to that right away? I don’t think so. Practically speaking, conversations go much more smoothly if you can establish a point of agreement from which to build. There is a big difference between saying, “I believe people have free will; you don’t agree; let’s debate the issue” and saying, “We both agree that it seems like people make free choices. What is the best explanation for this phenomenon? You present your case, and I’ll present mine.” The latter statement will produce much better results. Again, we could frame the discussion by saying, “I think we are created for God; you don’t agree; let’s argue this thing out.” But it is better to say, “We can agree, I suspect, that people constantly long for something more. Nothing seems to satisfy us completely. What is the best explanation for this phenomenon? You present your theory, and I’ll present mine.”

The Skeptic’s Data

With regard to the claims that the skeptic might present as evidence for her worldview, it is important to get her to present a positive case for her worldview rather than merely a negative case against yours. One key is to ask the right questions. For instance, ask for evidence or data that she thinks supports her worldview. Don’t ask, “What reasons do you have for believing Christianity isn’t true?” or something similar that will keep you on the defensive. Rather, encourage the skeptic to think like a lawyer who has you on the jury. Have her make a positive case: “What can you show me that would convince me that you have the better theory of reality than the Christian?” “What evidence do you have that is better explained by your worldview?”

Sometimes you will be able to accept the evidence at face value and explain it from a Christian perspective. For example, here are some data points that might be offered that are certainly true:

A Christian can accept these propositions as true and explain them from within a Christian worldview in a way that is superior to rival explanations.

Other propositions can’t be accepted. For example:

If the skeptic is basing his position on these alleged facts, then you will have to dispute them. There is a third category of data that the unbeliever might present that falls into a bit of a gray area between the other two. This would include propositions such as “The universe is much older than 6,000 years.” Some Christians agree that this statement is true, while others don’t. Because I believe that you can be a good Christian while being on either side of this issue, I generally don’t debate it with unbelievers. That is not to say that I don’t have a position or that this topic is not important, it’s just that I don’t think it is worth being dogmatic about with a skeptic. Whatever you believe about the age of the universe, the skeptic does not need to pick a position in order to become a Christian. Therefore, we shouldn’t put up any unnecessary intellectual roadblocks in his way.

This principle also applies to various minor points of doctrine that are not held by all Christians but that can present a stumbling block to an unbeliever if he thinks it is mandatory to accept them as part of the Christian package. For example, I don’t think you should discuss your church’s particular views on the exercise of spiritual gifts as part of a worldview discussion with an unbeliever.

Before Moving On

A quick note about the subjects I will discuss in the next three chapters: They do not represent a comprehensive case for the Christian worldview or against any other worldview. They are not even necessarily the best evidences for either side of the debate. They are samples of some of the subjects that you might talk about with a skeptic. Also, please realize that I am not dealing with even the topics I reference here in a comprehensive way; I am only offering a brief overview of the arguments. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of wonderful apologetics resources available that offer evidences and arguments in support of Christianity, and I did not think it was necessary (or possible) to restate or reference them all here. Rather, I picked three pieces of evidence that I believe are important and powerful, especially in our culture, and that don’t always receive the attention they deserve in books on this subject. My goal is primarily to give you some examples of how to deal with the data when using worldview hypothesis evangelism. Obviously I hope that you will be better equipped and more willing to use the arguments presented here, but I’m more concerned that you are better equipped to effectively use the arguments presented in all those other wonderful books and resources. This is a template for dealing with the data, not an encyclopedia of what to say when faced with the data.

We will start with a piece of evidence that is usually presented by skeptics as evidence that Christianity is false and then move to two facts that you can present as evidence that it is true.