Review: How to Talk to a Skeptic

How to Talk to a Skeptic: An Easy-To-Follow Guide for Natural Conversations and Effective Apologetics by Donald J. Johnson
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

I remain skeptical.

Donald J. Johnson defines a skeptic rather broadly: from militant atheists to someone who is just beginning to question their (Christian) faith. Turning it around a non-skeptic, then, can only include those who have no questions about their faith… someone who is absolutely certain about matters of faith. Johnson is schooled in the field of apologetics so it is not surprising that he values certainty and holds in suspicion questioning, doubt, and skepticism. It is not surprising that he wants Christians to be certain about their faith and beliefs, to be confident that they really do hold answers to questions of ultimate reality and life meaning, and that apologetics is a highly effective mode of evangelism.

There was a time that I, too, was enamored with apologetics. I devoured books by Josh McDowell, David A. Noebel, Lee Strobel, etc. Then I started to critically engage other points of view and realized that certainty and answers were overrated. I saw how apologetics, even when presenting correct answers, destroys relationships because it communicates, usually unintentionally and subconsciously, arrogance, superiority, and patronization of the apologist toward those he is arguing. It's been quite a number of years since I've seriously taken a look at Christian apologetics and I was curious if How to Talk to a Skeptic approached the topic any differently.

First, I came away with the sense that Johnson's approach is a "softer" form of apologetics than . He reminds readers throughout the book that it does little good, and possibly harm, to react to objections from skeptics. He writes of the importance of first listening to understand where the skeptic is coming from, what he knows about his own worldview, and what he thinks he knows about Christianity.

Johnson then writes that apologists should not try to defend or "sell" religion, but to ask questions of the skeptic to guide them toward an understanding of worldviews. He writes that what is important is not about establishing which worldview is most useful or helpful, but which one best reflects reality. For Johnson, the Christian worldview is the one that best explains ultimate reality and is, obviously, the one he shows how to defend in this book.

Johnson spends a few chapters seeking to deal with some of the areas of Christianity with which skeptics have trouble. These include issues such as the nature of God (vindictive, capricious, or loving?), why so much (apparent) focus on rules and behaviors, why isn't ethics and morality enough, heaven and hell, the use and misuse of the Bible, parallels to pagan mythologies, hypocrisy, etc. In my opinion some of the arguments were better than others. There were some areas where his reasoning failed to convince me in any way. What I did appreciate is that in a few of the chapters at least, he began by acknowledging that traditional Christian positions and arguments were flawed, and that Christians bore at least some responsibility for contributing to skepticism.

On the positive side then, Johnson presents a framework of Christian apologetics that recognizes there is no one-size-fits-all approach in responding to skeptics, that Christians need to humbly acknowledge areas of failure, that the apologist must first learn before responding, and that she needs to argue worldviews rather than religions.

However, I encountered problems with Johnson's approaches. The main problem that I had is that it is based on the assumption that the Christian worldview has the answers. I don't object to this assumption, per se, but what leads out of it -- that is, it is possible for Christians to know the answers, and that there is a singular "Christian worldview" that can be apprehended by humans. Ask a representative sample of Christians from different denominations, cultures, and times, and there is no way a single "Christian worldview" will emerge. According to Johnson, only one worldview can be "right" meaning all the others are wrong. So who decides which one is right? His?

I also had issues with what to me seemed like circular reasoning. For example Johnson argues that it is God who provides meaning to life, so a person cannot really have life meaning without believing in (the Christian) God. But this reasoning only stands up if one first accepts that there is a God; ergo, circular reasoning. By this argument, Johnson also minimizes and dismisses all who so have a sense of meaning and purpose in life apart from the Christian God. He defends his position by stating that everyone has an emptiness, whether they realize it or not - again, another circular reasoning position.

Johnson takes a similar position with ethics and altruism, that it is not possible to be truly ethical and altruistic without a belief in God. He writes that humans are all born selfish and sinful. This may be in agreement with traditional Christian theology, but recent scientific data offers some contradictory evidence. Throughout the book Johnson repeats steps for engaging the skeptic: examine the data, offer the Christian explanation of the data, evaluate alternate explanations. He would do well to follow his own advice in some of these cases where science offers viable alternate views.

Johnson also suggests that subjective experience is a viable apologetics tool. He argues that the divine and supernatural can only be explained through subjective experience. Where I have a problem is that he then reaches the conclusion that all unexplainable phenomena must be of divine origin. He does not necessarily say so in direct words, but it is implied by his interpretation of the observation that people frequently ascribe unexplainable phenomena to Chance and Luck.

A statement that Johnson makes that really raised questions in my mind was when he writes that he thinks that sexual immorality (and for him this is defines as fornication, adultery, and homosexuality) is the major cause of skepticism today (chapter 13). He suggests that one of the main reasons people reject all kinds of theism is because they really want to live in immorality.

I felt that Johnson started out well in his book. He started out with the ideas that Christians need to listen better, to understand why people have objections to Christianity, before responding. His admission to problems and faults of Christianity is also a good start. But by the end it all seems to fall apart because of the underlying assumption and attitude that the Christian worldview has the answers and that Christians can know and articulate them. It ends up placing the apologist in a position of superiority above everyone who doesn't "know" exactly as she does, and treats everyone else in a patronizing manner, however unintentionally.

Johnson fails to engage the possibility that this very idolization of certainty and answers may be part of the reason why skepticism is increasing. I personally value uncertainty, skepticism, and cynicism. It offers an important counterbalance to unhealthy veneration of certainty and knowledge.

Overall, How to Talk to a Skeptic didn't excite me one way or the other. It has some interesting ideas that are worth thinking about, but for me there were some significant problems with it.

(This review is based on an advance review copy supplied by the publisher through NetGalley.)


View all my reviews