#STRask - What Apologetics Strategies Can We Use with Agnostics?

Episode Date: May 30, 2024

Questions about apologetics strategies to use with an agnostic who says it’s pointless to worry about whether there is a God because we can’t know if he exists and whether it’s a bad strategy to debate things like miracle claims with someone who rejects them. What apologetics strategies can we use with an agnostic who says we can’t know whether there is a God, therefore it’s pointless to worry about it and you should just live your best life? If someone thinks the stories of the Bible can’t be true because there isn’t enough evidence to support things like the Nephilim or miracle claims, should you debate them about these things?

This is the Hashtag STR Ask podcast, and hopefully this is where you're meant to be, because that's where you are. Wherever you go, there you are. That's right. All right, Greg. Yes, Amy. We have some kind of tactical questions today. The first one is from Marie. Greg, you talk a lot about atheism, but not much about agnosticism. Please discuss apologetic strategies towards one who says we cannot know whether there is a God. Therefore, it's pointless to worry about it. Just live your best life. Well, notice that a person who says that, and that's one of two types of agnostics, by the way. The two types of agnostics are, the first type, it's a fairly modest claim, and that is,

I don't know. I can't decide between two options. I'm withholding my point of view or my decision or my commitment because I can't decide. Okay, well, it's entirely legitimate. The other side is, I don't know and nobody can know because this is unknowable. Now, that is a much bolder claim. And my question to them is, why would you think this is unknowable? Now, you might ask for clarification, too. Your first question, what do you mean it's not knowable? Let them talk a little bit more. And one thing I've been saying more frequently during my tactics talks is rhetorically responding to the audience, you might be thinking, why am I asking the other person to give me more information about their own view? And my answer is that I want them to

talk as much as possible, because if my view is true and their opposing view is false, the more they talk, probably the bigger hole that they'll be digging for themselves. And so if I'm asking for more clarification of what I think is a bad view or a compromised view or a false view, it's going to give me more to work with. So when somebody says, well, you can't know that. So what's the point? Tell me more about that. And I want them to explain it a little bit more. But initially, I just jumped to the second question. Why would you think that no one could know? Now, that might be incorporated in their response when you ask for more information, but that's what I want to get at. Why would you think that? Now, a lot of

times, what's driving that is kind of a scientistic point of view. And scientism is the point that is the view that you can't know anything unless science affirms it. There's a lot of people who have an impulse that direction, but it turns out to be obviously false because most of the things that we think we know are not necessarily confirmed by science. And many of the things that we thought we knew by science turn out to be wrong when scientists change their minds, okay? It's not a put-down on science as epistemology, but it's just noticing its limitations and sometimes its liabilities, okay? So, the agnostic in this case, well, you can't scientifically prove God, therefore, you can't know if there is a God, so therefore you have to be agnostic about whether he's there or not, and what's the point in talking about him? Well,

I guess I disagree on most of those points. Scientism is self-refuting. The claim that only science gives you accurate information about the nature of the world is itself something that people believe to be true, those who are scientific, but can't be confirmed by science. So it doesn't fulfill its own requirement for truth. Secondly, there are counterexamples. There's lots of things that we know. I know what I'm thinking right now, but not knowing what I'm thinking because science has somehow weighed in, I know my own thoughts directly. And that's just one simple example. There's a lot more I could give.

So there's lots of counterexamples. And one of the counterexamples is to offer some kind of evidence for God that seems compelling. Maybe not persuasive, but it seems compelling. And one of the most powerful, I think, evidence is the cosmological argument. Everybody pretty much agrees that the universe is not eternal. It came into existence at some time in the past. So what caused that to happen? You only have two choices. Either something caused it or nothing caused it. That's it. Law of excluded middle, law of non-contradiction, that's it.

Now, that nothing caused the universe to come into existence strikes me as wildly counterintuitive because it's completely inconsistent with our standard experience in things, especially in science, where we're looking at effects and we're trying to figure out what caused that effect because we think that effects don't just sit there by themselves or are self-caused or uncaused, but that something led to the effect that's adequate to the effect. And so we're just applying the same principle to the origin of the universe. And now some people say, well, science doesn't apply to the origin of the universe.

You're using a scientific principle. And my response is, and I got this from Bill Craig, is cause and effect isn't a scientific principle. It's a metaphysical principle that science uses. So if we can't use it here as a reliable principle, why is it that science can use it as a reliable principle? All I'm saying is this is a common sense notion. And so if the universe came into existence, something caused it. That's where the smart money is. Okay, well, it would have to be something outside of the natural universe.

It would have to be something intelligent. It would have to be something really powerful. It would have to be a person to kind of initiate the chain of events. And that's pretty much God. So there's an argument. God. So, there's an argument. Why can't—why am I not justified in believing that there is a God in virtue of that information? Now, some people may say, well, that doesn't prove there is a God. I say, okay, so it doesn't prove it. But doesn't it show that God's the odds unfavorite? It's the most reasonable option rather than the alternate, which is nothing caused everything

for no reason with no purpose. Okay? And so all I'm offering right now is kind of a counterexample to the claim that you can't know whether God exists or not. Well, it strikes me there's all kinds of evidence that can be brought into play, and I just gave one example, the origin of the universe, from which we can infer God. into play, and I just gave one example, the origin of the universe, from which we can infer God. And notice what's interesting here is even though science does not have the ability to directly affirm the existence of something immaterial, because that's not what it does,

we can use material factors, scientific elements if you want, the origin of the universe, the DNA double helix, and the information encoded there, these are all features of the natural world from which we can infer properly, it seems to me, or at least reasonably, a designer or a creator, God, in other words. So there are lots of things that are available to us that—and Christians have been trotting these things out for 2,000 years—that are available to us that help us to reasonably conclude that God does exist. And so the hard agnosticism that says it's not possible to know is unjustified, is what I'm saying. Notice how I've dealt with this tactically. First, I'm asking these questions. Well, what do you mean by that? And why would you say that? And I'm presuming that some kind of scientistic response is going to follow. Oh, well, because science can't prove God. I said, okay. Can science prove science? That's the way I put it. I can't believe in God. Why not? There's no scientific evidence. Then you can't believe in science either. Why not? Because there's no

scientific evidence for science, in other words, for the project. And that's the self-repeating thing I was referring to before. But notice that I'm using questions in that enterprise as well. And then coming up with counterexamples of evidence for God, or at least things that at least point to the plausibility of God as the best explanation for the way things are, I think these are all ways to answer the person who holds kind of a hard agnosticism versus a soft agnosticism, which says, no, I just don't know. The hard agnostic says, I don't know and no one can know. Wow, that's a pretty bold claim. My question is, how can you live your best life if you don't know what the best life is. If you have no idea what reality is or the deepest things about reality and meaning and all these other things, what does that even mean to live your best life?

You're just doing things. How do you know what you're doing? You're just doing what you feel like doing? That's not your best life. I think someone might respond and say, well, what's good and what's good for human beings and human flourishing is just obvious. And I think to some degree there's truth to that. I could live my life in a way that seems to be consistent with values that are meaningful or whatever. But now you've entered into it kind of a teleological element.

Okay, now they're hitchhiking on the values that make sense in a Christian worldview, but don't make sense in atheism. Okay, why is it that these certain things that you seem to know are good, why are they actually good in themselves? And that's the teleology, that we are to say that the best life, and this is what you're getting at, Amy, implies that there is such a thing as a best life, and there's a goal for human beings. I think a lot of people can get a sense of what that goal is

about the nature of the world and being made in the image of God. Yet at the same time, they can't make sense of it given their agnostic worldview. And I think these are indicators that point to God. Why is there evil in the world? Well, there can only be evil in the world if there's good, and it has to be objective good that is violated to make the problem of evil, and where did the good come from? What grounds the good? All of these kinds of things that might be common sense to people, and they are common sense, I think, that have to do with good life or whatever, need to be grounded, and they are grounded very comfortably in a Christian worldview. It just occurred to me, too.

In Nancy Piercy's book, The Toxic War on Masculinity, she talks about how statistical— some studies have shown that the statistics show that religious Christians are doing better in all sorts of ways. So that might be another question. Why do you think that is? Everyone's trying to live their best life. They're doing what they think is right. But why, as people become more secular, they become more isolated. They become more depressed or whatever it is. Why are they doing the best by all these measures? And of course, you know, you'd have to prove that,

you'd have to show the studies, but... Which she does, by the way, in her book. Yes, yes. But if you're talking to someone about living your best life, that might be something to bring up just to say, well, isn't that interesting? Why do you think that would be? But I kind of distilled down what you said, Greg, into a couple questions. And the first one would be— Too many words? Just so Marie can remember what to ask.

I'm not surprised. That's what my daughters say, too many words. Because I think the first thing you have to establish is, why do you think we can't know? Too many words. Because I think the first thing you have to establish is why do you think we can't know? Because that answer will direct how you're going to make your case. What do you think they would say, Greg? Why do you think we can't know? Well, that's the second Columbo question.

And I think many will come up with kind of an implicit scientism because science can't prove God and science is the way we know things. And so then after that, I would say, well, one of two things. Either I would say, would you consider an argument for God? I'd love to hear what you think about it. Or I would ask, what arguments have you considered that you rejected? I'm curious to hear why you rejected them. But I just, I don't, I hesitate to say it that way because I don't want them to feel put on the spot because they probably haven't, or they probably can't recite any ones, even if they have in the past. It might be better just to say, I would love to

hear your feedback on this because I find this really compelling. And that might be a way to kind of invite them into a conversation about evidence. Well, the way I put it in Street Sms is for the person who says there's no evidence for God, I would say, really, well, what evidences have you considered that you think have fallen short? So I think that is a fair question to somebody who says there's no evidence, okay? And because you've got the different forms of the cosmological argument. I just gave one a moment ago, the Kalam form. There's also another one. And that does not rely— The contingency argument.

Feuerbach? Leibniz. Leibniz, thank you. I'm losing it here, Amy. Leibniz, thank you. That doesn't depend. Leibniz does not depend on the beginning of the universe. That's contiguous. You've got moral argument for God. You've got the teleological or design

argument. Those are the kind of the three biggies. You've got the argument for desire that C.S. Lewis had a great influence on C.S. Lewis, and he talks about—there's all kinds of—you have historical arguments regarding Jesus and the resurrection. So there's lots and lots of avenues to pursue that at least suggest some promise. Now, whether all of those go completely through is a different matter. But when somebody says there's no evidence, this is not a fair statement, because the fact is there's lots of evidence. Now, it doesn't mean the evidence for an individual might be conclusive, but there's lots of evidence.

And that needs to be taken in consideration. So I think that's a fair question to ask. And if there is evidence, I mean, maybe they'll say, well, you can't prove it. Therefore, it's pointless to worry about it. However, if there is good evidence, then you should at least consider it because there are a lot of things at stake. Right, right. Either way, there are things at stake.

The word prove is a little bit of a, you know, of, what's the right word? A mush word or a fudge word or whatever. You always want to clarify if somebody says prove, what do you mean by prove? Because there's lots of different standards for proof. Beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, blah, blah, blah. Okay. And I think the appropriate way of approaching that is, look, I'm not trying to prove anything. What I'm trying

to show is that the odds on favorite, okay, now this is a way of thinking, of reasoning, called the abductive method, an inference to the best explanation, which is the way of thinking, of reasoning, called the abductive method, an inference to the best explanation, which is the way we acquire lots and lots of knowledge now. We look at a range of factors, and we say, what's the best explanation, odds on, for that phenomena or that group of phenomena? And that's the way we do science, okay? And that's called explanatory power, and that's the way to approach it. So I'm not going to say the moral argument proves without any possibility of being wrong that there is a God. Rather, I'd say this simply shows that the odds-on favorite is God's existence, not God's nonexistence by comparison. So watch out for that proof word that comes up.

Always seek to qualify it and then make the point, well, I'm not trying to prove in that sense. Not sure what you mean by prove or what would count as proof to you. But I want to—I'm trying to make the case that the smart money in this case is on God or Jesus or whatever. Here's a question from Julie. My husband believes that the stories of the Bible can't be true because there isn't enough evidence to support claims like the Nephilim were giants or all of the miracles that took place. Is debating these things even a good tactic? Well, the question is whether debating with a person like that is a good tactic, and it may not

be, all right? Because I make this point a number of times in the story of reality, and the point is what is plausible to an individual? It's called plausibility structure, right? What is plausible to an individual is the way that they see the world. And so, a person like Richard Dawkins, for example, will go to the Bible and say, water into wine? Are you kidding me? This is ridiculous. Okay, well, it is ridiculous if atheism is true.

And Christopher Hitchens, when he debated J. Richards, interrupted Richards in the middle of his presentation, and he says, well, do you think that Jesus rose from the dead? And J. said, yes. And he said, well, I rest my case. What case? It was a clever example of circular reasoning. It is only evidence against Christianity if Christianity is false and atheism is true, because what Christopher Hitchens is doing is he's measuring Christianity by the standard of an atheistic worldview. And what I say in the story of reality is this is just not fair to assess one worldview by the standards of an opposing worldview, especially when what's at issue is which particular worldview is actually true. And you have to assess them within their worldview. Now,

look, if the Christian worldview is true, we live in a magical world. There is a material realm and there's an immaterial realm. There is a God who can penetrate the material realm and do things that are not consistent with the normal functioning of a material realm. numerous times, if the Big Bang is best explained—now, here's my terminology—by the existence of a Big Banger, well, that's the biggest miracle of all. And if that miracle happened, then all the rest is small potatoes, okay? So if we demonstrate that we actually live in a world that is a miraculous world, then these things are certainly plausible. Then it becomes a matter of, do we have reason to trust the historical record if we are not ad hoc, kind of out of nowhere, simply disqualifying it because we don't like what the events

that are recorded there, the nature what the events that are recorded there, the nature of the events that are recorded there. I mentioned the story of reality, but I actually spent some time talking about this in a couple of places in the story of reality, because this is really important, okay? Plausibility structure. If we have good reasons to believe in the Christian worldview taken as a whole, and I think the beginning is a good start. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. In the beginning, big bang, you know. Okay, well, the universe came into existence on both stories. What's the best explanation, caused or uncaused? We've already talked about this. So that sets up the possibility, then,

that the miraculous events in the Old Testament are reasonable in light of the world, okay? And I think that's what needs to happen. If a person can accept the existence of God. And this, by the way, happened with C.S. Lewis. When he realized that God was real, that all these other doors began to open for him, plausibility. I just watched the other night for the second time, and I enjoyed it the second time more than the first, was the film about Lewis and his conversion. It's titled— The Most Reluctant Convert. There it is, The Most Reluctant. I highly recommend it. It's a lot of fun, very well done, and it gives a good characterization of an individual having very, at least apparently,

plausible objections against God's existence—that comes out early on in the narration of this—to being completely turned around to a different worldview. And when he gets turned around, like I said, these doors start opening. So I think that's—the strategic element here is to help people to see what kind of world we actually live in. Now, I think most people are aware that we live in a moral world. This is why they complain about the problem of evil. Morality is a real feature of the world, objective morality here. But what kind of worldview makes sense of that? Certainly not atheism. It's only some form of theism, and this is the moral argument. And I developed this

very aggressively in a chapter in Street Smarts titled, Can We Be Good Without God? So I really worked hard to develop that notion. It was kind of my apologetic swan song, so to speak. It was like I gave everything I had to give on various issues, particularly on atheism there and morality, in a very clear way. Not swan song. That means my last one. But it's not exactly a magnum opus, but it's what I had to say about these issues, and I included it there. And so that's the approach I would take. Start with theism and the reasons for theism. And in particular,

the things that most atheists affirm are true, like morality, at least in a practical sense, they're going to affirm it, which don't have any place in their worldview, but have a place in ours. This confirms the theistic worldview. You brought up Lewis. I just reread his book on miracles, and he makes the same point. You know, what's plausible depends on whether or not God exists. You have to know if God exists first before you can know if miracles are plausible. So I think what I would do, Julie, is help him to understand that he's confusing worldviews here when he says that those just aren't plausible, therefore they didn't happen. Well, anyway, there are a lot of ways to argue this. You might want to read Lewis's book. It's just called Miracles.

Or Cocles. Or, yes. But his book, his entire thing is on that. You should start with Greg's because at least you'll get the idea of what he's saying because he goes into more detail just on his whole books on miracles. I'm kind of funny with you a little bit, but I do go into detail on some of these points in both the story of reality and also in Street Smart. So to open up, because it's so funny, Greg, because this is exactly what my note that I wrote down was that you have to start with God. You have to start there. And maybe a way to do that, to open him up to the arguments, is just to say, would you grant that if God exists, then miracles wouldn't be implausible?

That's great. I think he might be able to grant that. Who wouldn't? I don't know why anybody wouldn't grant it, because all you said is that miracles are plausible. Yeah. Now, if you have a deistic God, there's a God there, but he doesn't interact, so miracles don't happen on that view. But if there's a God, at least they're plausible, and then you've got to decide whether God interacts or not. That's a separate issue.

So once you ask that question, would you grant that if God exists, then these are plausible, then you can say, well, then your real issue is not with the miracles at all. Your real issue is whether or not God exists. And now you've got it in a place where you can start with the foundation, and he might be open to it, and he'll leave those other things alone and not keep going back to them. Because he might just be using those things to deflect any discussion about this. So if nothing else, it would kind of put an end to that, I think. Amy, that's really good. Do you ever think about doing this for a living?

Well, thank you, Greg. We're out of time. Thank you for your questions, Marie and Julie. We appreciate hearing from you. Send us your question on X with the hashtag STRask or just go to our website at str.org. All you have to do is look for our hashtag STRask podcast page and you'll find a link there to ask your question. We look forward to hearing from you. This is Amy Hall and Greg Kokel for Stand to reason.