The first half of this book is about knowing what you are setting out to do and how to go about it. This book is not assuming you are talking to a wide audience or entering some formal debate, it is assuming you are talking one on one with someone, so you are not trying to win points from an audience or persuade someone listening in. You are there to talk to the person in front of them, treating them respectfully and really listening to what they are saying. One assumption in this book is that also the general person on the street hasn't actually thought long and hard on what they believe. There are perhaps 3 or 4 "why" questions deep before they don't know. This may mean they can feel uncomfortable as you prob and show that they haven't thought through a point. Your job is to then gently help them to see some hole in their thinking and perhaps help them re-orientate their thoughts.
The main method put up here is called the Columbo Tactic, named after the old TV show. This guy seemed like a soft, harmless guy and all he did was ask questions. This tactic of asking follow-up questions to some loaded question presented helps defuse the tension in the question, starts a discussion with that person as you explore more what they mean and where they are coming from. Another advantage in asking follow up questions is that it means you can help control the direction of the conversation. One example in the book:
Q: "You can't take the Bible too seriously because it was only written by men, and men make mistakes."
Follow up Q's: Do you have any books in your library? Were those books written by humans? Do you find any truth in them? Is there a reason you think the Bible is less truthful or reliable than other books you own? Do people always make mistakes in what they write? Do you think that if God did exist, he would be capable of using humans to write down exactly what he wants? If not, why not?
After asking what someone thinks, the next question to ask is why someone thinks that. A classic question could be something like: "How did you come to that conclusion?" Asking for their reasons for their thoughts is just as valid as them asking the Chrisitan why they believe what they hold to. What you are looking for is more than opinions or statements, but evidence. It needs to be noted that an alternate explanation is not a refutation when presented with another explanation for something, like the Bible being edited, or spontaneous creation of all matter in the universe you are also looking for the difference between what is possible, what is plausible and what is most likely given the evidence
If someone then feels uncomfortable in answering your questions, maybe because they don't know or have a reason for their previous statements, they may then make assumptions about what you think, but then you have every right to say that you haven't said anything about what you think, saying there is nothing here yet for you to defend.
Moving on from asking questions, the other half of the book is more about how to navigate the discussion. There are a few chapters looking at self-defeating or self-contradictions in a worldview. Throughout there are a few useful observations, some looking at relativism. While relativism claims that you shouldn't force your worldview on others, that in itself is a claim that is forced on others who hold different. Likewise, when any absolute statement is made, relativism loses its ground. This is especially problematic when confronted with evil: "The belief that objective good and evil do not exist (relativism) is in conflict (rivalry) with a rejection of God based on the existence of objective evil."
Other tactics presented in this book is what to do when someone keeps jumping to different topics not really engaging with your answers. The best way is to really just call them on their tactic, saying they don't seem to be interested in having a discussion at all. You can then warn them a second time if they aren't engaging and then just simply leave the conversion if they do it again, explaining to them their behaviour towards you.
Or what do you do, when you think you are going to say something that is at odds with the culture and be branded intolerant? In that case, before you answer, ask if the listener is open-minded and if they respect diverse points of view on a subject. Of cause they won't want to come off as judgemental, so when you reply honestly, they can engage with your view and not be reduced to calling you intolerant.
When replying or bringing something up, it is best to have exact facts and figures and sources, rather than vague statements like "most of the founding fathers in American were Christians" it is better to say: "among the founding fathers there were twenty-eight Episcopalians, eight Presbyterians, seven Congregationalists, two Lutherans, two Dutch Reformed, two Methodists, two Roman Catholics, one unknown, and only three deists — Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin. This took place at a time when church membership usually entailed "sworn adherence to strict doctrinal creeds."
There is also a lot of onus on you to think through discussion, to dissect your past conversations and think where your discussion could be improved. Even to think about questions you cannot answer and do some research and leg work to get to the bottom of those questions that may challenge your faith.
This book would be helpful in giving someone a bit more confidence in having a discussion (not a formal debate) with someone they know about their faith. It encourages you to try and to learn from your mistakes, it helps give you a framework that seems less confrontational than what you imagine and throughout the book, there are useful apologetic snippets that you could use in your own discussions.
However, I do fear nowadays, that civil conversations and respectful dialogue are not quite what the culture is asking, I wonder now whether the question people are asking isn't "is this true" but more "does this work" sort of looking for a better way to live in relationships with others, rather than being a consumer of media and stuff.
0 comments:
Post a Comment