Pop Apologetics-Part I

There’s no doubt that we have seen a resurgence of atheism over the last decade. Such great minds as Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins have been busy publishing bestsellers that discredit any conservative belief in any type of faith, especially Christianity. These “four horsemen of the atheist apocalypse” as Al Mohler calls them, have formed a “New Athiesm,” or what I like to call “pop atheism.” Their scientific research is usually very shallow and they generally utilize popular and accessible arguments against God to create a powerful perspective on atheism. This pop atheism presents the faith with a challenge of its own.

One of those challenges is the response that Christianity has so far put forth to their charges. In response to the pop atheists, we have sent to battle the “pop apologetes.’’ A better or more familiar name might be the evidentialists: those who adhere to the evidentialist school of Christian apologetics. This group of people uses scientific and archeological evidence to prove the authenticity of the Bible. It includes writers such as the esteemed Josh McDowell. Their books fill up Christian bookstores with popular arguments for the existence of Christianity along with the newest scientific and archeological discoveries. Their popularity in the Christian community is unquestioned, and rightly so. This group of people does a great service to the faith by equipping the common Christian with arguments to defend the faith. But there can be a problem with this method that needs a closer look.

Let’s say that an atheist contends with a believer that the Bible is not the Word of God, is not inerrant, and is not relevant. The educated Christian could simply point to 2 Tim. 3:16: all scripture is God-breathed. Besides the circularity of the argument, this usually settles the issue for most Christians (leaving our hypothetical atheist most dissatisfied since they don’t believe in the Word). Or let’s say that someone contests that the archeological record of the Bible is not consistent with new or current discoveries and that the stories of the Bible are not scientifically possible. They would say that the Bible is not accurate historically in terms of the creation story and the location of cities. The Christian could point to archaeological finds, history, and scientific evidence to prove them wrong.

What’s wrong with all this? It is good for us Christians to have educated arguments to battle the big men like college professors. The problem, however, lies in where the authority is placed. When someone challenges the faith, we usually point to the Bible as our ultimate authority and standard. But then what if someone questions whether or not the Bible is accurate and factual? Then we point to archeological evidence, science, new Creationist developments, statistics and probability to prove that the Bible is accurate. But that means what our faith is really relying on is statistics, probability, and evidence and not ultimately the Bible. What happens if our statistics and evidence fail? (they won’t by the way). Then we have no basis for accepting God’s revelation in the Bible. Those who rely on evidentialist/pop apologetics run the risk of placing their faith not in what God says but in the newest archeological find. It’s not a very stable option. That’s why I will argue in the next post that reformed presuppositional apologetics (I will explain what that means) is a much safer and much more Christ-centered approach to defending the Gospel than the evidentialist way. That’s not to discredit people like Josh McDowell at all. We can still use what they say in great ways to glorify God, but it’s just not the ultimate answer. It’s just to make sure that our faith is rooted in Scripture. We would do well to remember that.