EMAIL THIS PAGE       PRINT       RSS      

How Some Postmodern Kids Used Logic in Berkeley

“Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness.”  So says Richard Dawkins, author of the God Delusion and godfather to the New Atheists.  This recent breed of atheist is no longer satisfied to pronounce religion as mistaken.  Believers aren't merely wrong, they're irrational.  And to such a degree that they very likely suffer psychological disorders.

But is it the believer who is irrational?  I don’t think so.

In February, I took the high schoolers of Crossline Community Church in Mission Viejo on their first Berkeley mission trip.  For students and staff, it was a rational test of Christianity’s truth claims.  It was also an occasion to humbly yet confidently demonstrate the utter irrationality of atheism. 

The laws of logic govern human thought and communication.  We haven’t created them, we’ve discovered them.  Logic is part of the furniture of the universe.  These laws of thought assist us in evaluating the rationality of various truth claims.  And we employed them in Berkeley with atheists we met with.  Here’s an example.

A non-sequitur is a common logical fallacy we find in atheistic arguments.  When a conclusion or statement does not logically follow from a previous argument or statement, one commits this fallacy.  Thus, a non-sequitur is an irrational conclusion.  Here are just two we encounter in Berkeley regularly:

#1 – “The Bible is completely unreliable, and therefore we should doubt Jesus even existed.” Atheists like to point to the alleged errors in the Bible to cast doubt on Jesus’ very existence.  The atheist is mistaken in their claim the Bible is unreliable but let’s give it to them for the sake of argument.  Here’s the question we taught Crossline students to ask:  “So, what follows?”  The atheist concludes Jesus does not exist.  But that doesn’t follow. 

Imagine a book recounting the life of George Washington.  Upon close inspection, we discover errors and contradictions.  It claims he was a general in the Civil War and was the third president of the United States.  Does it follow from these errors that George Washington never existed?  Of course not.  In the same way, alleged Bible errors do not disprove Jesus’ existence.  

#2 – “There can’t be a Designer when there is so much imperfect design in the natural world.”  Atheists point to flaws in the natural world as evidence against a Designer.  Deficiencies in the human eye are a favorite example.  But here’s our question:  “So, what follows?”  Does imperfect design mean a Designer doesn’t exist?  Of course not.  Have you ever owned a car?  Talk about imperfect design.  Cars break down all the time.  But it doesn’t follow they weren’t designed. 

So we employed the tools of logic to show it was actually the atheist’s arguments that were irrational.  But do today’s postmodern kids really care about logic?  Logic is an oudated modernist construct, right?  Did the Crossline students respond to their training in logic?  Here’s Tammy’s observation, the mother of a sophomore who went to Berkeley:  “Dominique...has a strong faith and this trip spurred her on to speak very boldly (more than before) about the Truth with her friends/peers at school.  It's been great to see her light up!” 

But we didn’t have to wait to get home to see students “light up.”  As they learned clear thinking and got a better handle on God’s truth, we saw students light up on the trip itself.  They lit up in our sessions with the atheists.  The lit up during street surveys with Berkeley students.  They lit up as they discovered that God’s truth is eminently rational.  And they lit up as their confidence in the truth of the Gospel was strengthened day by day. 

Comments

Hi Brett: I think it is great that you are taking your students to meet people who believe differently and that you are encouraging them to become more comfortable sharing their faith with others. That said, your posts have me wondering if you have ever considered teaching communication approaches other than debating points of disagreement?

I love both what you're doing and how you're doing it. At the same time, I struggle sometimes with our appeal to logic because the reality is that our belief system doesn't seem to hold together logically. I say 'seem to' because I'm not a specialist in logic, and so am open to clarification. But when we appeal to the laws of logic, and then declare that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is also, somehow, God, and that there are, as we sing, "God in three persons", blessed trinity, how can we then turn around and cry "foul" when our detractors don't follow logic?

We have hundreds of university students in our church, and are more comfortable talking about our faith as something that can't be fully explained or understand, and that sometimes stands outside the realm of our sense of how things ought to be. This prevails more than talking about how our system is logical. I'm interested in the thoughts of others on this very important subject.

I don't think we should concede logic to the atheists. Atheism is no more logical than theism. Each makes an unproveable assumption. Each will point to evidence that seems to support presupposed conclusions. I think that we should prepare our young people to think critically and not blindly. We are called to love the Lord with all our heart and all our MIND and all our soul. I think the average Chrisitian should know some apologetics. That being said, there are mysteries that are not explainable, not logical, questions that have answers that are not only not known but are not knowable. I don't know of anyone who has been converted to Christ either from atheism or from another religion through logical argument. However, I have heard the testimony of Muslims who have been impressed by the simple, loving faithfulness of Christian believers and have then felt the pull of the Holy Spirit on their soul that led them to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior.
I see logic and apologetics as defensive tools. Our young people should be equipped with them, especially as they go off to university. But they should not expect to win people to Christ with logic, but instead by winsome, loving, faithful commitment, through which the Holy Spirit will draw peope to Himself.

We should distinguish claims that are "unprovable" or "unexplainable" from claims such as "3=1". The concern is certain Christian doctrines are more like the latter.

»  Become a Fan or Friend of this Blogger
About
Brett Kunkle is the Student Impact Director at Stand to Reason. He is a huge fan of his wife and 4 kids, surfing the Point in Newport Beach, and the Pittsburgh Steelers. Yes, in that order.