Greg and Amy explain how to respond when someone cites an expert to challenge a Christian claim. Instead of trading one expert opinion for another, ask what reasons and evidence support the expert’s conclusion.
Transcript
Amy: Okay, let’s go on to a question from Pat C. He refers to a discussion with an H and W, which I think may supposed to be a JW because I don’t know what an H and W is. So, let me go ahead. So, here’s the question: “Every discussion with a JW goes down the same path. I say X is a fact and provide support, and they say some scientist, scholar, expert says not-X is a fact. I’ve concluded that they believe that truth, at least when it comes to religion and morality, cannot be known. Tactic to break through?”
Greg: Well, this is kind of a question regarding formal categories, and there’s no material categories. Here’s the X is and X is not. I’m not sure the details of what they’re talking about.
When the Christian is opposed with claims of experts, there is a tactic for that, and it’s called the Rhodes Scholar tactic. And the key to the tactic is an understanding that it’s not so important—there are exceptions to this—but it’s not so important what the expert says is true. You want to find out the reasons why they think their view is true. In this case, it would be a denial of a fact that maybe the Christian might hold to. So, what are the reasons that they do this?
This all comes back to the reasons. And this is a carryover of our earlier question. What are the reasons we think Christianity is this way—means this? And same thing here.
“Well, that is not a fact because this expert says—”
Okay, well, what is the case he makes? Now, think about expert testimony. I mean, this is part of legal proceedings oftentimes, and there’s value to that. And sometimes people are in a position of privileged access, based on their education, to be able to give an expert opinion. All right? But when the defense calls their expert, who testifies on behalf of their defendant, what happens next? Cross-examination. And that means the prosecution then can cross-examine the so-called expert to find out if their expertise, or at least the assessment given their expertise, is sound or not. And this is basically what we’re doing here.
Well, if a Christian claims something as a fact, then it’s appropriate for them to give the reasons why they think it’s a fact. Back to the earlier discussion. The fact is, this is what Christianity entails, at least in a rudimentary fashion and foundationally, and here are the reasons why. Here are the verses that seem to indicate this. Okay?
Now, if we’re making some other claim that’s being opposed, then we give our reasons.
Now, if somebody else says, “Your fact is not a fact.”
Okay. Who said that?
“The scientist.”
Amy: My expert refutes your expert.
Greg: But again, that’s just formal categories. We got to get to the material substance. What is it that this person understands that seems to be a refutation?
Now, by the way, this is not uncommon for this to happen. And it’s not just in theological circles or when it has theological ramifications. It isn’t just between Christians and non-Christians. In the whole evolution debate, there are two massively different schools that are both committed to a materialistic explanation, but the details of that explanation of development—biological development—are very different. You have the classical Darwinist—the Darwinian fundamentalist, if you pardon the term—like Richard Dawkins, and then you have the punctuated equilibrium crowd, like Stephen Jay Gould, the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, the paleontologist. So, these are very, very different. In fact, they were always at each other’s throats, except for when they ganged up together against the Christians. Right? In fact, because the punctuated equilibrium crowd held the view that there were quick, kind of, jerks in biological development (which is against the standard Darwinian thing), they characterized this tongue-in-cheek as “evolution by jerks,” which was how they saw the guys who held the view, like Gould, because there was so much animosity.
So, the point is, there are things where there’s controversy, where you have different points of view, and then it becomes a matter of looking carefully at both sides and seeing which side seems better justified. I don’t know how else to say it. And the same thing is true here.
There may be claims of experts about, say, the resurrection. Okay? And what John Dominic Crossan or some of his buddies in the Jesus Seminar say, “Well, Jesus’ body wasn’t in the grave. It was thrown into a pile, and it rotted there like all the other bodies from crucifixion. That’s why the issue of the empty tomb wasn’t an issue. Jesus wasn’t in the tomb to begin with.” Is he an expert? Yeah, he’s an expert. But then you have to weigh his opinion against written evidence that we have contrary to his view. And do we give his view—Crossan’s view—more weight as an expert of the kinds of things that generally happened during that time, or do we give more weight to the documents that record that, in this specific case, something different happened? So, that’s going to be a matter of judgment. And you do your best.
So, that there’s going to be contradictions between people’s views regarding the facts is inevitable. The question is, what are the reasons for either claim, and what set of reasons seems to be the best, all things considered, in the circumstances?
Amy: And that’s why it doesn’t follow that truth can’t be known just because they disagree. We’re not trapped by other people’s opinions. We have to ask for the reasons. And so, maybe that’s just something you could say to them: “Well, you’re able to reason, too. You don’t have to just go along with—” (pick someone you’re going to go along with). That seems rather foolish to me. And we don’t have to do that. We can actually look at the reasons.
Now, there may be something else going on here also for why they would think religion and morality can’t be known. Maybe they think there’s no standard that we can appeal to, because that would be a problem. If we didn’t have a standard of revelation, then it would be hard to know exactly what’s going on.
Greg: Well, in that case, there is dispute about the standards regarding knowledge because what you’ve just described—that religious ideas and moral ideas can’t be known—is an Enlightenment concept because of the materialistic philosophical viewpoint that came out. If it can’t be verified by science—this is called verificationism—then it can’t be known. In fact, verificationism would say not only can it not be known; it’s not even a meaningful question. It’s nonsense if it can’t be verified in the scientific way.
Now, this is an old philosophy, and it’s died in philosophical circles for good reason, because it turns out to be self-refuting and other problems. But it’s just obvious that we know more things about the world than science is capable of teaching us. In fact, we have to know a whole host of things before we can even employ science to do its work.
So, the ability to know things goes far beyond this. And it just seems to me, given the fact that we know so many other things that science does not speak to or has no way of speaking to, then those are the kinds of things that we can employ to answer religious questions or, say, moral or ethical questions there. And we’ve argued this way—I have for my whole life as an apologist. The book on relativism back in 1998 with me and Frank Beckwith, my first book—that, same thing. We’re trading on other ways of knowing that are sound and reliable and we always use all the time.
Amy: And I don’t want it to sound like I’m saying that we just assert that there is an objective standard that we’re going to appeal to in God’s revelation. I’m not even saying that, because you don’t have to stop there. I’m just saying maybe that’s the problem. They don’t think there’s one. So, you have to start back earlier. Why do we think there’s a God? Why do we think this is his revelation? What has he done in history? And how do we know about these things?
You don’t have to start with the revelation. You can start back earlier. But I think if you just emphasize the fact that, no, you can actually think through these things, and people have been doing that for thousands of years, thinking about these kinds of questions.
He does say—assuming Pat is a male here. Sorry, Pat, if you’re a woman. But he does say that he provides support. So, he is providing the support. So, you’re just going to have to push on the fact that you can’t just appeal to an expert without using the support for that.
Greg: I just finished a Solid Ground that is called The Invisible Man, and I’m making an argument for the existence of the soul. And in that piece there, I make the case that there are ways that we know things other than science. In fact, science is not well equipped at all to weigh in on this matter. But that doesn’t mean we’re at a loss, we can’t know.
And so, I recommend that, for the subject matter itself, but also for the epistemology that’s there, that it teaches us that we can know things beyond the scientific realm. And in fact, this is true. I mean, all the counterexamples, or the examples of this, just abound every single day. So, we don’t have to restrict it by scientific knowledge.