Discussion Questions Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions

Transcription

1 CHAPTER 7: SUICIDE: VIEWS THAT SELF-DESTRUCT This tactic is based on the tendency of many erroneous views to -. What s wrong with the statement, No one can know any truth about religion.? The Suicide tactic works because of a rule of logic called the law of -. It s called Suicide when it violates the law of non-contradiction in a straightforward fashion. When you recognize a formal suicide statement, what is the best way to respond? What kind of question is this? Can God make a square circle? How is the statement, God doesn t take sides, a suicide statement? (Was this one a little harder to spot?) Freud and Marx claimed that all thoughts are tainted (psychologically or ideologically). Why did C S Lewis say they had sawn off the limb they were sitting on? What is wrong with the statement, Everyone s view is a product of his own prejudices, and the statement, All your so-called facts are only beliefs dictated by your cultural biases? What is wrong with the Hindu belief that reality as we know it is an illusion? How should you respond when someone asserts that, Only science gives reliable truth?

2 CHAPTER 8: PRACTICAL SUICIDE What s the difference between formal and practical suicide? Give an example of a practical suicide. How might you respond if someone says Christians shouldn t try to force their morality on other people? Why does Koukl say a person can usually not deny moral truth without immediately affirming it? What s the problem with arguing for determinism? Was this chapter a little less clear than chapter 7? If so, why is it more difficult to understand the difference between formal and practical suicide and how would you describe that difference now that you ve had a chance to chew the cud on this topic?

3 CHAPTER 9: SIBLING RIVALRY & INFANTICIDE What does Koukl mean by Sibling Rivalry? Can you think of an example of Sibling Rivalry criticisms other than those examples in the book? Why are subjective morality and objective evil rival concepts? What is Infanticide and why is it difficult to understand? How does the objection - God cannot exist because of evil commit infanticide. A God is the only adequate standard for the system of scoring that makes sense of the existence of to begin with. Since God must exist to make intelligible, evil cannot be against God. (Is this infanticide?) Ironically, evil does not prove. It proves just the opposite. There can only be a problem of if exists. What is the difference between the sibling rivalry objection to evil and the infanticide objection to evil? Why is it a mistake to believe that atheists cannot live a moral life? How is that related to what philosophers call the grounding problem?

4 CHAPTER 9: continued Atheism is a physicalist system that does not have the resources to explain a universe thick with nonphysical things like. The belief that science is the only source of reliable truth commits Formal Suicide. How does it also commit Infanticide? How many ways have we learned that skeptics objections or claims can self destruct? List them.

5 CHAPTER 10: TAKING THE ROOF OFF Do you agree with Koukl when he says, Those who are intellectualy honest will think twice about embracing a view that ultimately leads to irrationality, incoherence, and absurdity.? Why or why not? Taking the roof off is also know as. Francis Schaeffer said that every person builds a roof over his head. What does this roof symbolize? What is its purpose? Why does Koukl say, In a very real sense, every person who denies God is living on borrowed capital.? The three steps of the Taking the Roof Off tactic: 1. Reduce the person s point of view to its. 2. Mentally give the idea a test drive to see where it. 3. If you find a problem, point it out. Invite the other person to consider the of her view and that her view will ultimately lead to an undesirable. What does Koukl mean when he says to give a person s faulty argument a test drive? Does Koukl follow his own three step Take-the-Roof-Off tactic in addressing the modified pro choice argument? If so, what are the steps?