A summary of the self-evident truths were covered in the Quick Review on the last page of the previous chapter. But let me repeat them if you’re skipping around.
On the front cover are pictures of a map of the United States of America and six cups of coins. These pictures remind us:
The Founding Fathers of the United States of America wrote a Declaration of Independence in which they refer to “self-evident truth”.
Sex is the German word that is translated to “six” in English; it is used as a reminder that if we don’t know what language a person is speaking, we may not know the definition of the word they are using. This is important because: We understand each other’s words based on our common language.
A cup can have something in it or not have something in it. Even a child can recognize the contradiction that a cup is not both “empty” and “not empty” at the same time in the same respect. Even the child realizes that: Contradictions can’t be true.
Thinking of coins helps me remember the importance of mathematics and leads me to suggest as a self-evident truth: Correctly applying mathematical principles can lead to correct answers.
As we conclude this section, allow me to briefly introduce the format of the rest of this book. My friend and I didn’t need to go through each of the following questions in detail. Most people don’t. However, I think it is important to address each of these questions within this book because, as I hope you will see, one answer provides a foundation for the next answer. But what I want to talk about now is how we communicate with each other. Let me stress a few things.
What each of us can do, even without the specialized knowledge of each field, is to know how to think critically about announced conclusions. In the July/August 2009 issue of Stand to Reason newsletter “Solid Ground,” Greg Koukl made a point to outline a plan with three critical thinking steps for an ambassador of Christ. In the article he said:
“…good ambassadors do not immediately react with scorn, derision, and abuse. Ridicule is not an argument. Instead, they separate the wheat from the chaff by calmly applying a three-step plan that is the core of all critical thinking.
“First, get a clear fix on the facts themselves. Next, note the inferences and implications others have drawn from the facts. Finally, do your own assessment. Check to see if there is a good fit between the inferences drawn and the facts that they are allegedly based on.”
Comparing the facts to the conclusions requires us to first identify the facts. In many cases we are presented with someone’s conclusions, but we are not given the facts that support the person’s conclusions. Sometimes, a person’s conclusion is expressed as a statement of fact, and other times, the conclusion is assumed because of the question. To pull the above steps out of Koukl’s text, the three-step plan of the critical thinker is:
1. Identify the facts.
2. Note inferences and implications.
3. Do your own assessment.
We can accomplish this by asking a person what they mean and asking how they came to their conclusions. In other words, to answer a question we want to first understand the question. So let us challenge ourselves to only attempt to answer a person when we understand their question. To best understand a person’s question it is good to know how the person reached their conclusion.
Finally, if you’ve asked a question, you should listen to the response. So be sure to listen. Two questions and an action are required.
Again, there are two questions you might ask people when they express a question similar to those I provide in the rest of the book: What Mean? How Concluded? We Listen - First, allow a person to clarify their thoughts and help us understand them better. Be friendly and be ready to really listen to their answers, we might ask, “What do you mean by that?” Have you seen the yellow smiley face? To help you remember to ask what the person “means”, think of the same face but with a frown instead of a smile. Think of this yellow frowning face as a “mean” face to represent the question, “What do you ‘mean’ by that?” To remember to listen, and though they will likely cover their ears, think of the frowning face covering its ears. (We instead listen and are friendly.)
- Second, to help us understand how the person came to their belief, we should ask, “How did you come to that conclusion?” We want to hear their reason or evidence. The character Sherlock Holmes looked for evidence with a big magnifying glass. To remind you to ask for the person’s evidence (“How did you come to that conclusion?”) think of a big magnifying glass over the mean face with the covered ears.
A set of lessons that discuss these questions in detail is called “Tactics in Defending the Faith” by Greg Koukl. Established in Koukl’s lessons are these questions and others that will help a person properly analyze a truth claim. Since this is my recommended method, it is the way the remaining portions of this book are constructed. Therefore, you should find the following basic format in the upcoming pages. As I previously mentioned, 1 Peter 3:15 calls us to “…be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” Therefore, I’ll present these facts based on how someone might form a related question and how a Christian might “give an answer”.
The basic format calls on you to:
1. Identify the source of non-Christian thought. Much has been written that is contrary to the scriptures and we should at least be familiar with some of the thoughts.
2. Recognize the question that may be asked or the truth claim made.
3. Find out what the person means by the question or statement. (Listen!)
4. Find out how the person came to their conclusion (their reason or evidence).
5. Ask follow-up questions leading the person to the truth.
6. Provide the truth that is based on reason and evidence.
With our self-evident truths in mind, let’s review questions of philosophy, origins, God, Holy Scripture, and religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment