Apologetics

---

BETTER ANALYZING SKILLS

The Bible says, "Prove all things, hold fast to what is good" (1Thessalonians 5:21), and also "always be ready to give a defense for the hope that is in you" (1Peter 3:15). So how can we improve our ability to obey our Lord in this regard?

I. IDENTIFY THE ARGUMENT

When you’re reading something that someone has written, and they’re clearly
trying to get you to believe something or prove to you why they believe what
they believe, the very first thing you need to be able to do is identify their
argument. You need to be able to break down all of what they're saying into a
simple argument (it’s easier than it sounds).

Before you can learn to do that, you’ve got to understand what an argument is
(and even what an argument is not). An argument is NOT merely fighting or
bickering. If a person is just name-calling or insulting, they’re not making
an argument. Also, an argument is NOT merely stating a belief or opinion. “I
believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”—that’s a great statement or
belief, but it’s not an argument. If a person is just making a bunch of
statements, if they’re just claiming that a bunch of things are true, they’re
not making an argument.

An argument IS using some piece of information in order to DRAW A CONCLUSION.
When a person says “This is true BECAUSE OF so-n-so” or “If this is true, THEN
this is true”—those are arguments. “Jesus Christ is the Son of God” is not an
argument, but if we say “Jesus was raised from the dead, therefore He must be
the Son of God”—we’ve just made an argument.

Even though people might ramble on and on to make their argument, virtually all
arguments are very simple in form when you break them down. Arguments are
usually as simple as these forms:

1. If A is true, then B is true.
2. A is true.
3. Therefore, B is true.

1. All A’s are B’s.
2. All B’s are C’s.
3. Therefore, all A’s are C’s.

If you analyzing what someone has written, the first thing you want to do is try
to break down what they’ve said into a simple argument form like the ones
above. Suppose you read the following:

“When religious people start saying that Jesus is the only possible way to get to heaven, that’s
when you really have to watch out. People who say that are in cults. One time I talked to a guy who was a Christian. He said that at his church they taught that if anyone didn't believe in Jesus, the wouldn't go to heaven. I knew right away that his church was cult."

Let’s try to break this down into a simple argument. Here’s the above paragraph
ROUGHLY broken down.

1. If a group claims that Jesus is the only way to get to heaven, then they are a cult.
2. This man's church teaches that Jesus i the only way to heaven.
3. Therefore, this man's church is a cult.

Even though that’s broken down enough to work with, you could still put it in an
even simpler form. Let’s let “A” represent any group claiming Jesus is the sole way to heaven. Let’s let “C” represent a cult. And let’s let “TMC” represent this man's church. Now notice how simple the argument looks.

1. A = C
2. TMC = A
3. TMC = C

You need to be able to identify the basic argument in order to work with it
clearly and effectively. Always start with this step. Start by asking
questions like: “What is the major conclusion this person is trying to draw?”
“What evidence or information is this person using to draw that conclusion?”
This is very important because sometimes people write 400 pages to present an
argument that can be expressed in 3 lines. And the reverse is true as
well—sometimes people give a short paragraph that contains 3 or 4 separate
arguments. So always start by clearly identifying the argument.

II. EXAMINE THE ARGUMENT

Once you’ve identified the argument, don’t immediately run looking for
information to prove the argument wrong. Instead, examine the argument itself.
Always start with what the other person said first. If you can show that what
they’re saying doesn’t make sense on its own, then you don’t need to spend the
effort looking for your own information to try to prove them wrong.

When you examine an argument, start by looking at the WAY the information is
being used. In others words, just for the moment, assume that the information
they’re using is true. Then ask yourself, “Can we really draw this conclusion
from this piece of information?” “Does this piece of evidence really DEMAND
this conclusion?”

Let’s look at an example. Here’s the first argument. (We’re going to assume
that you’ve already identified the person’s argument, and broken it down so
that it looks like this)

1. The key is in my right hand.
2. My right hand is in my right pocket.
3. Therefore, the key is in my right pocket.

For the moment, let’s just assume that “the key” REALLY IS “in my right hand,”
and let’s just assume that “my right hand” REALLY IS “in my right pocket.”
Now, if those two things were true, then would #3 HAVE to be true? In other
words, could (1) the key be in my right hand and (2) my right hand be in my
right pocket WITHOUT (3) the key being in my right pocket? The answer of
course is no. IF (remember that for the moment we’re assuming the information
is true) (1) and (2) are true, then (3) MUST be true. So this argument is
valid to this degree. But let’s look at another similar argument.

1. The key is in my right hand.
2. My right hand is in my right pocket.
3. Therefore, the key is warm.

This one is clearly not valid. Even if the key REALLY IS in my right hand and
my right hand REALLY IS in my right pocket, this wouldn’t NECESSARILY mean that
the key is warm. They key MIGHT be warm and it MIGHT NOT. But (1) and (2)
don’t give us enough information to PROVE that the key is warm. In other
words, (1) and (2) don’t DEMAND that (3) also be true.

After you’ve examined the WAY the information is used in an argument, that’s
when you want to start looking at the information itself. That’s when you want
to start asking, “Is the key REALLY in my right hand?” and “Is my right hand
REALLY in my right pocket?” Even if a person uses information in the right
way, if the information itself isn’t true, then the whole argument is wrong.
So at this point you definitely want to check out this persons claims. “This
person is claiming that the key is in my right hand—is that really true?”
“This person is claiming that this scriptures teaches such and such—is that
really true?” “This person says that this word really means such and such—is
that really true?” So after you look at how the information is used, then try
to verify or falsify that information.

III. REFUTING AN ARGUMENT

There are also methods of simply trying to show that an argument is wrong. If
you’re deliberately trying to attack an argument and oppose it, then there are
some things you can be looking to do.

First, see if you can show that the argument contradicts itself. Does the
argument in some way say “X is true” and “X is not true” at the same time and
in the same sense? For instance, some people in our day an time are claiming
that “All truth is relative” and “There are no real absolutes.” But notice
right away that those statements contradict themselves. “There are no
absolutes”—is that absolutely true? The person said it as though THAT
statement is the absolute truth. So that person can’t even make that statement
without contradicting what the statement says. If you can show that someone’s
argument is self-contradictory, then the argument is automatically wrong.

Second, you can try to show that the argument implies something that is false.
The word “imply” means “necessarily follows.” In other words, if X implies Y,
then X cannot be true unless Y is also true. That’s what it means to say one
thing implies another. So, if a person’s argument (in broken down form) is
something like this:

1. If A and B are true, then C is true.
2. A is true.
3. B is true.
4. Therefore, C is true.

See if you can show that C implies something that’s false. See if you can’t say
something like “Wait, if C is true, then D would also have to be true. But we
all know that D is false.” If you can show that D necessarily follows from C,
and that D is false, then you will have proved that C is false too. In other
words, their argument is wrong.

Thirdly, you can try to show that the argument contradicts well-established
facts. This should really be a last resort. I don’t mean that to say you
should never use it. If you have well-established facts to use against an
argument, then use them. But the smartest thing to do is to use all of the
other methods BEFORE you go searching for well-established facts that counter a
person’s argument. But once you get to this point, see if there’s not some
fact that you both agree on which is contradictory to the argument they just
made. If you can find such facts, then you’ll have shown that however valid or
persuasive their argument may seem at first, it can’t possibly be right.

(Contact me at [email protected])

---

PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR BELOW LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE