This Isn’t A ‘Gotcha’ Argument

I have been preparing for a youth event where I will be doing an apologetics crash course. I subscribe to presuppositional apologetics, believing it is most consistent with the scriptural teachings on the nature of God, revelation, and man’s sin just to name a few.

In preparation for this class I have been watching some debates and other interviews and interchanges. I have noticed there is an objection that continually gets raised by the atheist proponent. That objection is that the presuppositional approach is simply a ‘gotcha’ argument. They refer to it as a parlor trick that doesn’t merit a response.

What Is Presuppositional Apologetics?

Now I realize that many are unfamiliar with the presuppositional approach and I don’t think I would be able to summarize it well enough in a single paragraph. It will have to suffice to say that the presuppositional approach pushes people back to their presupposed starting points and forces them to justify how they know what they know (while at the same time they assert total uncertainty) and how they justify their worldview (while contradicting it by things they say and ways they live). The Christian is able say how he knows what he knows and to justify his use of logic, knowledge, science, morality, etc. A future blog post will have to demonstrate that.

When you do this apologetic method well, you will eventually find your atheist/agnostic becoming very frustrated and even angry. They don’t like being constantly asked to justify every single knowledge and truth claim they make. Before long you will hear the charge that you are just advocating a ‘gotcha’ argument or that you are wielding a logical parlor trick.

What Is A ‘Gotcha’ Argument?

This is what I want to explore for a moment. What is a ‘gotcha’ argument? What is a parlor trick? A ‘gotcha’ argument is a line of thought that momentarily leaves a person in a bind. They got backed into a corner and they are fumbling to get out of it. Essentially it is a logical fallacy that has been crafted and wielded skillfully. The opponent didn’t see it coming and is having trouble getting out of it. A parlor trick, when used in these discussions, is the same thing. Some logical slight-of-hand has been used and left the opponent stammering for an answer.

An example might be the following: A Christian is talking with an atheist at a formal debate. The Christian asks the atheist if his worldview says lying is wrong. The atheist responds by saying that lying is usually wrong in his worldview. The Christian then produces proof that the atheist lied in order to participate in the debate. Gotcha! The atheist will probably be stumbling around for an answer. However, the Christian has used a logical fallacy called “ad hominem” which is addressing a person’s character and not the issues being argued. The Christian really didn’t argue against or dismantle the atheist worldview. In fact, if the atheist has the nerve he can simply say that he did a wrong thing according to his worldview.

Is This Really A ‘Gotcha’ Argument?

But is that what is happening when opponents continually cry “foul” as presuppositionalists press them to justify the ability to make the knowledge claims they continually make? No, it isn’t. The reason is because ‘gotcha’ arguments are only momentary. As soon as the other person regains their logical footing, they are usually able to show what fallacy was used and that it is illegitimate for debate and logical interchange. That is not what is happening in these debates that I have been watching and other venues where presuppositionalism is used well. In these instances, there is nothing momentary happening. These are extended discussions where the Christian is continually pressing a single train of thought. If the atheist could get out of it they eventually would. But they can’t. That is the power of using a biblical presuppositional method. Opponents simply cannot get around the fact that they are violating the very principles that they use, that they are undercutting their own reasoning ability, and that they destroy the foundation for the knowledge they claim they have. They begin to cry “foul” because they are tired of being held to account for what they say. They want to get the argument back into safe territory where “raw” facts can be haggled over and where their reasons for knowledge are not challenged.

Christian, don’t let them sneak away from the light. Don’t let the unbeliever use logic without justifying his use of it. Don’t let them divert attention away from presuppositions and onto their favorite scientific issue with the Bible. They have to account for logic and science before they can use it. When you do call them to account, you really have “got them”, not in the fallacy sense, but in the “you are without excuse” sense of Romans 1:20.