At coffee with a fellow believer this week, we discussed some of the common arguments used to reject Christianity. As I pondered this later, it occurred to me that these arguments tend to be non-sequiturs.
In formal logic, a non-sequitur is when a conclusion is drawn that does not logically flow from the preceding premises. Non-sequitur is Latin for “it does not follow.”
As we become familiar with the concept of the non-sequitur, we find that they are quite common. Most people make such logical leaps without recognizing them. In the rejection of Christianity, they are quite common. Pointing them out doesn’t prove the truth of Christianity, but does show that such arguments fail to prove it false.
Below are several examples. It’s helpful to be able to recognize and respond to them. Of course, we always want to do so with humility and kindness.
1. “There are a ton of religions and all of them claim to be true.” This is the premise. The conclusion is that Christianity is just one of many religions that are wrong.
This is a non-sequitur because the existence of many contradictory answers to a question does not mean that a correct answer does not exist. How many wrong answers could be given to the math problem, 4 + 4 = ? Let’s just say, a lot. The many possible wrong answers does not jeopardize the existence of the right one, 8.
Imagine we’re doing more complex math, advanced calculus, and no one in the class gets the right answer. That doesn’t suggest there isn’t a right answer or that math itself is a fiction. The right answer exists even if no one knows it.
Again, recognizing this as a non-sequitur doesn’t prove that Christianity is true. It simply removes this argument as a viable reason for rejecting Christianity. The number of religions in existence is irrelevant; one must evaluate Christianity on its own terms in order to determine its truth.
2. “Christians are hypocrites.” The conclusion drawn from this premise is that Christian theology, including the gospel, isn’t true.
This is a non-sequitur because the truth of a worldview rises or falls on the validity of its core claims, not the moral perfection of those who claim to follow it. Further, the Bible teaches that humans are flawed, weak, and prone to hypocrisy (Matt 26:41; Jas 3:2; 1 John 1:8-10). Certainly, the Scriptures indicate that the gospel is transformative, but perfection comes only in the eschaton (Eph 2:8-10; 1 John 3:2). Christian imperfection, while not desirable, coincides with Christianity’s teaching.
3. “Horrible atrocities have been done in the name of Christianity.”* From this premise, the argument concludes that the teachings of Christianity are evil or false.
This is a non-sequitur in that a truth is true no matter how it may have been misconstrued or misapplied. The abuse of a Biblical precept by any human institution does not invalidate the objective truth at its core. This is especially the case when such historical atrocities directly violated the Bible’s explicit commands/teachings.
For example, Jesus commanded us to respond to persecution with love and prayer (Matt 5:44). Similarly, we have been taught that the church grows through the preaching of the gospel (Rom 10:17). The use of force/violence in the name of Christianity for the spread or protection of Christianity is itself a rejection of Christian teaching. Such violence cannot therefore be used as evidence that Christianity itself is evil.
4. “Christianity gives comfort, provides a sense of purpose, and removes fear of death for otherwise hopeless, weak people.” (Amen to that!) Skeptics conclude from this premise that Christianity is a human invention and delusion.
This is a non-sequitur because the psychological benefit of a belief has no bearing at all on its objective truth. One may derive a sense of security from the thought that their bank account is in the black. That feeling alone certainly doesn’t suggest an unlikelihood that their account is full, nor does it suggest a delusional posture. At the same time, the feeling alone is not proof that the account is in fact full. The state of the account is the state of the account regardless of how the person feels.
Non-sequiturs don’t actually deal with the truth of Christianity. To logically reject any worldview, it must be evaluated on its own terms according to its core claims. As we talk to the lost, we should ask ourselves, “does their conclusion follow from the premise they have made?”
At the end of the day, man doesn’t reject God on the basis of logic, but against it. Illogical reasoning, like non-sequiturs, cover up what is really going on at the heart level—rebellion against a known Creator (Rom 1:18-23). As we engage with unbelievers, we should seek to winsomely point out non-sequiturs, so that we can address the central issue—rebellious estrangement from God—and bring the gospel to bear.
*This argument also features an appeal to objective moral standards that cannot be explained by an atheistic worldview. The reference "horrible atrocities" assumes objective right and wrong. How is an unbeliever able to account for this?
Comments