Part Six: HOW TO REDUCE COMPLEX ISSUES TO “BITE-SIZED CHUNKS”
The previous blog articles in this series have described the Socratic Method, and illustrated the kinds of questions we can ask that puts the burden of proof on skeptics who challenge Christian truth claims. I also explained why this technique is often the best approach in apologetic encounters, at least initially. Once non-Christians recognize they can’t adequately defend their own worldview assumptions, they may be willing to give the Christian perspective a fair hearing.
In this article, we will look at the first of two specific reasons why applying the Socratic Method is particularly valuable in apologetic discussions. We’ll look at the second next week. Then, in the weeks to follow, I will provide additional examples of the kinds of Socratic questions we can ask unbelievers, but I’ll arrange them according to five major apologetic challenges Christians encounter: The Bible, evolution, atheism, Jesus, and postmodernism.
Bite-sized Chunks
One of the advantages using the Socratic Method is that it reduces complicated issues to a manageable size. Many of the challenges raised by non-Christians are simple to state but complex in nature. For example, consider this popular argument against the existence of God:
If God is all-loving and all-powerful, as you Christians claim, He wouldn’t allow evil and suffering. But evil and suffering exists. Therefore, God is either not all-loving and doesn’t care that people suffer, or He’s not all-powerful and can’t stop it. Either way, God doesn’t exist as you Christian believe.
Entire books have been written in response to this argument, which is called the problem of evil. It is impossible to give an adequate reply to such a complex and emotionally-laden issue during a coffee break at work or a casual encounter at a party. On the other hand, the Socratic Method allows us to give a reasonable response by shifting the issue back to the unbeliever. A Socratic reply can be something like this:
If God doesn’t exist, what is the solution to evil and human suffering? It’s easy to blame God, so let’s remove Him from the equation. What’s left? Can you think of a solution to evil and suffering without God?
Unbelievers will have one of two responses. (1) They will offer another solution. But with further investigation, it is relatively easy to demonstrate that no other religion or philosophy, including pantheism, dualism, secular humanism, naturalism, postmodernism, and the New Age, can provide an adequate solution to the problem of evil. They may deny it, ignore it, or claim there is no solution—but they don’t solve it. (2) The unbeliever will admit that there is no solution, which opens the door for us to provide a biblical response—the goal of all apologetics.
Applied to the problem of evil, the Socratic Method does four things. First, it allows us to give a response when time restricts a full reply. Second, it clears away peripheral issues and gets right to the heart the problem: Is there a solution to the problem of evil without God? The answer is no. Whatever the solution to the problem of evil is, it must include God, or it doesn’t exist. One cannot reject God and still come to terms with the problem of evil. Third, we have challenged the erroneous anti-Christian assumptions that God either (a) can’t solve the problem of evil, (b) is the cause of it, or (c) doesn’t exist. And fourth, we have open the door for further dialogue—a witnessing opportunity. This same technique works just as well—and has the same results—with most other apologetic issues. (I provide the Christian solution to the problem of evil in my book The Christian Combat Manual.) ©
* This series of blog articles is adapted from my books Engaging the Closed Minded: Presenting Your Faith to the Confirmed Unbeliever and The Christian Combat Manual: Helps for Defending Your Faith; A Handbook for Practical Apologetics, which can be purchased at most outlets.