I studied books on the topic, and I also got literature from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) designed for youth. The literature included pamphlets and videos that were slickly produced. But when I looked at the contents, I was aghast. It presented arguments against evolution and an old world that had long-since been debunked. Things like this: The earth's magnetic field is decaying. If one extrapolates back 50,000 years, the field would have been so strong that life could not have survived. Therefore, the earth's age must be less than 50,000 years. Of course, now we know that the earth's magnetic field has waxed and waned and flipped directions many, many times. This and other arguments in the literature were clearly false, while others were misleading. So, why were educated people presenting claims that they knew were false, or could easily find out were false, to youth?
The answer to this question, of why they were presenting false claims, just occurred to me. And it is not something that is specific to ICR. Rather it is something that is prevalent amongst Christian leaders, teachers and evangelists. It is this: there are only two thing that matter in a message. The first is the impact on the hearers. Does it lead them to Christ? Does it cause them to doubt their current view, say evolution, and look towards the Christian message? Does it cause belief in God or the Bible? Does it engender faith? The second thing that matters about a message is that it be doctrinally correct (DC). It cannot violate any key claims of the Christian denomination that the person is part of. As long as a message satisfies these two things, then all is good.
It is interesting that the soundness of the arguments or the truth of the claims does not matter. This is something I have observed again and again. As a younger Christian I used to do evangelism quite a bit. Now in evangelism mode we know we have the answer; we are right and any opposing view is wrong. We will respond to what our target says, but never really consider it and always revert to presenting what we know is the answer and seek to bring the person to Christ. In the Christian group I was part of during university, we had a retreat in Ocean City and one evening was evangelism night. We went on the boardwalk and went up to people and told them we were doing a survey. Of course this was just a front. We started asking them questions such as "Did they believe in God?" but the aim was to turn it into an opportunity to share our faith with the person. So, we were being dishonest right up front in presenting it as a survey, but that didn't matter as the goal was to bring the person to Christ.
Here's another example. As my doubts about my faith grew, I started listening more carefully and critically to Sunday sermons. I noticed many dubious claims and inferences. But you can't hold up your hand and interrupt a sermon to point out an invalid inference. The reason I had to stop attending church was too much cognitive dissonance: too many invalid arguments that would cause me to figuratively grind my teeth. So, why do so many smart people continue to attend church? They could analyze the message, and with a bit of research and thought, determine that many of the arguments are poor or invalid. But they don't do this. Rather, as long as the conclusion is serving a good purpose and the message is doctrinally correct, then all is good and they will happily sit through the sermon.
Here's my last example. A year and a half ago I attended my college reunion. As part of that I went to the fellowship meeting for the Christian group I had been part of during college days. I talked with one of the leaders I knew from the days I was part of the group and she asked me various things including about my faith. When I told her I was no longer a Christian, she launched into full evangelism mode. For ten minutes she regaled me with a slew of arguments, things like Pascal's Wager, and so on. They were all arguments I had heard before, and none held water. I realized that another strategy in evangelism is to convince by volume rather than veracity and validity. This, I think, is actually a pretty common strategy, but something I find highly disturbing and contrary to discovering truth.
My conclusion is that soundness of arguments and truthfulness of claims aren't important to many or most Christians. Rather it is the end goal of growing in faith and making converts that matters, and activities or messages that achieve this will be forgiven for any unsoundness or untruthfulness.
Posts
