Avoiding Traps In Defending Your Faith

It is not uncommon for Christians to engage in a conversation about the existence of God.  More times than not, these discussions boil down to a sort of evidential tug-of-war between the two parties. Whoever has the most evidence on their side wins.  While such conversations can be good, they can turn ugly if the Christian falls into, what I call, the evidential trap - a conversation that accepts only evidential terms, from the outset, and excludes faith-based statements that are beyond the reason's ability to prove.

For example, if a Christian mentions matters of faith, such as the Bible or Christ, the evidentialist vehemently says, "Wait!  You aren't allowed to speak of those things here!"  If the Christian unquestionably concedes, he has fallen for the trap.  At this point, Christ is not set apart as holy (1 Peter 3:15), but set aside as a subject to be proven by His creation.  Christians must avoid such traps at all costs.

To do so we have to first be ready to expose the flaws in the trap.  Perhaps one of the greatest flaws is that it assumes that evidence alone is sufficient for all certain knowledge - in this case, to prove God's existence.  The truth is, however, that all evidence is interpreted and thus ultimately vulnerable to the subjectivity of human reason.  Because of this vulnerability, conclusions based on evidence alone always leave room for either denying God's existence or holding that His existence is only probably true.

Second, the trap presupposes that evidence is more authoritative than God's Word.  If God speaks (which He does!), then His Word is sufficient to convince, convict and assure us of His existence and salvation.  It is treasonous to say, "The Bible doesn't convince me.  I need to see evidence." This leads me to my third point.

Third, Christians must be equipped and ready to expose the faith commitments of the trap.  To say that evidence alone can prove God's existence is itself a faith based comment - something that is unprovable by the evidence itself.  In other words, to say that God cannot be known by any other epistemological means, is itself a statement that is beyond the ability of reason to prove.  Very simply, the Christian has every right to stop the conversation by saying that he/she does not agree with the premise that certain knowledge comes only via empirical evidence.  Revelation is also a sufficient way that people know things.

Further, in this line, I have not found a single evidentialist that is not relying heavily upon statements from others when promoting their views.  Most have not tested the evidence themselves but merely quote authors they have read.  The Christian should reduce the conversation to what it really is:  The word of a person vs. The Word of God.  Christians, in trusting the Words of God, should not fall into the trap of conceding that a person's words are more reliable and more authoritative than God's Words.

Finally, it is a fallacious appeal to authority to say that a kindergardener, who trusts the Word of God, could not correct the most educated unbelieving scientist concerning the existence of God.  In other words, a PhD who writes a book about his theory of creation, can be silenced by a small child who simply says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."  When the good doctor asks what evidence the child has for her conclusion, it is completely rational for the child to answer, "The Bible tells me so."