I had the great privilege of taking
part with Jim in the 260th PleaseConvinceMe podcast, marking five
years of a rather unique, evidential ministry. We
discussed a variety of topics, including whether lying is ever permissible for
a Christian and whether God is “fair.” We concluded with a brief conversation on a
topic that every apologist realizes is the number one impediment to presenting
the Gospel – apathy. I mentioned that I have made my peace with what often
appears to be limited success in reaching people who are firmly set in their atheistic
ways. I thought I would use this post to expand a bit on the dangers of
expecting too much when we engage with apathy in an apologetic effort.
The normal progression – especially for
newer apologists – isn’t hard to predict. We catch fire for a while, learning
as much as we can, and trying to steer conversations around to matters
spiritual. We run headlong into the secular mindset, think we’re making
progress by overcoming a few token objections, but then are surprised to experience,
essentially, a yawn. Many – most? - just
don’t seem to care. What’s next is, far too often, a loss of heart. It’s as if
we think God is speaking to us in a way, chiding us for failing at this important
task. Far too often, this discouragement leads to doubt... and sometimes to a
loss of faith.
There is, of course, a certain logic to this. After all, ideas that are false - that lack persuasive power- are not likely to be accepted by others. Our First Amendment are premised on the notion that in the free marketplace of ideas, good ideas prevail while bad ones are eventually weeded out.
But implied in this understanding is the assumption that the listener will give the ideas a fair shake. If the listener has already decided not to accept the claim, even before he considers the evidence and arguments, then all the persuasiveness in the world will not alter the outcome. Moreover, if the listener is motivated by emotion rather than reason, then evidence and arguments are not likely to have an effect.
One way to test for this is to ask the listener what it would take to get him to change his view. Oftentimes, it's not so much the person's answer that you are looking for but the hesitation in answering, which reveals the person's commitment to persisting in his views despite the evidence. This is especially evident when discussing "hot button" issues such as abortion. When you see hesitation, or a commitment to maintaining one's position, then your apologetical efforts will likely prove futile.
As a prosecutor, identifying hidden biases is of great importance. The jury that is selected to consider a case must be open to hearing and fairly evaluating the evidence. Otherwise, the verdict will be a reflection of their preexisting biases and not of the truth of the underlying charge. Whether it’s a case of possession of marijuana, or a decision on the death penalty, it's simply not possible to overcome strongly held biases. For this reason, much effort is devoted to excusing jurors who will not consider the evidence so that the trial itself is not simply a waste of time. The point of the trial is to determine whether the claims as to what occurred are true - that is, whether they conform to reality - and not a referendum on the wisdom or efficacy of the law. Similarly with apologetic efforts, the point is to demonstrate that the Resurrection is an historical event, so that the listener might then consider the claims that Jesus and his disciples made. A listener who already believes that all religions are bad, or that miracles don't occur, will not consider the evidence from history.
There are, of course, arguments against the existence of God, or against the truth claims of Christianity. But as a "one dollar apologist," I don't often encounter these. Most people I have discussed Christianity with are simply apathetic. They are living “good” lives – at least as far as they measure “good” - lives that are full of activity and ceaseless stimulation. They have been led to believe that this life is all that really matters, so they try to live it fully and with gusto, never thinking about what lies beyond. Trying to get them to consider ultimate things is often times frightening and off-putting.
This is not to say that we should stop trying to convince people that are open to discussion. The Great Commission directs us to engage, as does 1 Peter 3:15, admonishing us to always be ready to provide a reason for our hope. But it does mean that we should have realistic expectations as to what we can accomplish. We may only plant the seed, and may never know what impact our words or deeds will have somewhere down the road.
And, most importantly, we cannot judge the validity of our beliefs based on the reluctance of others to embrace them. As my grandmother was fond of saying, you wouldn’t jump off a cliff just because everyone else was. Sometimes, all you can do is follow what you know is true, regardless of where the rest of the culture is trying to lead you. Indeed, to draw conclusions about truth, we need to consider the evidence for and against the claim. A biased jury will never reach the truth. But by the same token, their mistaken "verdict" doesn't alter the truth either.
There is, of course, a certain logic to this. After all, ideas that are false - that lack persuasive power- are not likely to be accepted by others. Our First Amendment are premised on the notion that in the free marketplace of ideas, good ideas prevail while bad ones are eventually weeded out.
But implied in this understanding is the assumption that the listener will give the ideas a fair shake. If the listener has already decided not to accept the claim, even before he considers the evidence and arguments, then all the persuasiveness in the world will not alter the outcome. Moreover, if the listener is motivated by emotion rather than reason, then evidence and arguments are not likely to have an effect.
One way to test for this is to ask the listener what it would take to get him to change his view. Oftentimes, it's not so much the person's answer that you are looking for but the hesitation in answering, which reveals the person's commitment to persisting in his views despite the evidence. This is especially evident when discussing "hot button" issues such as abortion. When you see hesitation, or a commitment to maintaining one's position, then your apologetical efforts will likely prove futile.
As a prosecutor, identifying hidden biases is of great importance. The jury that is selected to consider a case must be open to hearing and fairly evaluating the evidence. Otherwise, the verdict will be a reflection of their preexisting biases and not of the truth of the underlying charge. Whether it’s a case of possession of marijuana, or a decision on the death penalty, it's simply not possible to overcome strongly held biases. For this reason, much effort is devoted to excusing jurors who will not consider the evidence so that the trial itself is not simply a waste of time. The point of the trial is to determine whether the claims as to what occurred are true - that is, whether they conform to reality - and not a referendum on the wisdom or efficacy of the law. Similarly with apologetic efforts, the point is to demonstrate that the Resurrection is an historical event, so that the listener might then consider the claims that Jesus and his disciples made. A listener who already believes that all religions are bad, or that miracles don't occur, will not consider the evidence from history.
There are, of course, arguments against the existence of God, or against the truth claims of Christianity. But as a "one dollar apologist," I don't often encounter these. Most people I have discussed Christianity with are simply apathetic. They are living “good” lives – at least as far as they measure “good” - lives that are full of activity and ceaseless stimulation. They have been led to believe that this life is all that really matters, so they try to live it fully and with gusto, never thinking about what lies beyond. Trying to get them to consider ultimate things is often times frightening and off-putting.
This is not to say that we should stop trying to convince people that are open to discussion. The Great Commission directs us to engage, as does 1 Peter 3:15, admonishing us to always be ready to provide a reason for our hope. But it does mean that we should have realistic expectations as to what we can accomplish. We may only plant the seed, and may never know what impact our words or deeds will have somewhere down the road.
And, most importantly, we cannot judge the validity of our beliefs based on the reluctance of others to embrace them. As my grandmother was fond of saying, you wouldn’t jump off a cliff just because everyone else was. Sometimes, all you can do is follow what you know is true, regardless of where the rest of the culture is trying to lead you. Indeed, to draw conclusions about truth, we need to consider the evidence for and against the claim. A biased jury will never reach the truth. But by the same token, their mistaken "verdict" doesn't alter the truth either.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment