Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions
Gregory Koukl — Kindle highlights from 'Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions'. 123 highlights.
kindle-sync: bookId: '34984' title: 'Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions' author: Gregory Koukl asin: B001NLKXIO lastAnnotatedDate: '2015-03-24' bookImageUrl: 'https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71PafJhKpxL._SY160.jpg' highlightsCount: 123
Tactics
Metadata
- Author: Gregory Koukl
- ASIN: B001NLKXIO
- ISBN: 0310282926
- Reference: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001NLKXIO
- Kindle link
Highlights
There are plenty of resources that help Christians understand what they believe and why they believe it — and certainly those are vitally important. But it’s equally crucial to know how to engage in a meaningful dialogue with a skeptic or a person from another religious viewpoint. — location: 135 ^ref-55558
The truth is that effective persuasion in the twenty-first century requires more than having the right answers. It’s too easy for postmoderns to ignore our facts, deny our claims, or simply yawn and walk away from the line we have drawn in the sand. — location: 183 ^ref-53929
We have ignored one of the first rules of engagement: Never make a frontal assault on a superior force. — location: 186 ^ref-25000
Like the statement, “I have a right to take . . . ,” the claim requires an object. Choose . . . what? Take . . .what? No one has an open-ended right to choose. People only have the right to choose particular things. Whether anyone has a right to choose depends entirely on what choice they have in mind. — location: 227 ^ref-36629
When bizarre ideas like these are obviously implied, do not let them lurk in the shadows. Drag them into the light with a request for clarification. That is exactly what I did next. — location: 233 ^ref-18691
Beware when rhetoric becomes a substitute for substance. You always know that a person has a weak position when he tries to accomplish with the clever use of words what argument alone cannot do. — location: 248 ^ref-12028
The third thing I want you to notice about our conversation is very important: The witch from Wisconsin was doing most of the work. The only real effort on my part was to pay attention to her responses and then steer the exchange in the direction I wanted it to go. That was not hard at all. — location: 262 ^ref-21589
Tactics, literally “the art of arranging,” focus on the immediate situation at hand. They involve the orderly hands-on choreography of the particulars. — location: 303 ^ref-1150
My goal, rather, is to find clever ways to exploit someone’s bad thinking for the purpose of guiding her to truth, yet remaining gracious and charitable at the same time. My aim is to manage, not manipulate; to control, not coerce; to finesse, not fight. I want the same for you. — location: 329 ^ref-56127
You don’t have to be frightened of the truth or of the adversaries. Take your time, do your homework, think through the issues. If Christianity is the truth, no matter how convincing the other side sounds at first, there will always be a fly in the ointment somewhere — a mistake in thinking, a wayward “fact,” an unjustified conclusion. Keep looking for it. — location: 338 ^ref-43105
With these types of caustic disputes, I have a general rule: If anyone in the discussion gets angry, you lose. — location: 366 ^ref-3873
Therefore the mind, not the Bible, is the very first line of defense God has given us against error. — location: 391 ^ref-13329
Generally, sorting things out is not a solitary enterprise. It’s best done in the company of others who dispute our claims and offer competing ideas. In short, we argue. — location: 403 ^ref-14544
Rather, it’s the proper use of one of the faculties God has given us to understand him and the world he has made. — location: 408 ^ref-28980
True maturity means learning how to disagree in an aggressive fashion, yet still maintaining a peaceful harmony in the church. — location: 422 ^ref-6913
This is a dangerous attitude for the church because the minute one is labeled mean-spirited simply for raising an opposing view, debate is silenced. If we disqualify legitimate discussion, we compromise our ability to know the truth. — location: 425 ^ref-19342
Arguments are good, and dispute is healthy. They clarify the truth and protect us from error and religious despotism. When the church discourages principled debates and a free flow of ideas, the result is shallow Christianity and a false sense of unity. No one gets any practice learning how to field contrary views in a gracious and productive way. The oneness they share is contrived, not genuine. Worse, they lose the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. Simply put, when arguments are few, error abounds. — location: 434 ^ref-46352
All I want to do is put a stone in someone’s shoe. I want to give him something worth thinking about, something he can’t ignore because it continues to poke at him in a good way. — location: 495 ^ref-9330
But which of the apostle's had only this modest goal? It really depends on how much time you will have with a person. If only a few minutes and you'll never see them again, perhaps a small stone is really too modest of a goal.
Ironically, I think harvesting comes easily for some because many ordinary gardeners preceded them — planting, watering, and weeding, cultivating healthy growth until the fruit was ripe. — location: 507 ^ref-37408
Right. This is precisely the reason Jesus gives in John 4 for the response of the Samaritans.
As it turned out, while taking questions from the audience afterward I was able to give more detail about the gospel, but only after I had laid the groundwork by making the message not only sensible to them, but reasonable. — location: 526 ^ref-23695
arguing is a virtue, because it advances clear thinking. If done well, it helps refine our understanding of truth. — location: 535 ^ref-52662
My initial response in a situation like this is not to preach about my view or even disagree with theirs. Rather, I want to draw them out, to invite them to talk more about what they think. This takes a lot of pressure off me, because when I ask a question, the ball is back in their court. It also protects me from jumping to conclusions and unwittingly distorting their meaning. — location: 599 ^ref-57777
Each of the questions I have suggested above occur to me because I have a plan. I know that getting into conversations about spiritual matters is not easy, especially if someone’s guard is up. It’s not unusual to get tongue-tied, not knowing what to say. This is complicated by the fear of getting in over your head — or worse, of offending someone. We need some help. — location: 610 ^ref-36561
The key to the Columbo tactic is to go on the offensive in an inoffensive way by using carefully selected questions to productively advance the conversation. Simply put, never make a statement, at least at first, when a question will do the job. — location: 636 ^ref-18747
There’s a further benefit here: If you are not pressing a point, you have nothing to prove and therefore nothing to defend. — location: 656 ^ref-6835
It might have occurred to you that Jesus used this method frequently. When facing a hostile crowd, he often asked leading questions meant to challenge his audience or silence his detractors by exposing their foolishness: “Show Me a denarius. Whose likeness and inscription does it have?” (Luke 20:24); “Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men?” (Luke 20:4); “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Arise, and take up your pallet and walk’?” (Mark 2:9).3 — location: 667 ^ref-30582
(though one wonders how the rest of the animal kingdom seems to have endured very well without it). — location: 697 ^ref-37962
How does someone remove select lines of text from tens of thousands of handwritten documents that had been circulating around the Mediterranean region for over three hundred years? — location: 714 ^ref-29410
In “Scene 1,” I noticed it was unclear what kind of God was being rejected. — location: 725 ^ref-61098
Unless you know in advance what kind of evidence would count (scientific? historical? philosophical arguments? revelation?) or what kind of “proof” would be satisfying (absolute proof? proof beyond a reasonable doubt? proof based on the preponderance of evidence?), you’ll probably be wasting your time. It’s too easy for an intellectually dishonest person to dismiss your efforts. “Not good enough,” is all he needs to say. — location: 735 ^ref-24209
Believing in leprechauns is irrational. Believing in God, by contrast, is like believing in atoms. The process is exactly the same. You follow the evidence of what you can see to conclude the existence of something you cannot see. — location: 741 ^ref-62810
Second, pluralism presumes that the similarities between faiths are more important than the differences. Are aspirin and arsenic basically the same because they both come in tablet form? For some things, the differences are critical. Religion is one of them. — location: 749 ^ref-15445
If I can simply open that door, I have accomplished something important. — location: 766 ^ref-54680
Those who are sensitive about “forcing” viewpoints have no business participating in a legislative process that does just that, ergo the question, “Do you vote?” — location: 780 ^ref-33541
Simply put, morality is the only thing you can legislate. — location: 783 ^ref-44601
thing.”If your bank account has no balance, there’s no sense checking the statement every month to see if you’ve earned interest.1 — location: 825 ^ref-28079
“You’re right about one thing,” I responded. “When you start with ‘You could say that . . .’ you can spin any yarn you want. But then comes the hard part: giving reasons why anyone should take your science-fiction story seriously. — location: 829 ^ref-55220
Some arguments are not really arguments at all. Many people try to build their roof right on the ground. Instead of erecting solid walls (the supporting ideas that hold the conclusion up), they simply make assertions and then pound the podium — or verbally pound you. — location: 843 ^ref-40240
But there is a difference between giving an explanation and giving evidence the explanation is actually true. Your job is to recognize when the roof is lying flat on the ground and simply point it out. — location: 851 ^ref-23589
You might also ask, “Why do you say that?,” “What are your reasons for holding that view?,”“What makes you think that’s the right way to see it?,” or “I’m curious. Why would that idea seem compelling to you?”2 — location: 857 ^ref-3542
“Why would you believe something when you have no reason to think it’s true?” — location: 866 ^ref-25003
Reject the impulse to counter every assertion someone manufactures. Don’t try to refute every tale spun out of thin air. Instead, steer the burden of proof back on the other person’s shoulders. Make them give you reasons, not just a point of view. It’s not your job to defeat their claim. It’s their job to defend it. This step of the Columbo tactic trades on a very important notion: An alternate explanation is not a refutation. — location: 870 ^ref-38258
Dawkins needs to show the detailed and precise evolutionary pathways in specific cases of flight (birds, for example). This he does not do. — location: 890 ^ref-48838
They are known derisively as “just so stories” — location: 892 ^ref-17109
There are three questions you should always ask whenever someone offers an alternate explanation: Is it possible? Is it plausible? Is it probable? — location: 894 ^ref-48545
This is key.
The person you’re talking with must be able to show why his view is more likely than the one you are offering. For this he needs reasons. Why is his explanation a better one than yours? — location: 907 ^ref-60479
Why go with a long shot, especially when so much might be riding on a decision? — location: 909 ^ref-60533
It may seem plausible to some that monkeys banging on typewriters long enough could eventually pound out the works of Shakespeare. That doesn’t mean we’re justified in thinking a baboon wrote Hamlet. — location: 910 ^ref-45527
We are not obligated, for example, to prove our own existence, to defend self-evident truths (e.g., denial of square circles), or to justify the basic reliability of our senses. The way things appear to be are probably the way they actually are unless we have good reason to believe otherwise.4 This principle keeps us alive every day. It doesn’t need defending. — location: 922 ^ref-10527
Never make a frontal assault on a superior force in an entrenched position. — location: 933 ^ref-2268
If he falters in any way, the other students will notice. If he has trouble making his ideas clear, it will become obvious that he has not thought carefully about his ideas. — location: 941 ^ref-34500
“Professor, I actually haven’t said anything about my own view, so you’re just guessing right now. For all you know, I could be on your side. More to the point, my own view is irrelevant. It doesn’t really matter what I believe. Your ideas are on the table, not mine. I’m just a student trying to learn. I’m asking for clarification and wondering if you have good reasons. That’s all.” — location: 954 ^ref-47515
The minute you feel overmatched, buy yourself some time by shifting from persuasion mode to fact-finding mode. — location: 973 ^ref-46104
Think for a moment how useful this approach is. Instead of trying to resist the force of another’s attack, you step aside and let him have the floor. You invite him to make his case. However, he must do it slowly and clearly so you’ll have an opportunity to fully understand his point. — location: 984 ^ref-23157
Essentially, you are inviting him to do what he wanted to do in the first place, beat you up. You’re just giving him the opportunity to do a complete job. — location: 998 ^ref-7560
I called this move “reversing the burden of proof.” In any dispute, the person who advances an opinion, claim, or point of view has the job of defending it. It’s not your duty to prove him wrong. It’s his duty to prove himself right. — location: 1006 ^ref-10200
Instead, simply raise your eyebrows and say, “Oh? How did you come to that conclusion?” — location: 1011 ^ref-62263
Ultimately, we want to win someone over to our point of view. But we don’t want to force our opinions. Instead, we want to persuade. — location: 1036 ^ref-38859
Since this truth does not give an accurate sense of why Jesus matters, God seems petty, pitching people into Hell because of some inconsequential detail of Christian theology. — location: 1056 ^ref-22605
The hitch is this: You have to know why Jesus is the only way before it is helpful to tell people that he is the only way. — location: 1058 ^ref-1008
This is an important point to make in teaching the tactics course.
Either we take the pardon and go free, or we turn it down and pay for our crimes ourselves.” — location: 1082 ^ref-49613
The most powerful questions — and the most persuasive — are the ones that help people recall what they already know. — location: 1085 ^ref-49208
“Can simply believing in God heal that disease?” — location: 1099 ^ref-45551
These questions are great showing why Jesus matters and why all the other things that people trust in are not enough.
Do you consider yourself a tolerant person or an intolerant person on issues like this? Is it safe to give my opinion, or are you going to judge me for my point of view? — location: 1118 ^ref-38082
“Well, it’s clear you think you’re right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.” — location: 1133 ^ref-26834
“That’s the part that confuses me. Why is it when I think I’m right, I’m intolerant, but when you think you’re right, you’re just right? What am I missing?” — location: 1138 ^ref-57591
“I’m a little confused about your response. Even if you were right about my character, could you explain to me exactly what that has to do with this issue?” — location: 1145 ^ref-56869
Since science only measures the natural world, it is not capable of ruling out anything, even in principle, in the supernatural realm.6 — location: 1181 ^ref-58040
“Professor, would you please explain to me exactly how the methods of science have disproved the possibility of supernatural events?” — location: 1183 ^ref-5556
This is an excellent point about science’s relevance on the subject of miracles.
By soliciting permission to disagree, you make the encounter more amicable. You also stay in the driver’s seat. — location: 1256 ^ref-55502
Take a moment to step outside of the conversation, in a sense, and describe to your friend the turn the discussion has taken. This will help him (and others listening in) see how he’s gotten off course. — location: 1278 ^ref-8938
Forcing him to face the music may be the first step toward a change of mind. — location: 1285 ^ref-21803
If someone’s thinking is flawed, the key to finding the error is to listen carefully to the reasons and then ask if the conclusions follow from the evidence. Point out errors with questions rather than statements. — location: 1296 ^ref-40428
Second, after each encounter, take some time for self-assessment. I have made it a habit to immediately reflect on how I could have done better. — location: 1333 ^ref-49927
Once you learn Colombo, you’ll realize how incapable most people are to answer for their own views. The temptation will be strong to use your tactical skill like a club. Don’t give in to that urge. As a general rule, go out of your way to establish common ground. Whenever possible, affirm points of agreement. Take the most charitable read on the other person’s motives, not the most cynical. — location: 1411 ^ref-6086
The danger we need to guard against is the misuse of the third application of Columbo — leading questions. — location: 1423 ^ref-18320
Critics rarely are prepared to defend their own “faith.” They have seldom thought through what they believe and have relied more on generalizations and slogans than on careful reflection. — location: 1537 ^ref-63500
Next, we learned how to defend against the Columbo tactic when someone uses it against us. Remind yourself that you are in control of your side of the conversation. Politely refuse to answer the person’s leading questions. Then, ask him to simply state his point and his reasons for it so you can give the issue some thought. — location: 1548 ^ref-13934
When statements fail to meet their own criteria of validity, they are self-refuting. — location: 1575 ^ref-11848
It’s called the law of noncontradiction. This law reflects the commonsense notion that contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time.2 — location: 1589 ^ref-46016
Arguments designed to show that a view is contradictory are always lethal if they can be sustained. The argument against God based on the existence of evil is popular precisely because it trades on a presumed contradiction. This gives it unstoppable force if it succeeds.5 When a view commits suicide, it cannot be revived, because there is no way to repair it. Even God cannot give life to a contradictory notion.6 Philosophers say such views are “necessarily false.” They cannot be true in any possible way. Because they are dead on arrival, defending them is a lost cause. — location: 1618 ^ref-32980
Implicitly, it claims that I am not a real self and that I am a real self at the same time. Thus, this central doctrine of Hinduism self-destructs. — location: 1729 ^ref-40102
This problem, though, has nothing to do with what people are “comfortable” with. It has to do with how reality is structured. People may be comfortable with all sorts of unusual things. This may tell you something about psychology, but not about reality. — location: 1732 ^ref-11566
The idea that something is designed by chance is contradictory. — location: 1749 ^ref-29301
The next time someone dismisses you with the “Only science gives reliable truth” canard, ask if he wants you to take his statement as fact or simply as unsubstantiated opinion. If fact, ask what testable scientific evidence led him to his conclusion. — location: 1766 ^ref-42417
I pointed out to the waitress that if we are what we eat, then we couldn’t be something until we have eaten something. — location: 1786 ^ref-60297
Some reject the whole task of apologetics because they think reason is never adequate to discover truth. Then they painstakingly list the reasons they think their opinion is true (e.g., “I’ll give you three good reasons why you can’t use logic to find truth”). — location: 1830 ^ref-20805
whenever a relativist says, “You shouldn’t force your morality on other people,” I always ask, “Why not?” — location: 1859 ^ref-49718
The only consistent response for a relativist is, “Pushing morality is wrong for me, but that’s just my personal opinion and has nothing to do with you. Please ignore me.” — location: 1863 ^ref-31016
The rabbis were incensed that Christians were trying to change the religious convictions of Jews. Yet their antidote was for the Christians to abandon their own religious view of evangelism and adopt the rabbis’ view. — location: 1918 ^ref-24235
The claim “It’s wrong to try to change other people’s religious beliefs” is usually an example of Practical Suicide. The idea itself is not incoherent. However, a person risks contradiction simply by trying to promote this conviction. — location: 1925 ^ref-39407
If God appears indifferent to wickedness, his goodness is challenged. Yet if he acts to punish sin, his love is in question. These objections compete with each other in most cases. They are siblings in rivalry. One or the other needs to be surrendered. Both can’t be held simultaneously.1 — location: 1994 ^ref-19909
I want you to notice something about the problem of evil. The entire objection hinges on the observation that evil exists “out there” as an objective feature of the world. That is a serious problem for relativists, though. — location: 2003 ^ref-28780
To say that something is evil is to say it is not the way it is supposed to be. This makes no sense unless things are supposed to be different. Yet this is precisely what the relativist denies. — location: 2022 ^ref-27274
Knowing the difference between mediocre and masterful in anything requires a way of keeping score. There must be some standard of perfection by which to measure a performance. — location: 2059 ^ref-39444
A man does not call something crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.5 — location: 2069 ^ref-11384
The “why it works” question is what philosophers call the grounding problem. — location: 2102 ^ref-24346
None of these truths can be established by the methods of science, because science cannot operate in a knowledge vacuum. Certain truths — known through means other than science — must be in place before science can begin testing for other truths. Since the notion of scientism (the child) is inconsistent with the presuppositions that make science possible (the parent), scientism as a comprehensive view of knowledge commits Infanticide. — location: 2121 ^ref-2100
I think you can see how the Suicide tactic is not an end in itself, but can be used as a bridge to further questions. — location: 2131 ^ref-22713
Our job is to remove that roof, expose the fraud, and deprive him of his false sense of security. — location: 2183 ^ref-65284
“The answer to guilt is not denial,” I say. “The answer to guilt is forgiveness. And this is where Jesus comes in.” — location: 2204 ^ref-54019
The basic argument can be summed up this way: Anything that is natural is also moral. Homosexuality is natural (the claim goes). Therefore, homosexuality is moral. What happens when we go down that road? — location: 2274 ^ref-29021
The only thing it is capable of showing is that if God does exist, he is not a circus animal who can be teased into jumping through hoops to appease the whim of foolish people. — location: 2299 ^ref-49840
According to Paul, if we believe contrary to fact, we believe in vain. We are not heroes to be praised, but fools to be pitied. — location: 2336 ^ref-23063
The opposite of faith is not fact, but unbelief. The opposite of knowledge is ignorance. — location: 2339 ^ref-8248
Taking the Roof Off works because humans are made in the image of God and must live in the world God created. Any person who denies this fact lives in tension between the way he says the world is and the way the world actually is. To protect himself from this contradiction, mankind has erected a self-deception — or a “roof” — to shield himself from the logical implications of his beliefs. With our tactic, we try to remove that roof to deprive him of his false sense of security, then show him the truth. — location: 2380 ^ref-64403
When someone forcefully disagrees with you, do not expect him to surrender quickly. Changing beliefs is not easy to do, especially when a lot is at stake. Usually, it is a slow process for someone to admit they are mistaken about something important. — location: 2417 ^ref-42556
They don’t overwhelm you with facts or arguments. Rather, they roll over you with the force of their personalities. — location: 2424 ^ref-22953
With more aggressive steamrollers, it is especially important for them to verbally consent to your request. — location: 2456 ^ref-45774
There is nothing magical about a sound line of logic. For some people, reason doesn’t matter. Some other barrier stands in the way. — location: 2529 ^ref-44128
When an article tells you what a scholar believes, you have been informed. When an article tells you why he holds his view, you have been educated. — location: 2550 ^ref-6220
How do you know if an authority has been compromised? Regardless of a scholar’s credentials, always ask for reasons. Don’t settle for opinions. This is the key to Rhodes Scholar. — location: 2558 ^ref-11482
First, the scholar may be in a special position to know the facts. However, if an authority is in possession of special information that guides his counsel, then he should be able to point to that evidence to convince us he’s on the mark. — location: 2562 ^ref-4166
“The letters after his name don’t mean a thing without the evidence to back up his position.”1 — location: 2576 ^ref-60980
If a scholar begins an investigation convinced that miracles cannot happen, it will be very difficult for him to conclude that something supernatural has taken place even when there is overwhelming evidence for it. — location: 2586 ^ref-7877
There are two requirements, then, for an investigation of the natural world to qualify as scientific. First, one must use the right methods. Second, one must come up with the right kind of answers, those consistent with materialism. Usually, these two elements are not in conflict. Good methods produce answers completely consistent with matter in motion governed by natural law. But sometimes they are not compatible. Evolution is a case in point. — location: 2598 ^ref-4928
Modern science does not conclude from the evidence that design is not tenable. It assumes it prior to the evidence. — location: 2605 ^ref-28999
Those who believe in intelligent design, however, claim that these forces are knowable, at least in principle. — location: 2610 ^ref-6015
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.4 — location: 2616 ^ref-6242
These comments should always trigger questions: “What specifically disqualifies creation as science?” or “Why dismiss the idea of design in spite of the evidence?” — location: 2628 ^ref-41394
Using the Rhodes Scholar tactic — asking for the scholar’s reasons, not just his credentials — helps us flush out both the facts and the philosophy that may be corrupting the interpretation of the facts. This allows us to assess the scholar’s opinion for ourselves rather than simply having to take it on faith. — location: 2651 ^ref-44243
Ironically, the Christian’s bias broadens her categories making her more open-minded, not less. She has a greater chance of discovering truth because she can follow the evidence wherever it leads. That’s a critical distinction. Can bias make a person open-minded? Under the right set of circumstances, absolutely.6 — location: 2669 ^ref-49061
Sometimes authorities weigh in outside of their area of expertise. Other times they get their facts wrong, or philosophical bias distorts their judgment. The key to Rhodes Scholar is getting past the opinion of a scholar and probing the reasons for his opinions. This is the difference between being informed and being educated. — location: 2680 ^ref-64696
Your Tags
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more