The last thing that skeptics need is more evidence; what they really need is worldview surgery! A person’s worldview is the “lens” by which he/she will interpret any evidence presented. Many Christians spend their time arguing with unbelievers over the “evidence” perceived to be for or against their worldview. Is this how the bible informs us to carry out apologetics? Of course not (Colossians 2:8)! Does the fact that scientific studies of DNA seem to show that all men that have ever lived can be traced back to a single male and all women likewise to a single female, prove that the bible’s account of creation is true? NO.
The astute unbeliever is not ready to give up their worldview based on a single piece of seemingly damaging evidence; rather, the astute unbeliever will inevitably invoke a rescuing device. Perhaps all men do go back to one male, and all women to a single female but that doesn’t rule out the possibility that the male (called y-chromosome Adam) and the female (called mitochondrial eve) weren’t contemporaries. Perhaps, they were lone survivors of a larger group of people that existed back in pre-historic times etc.; therefore, this evidence does not necessarily prove the biblical account of origins provided in the bible’s book of Genesis. So what do you do now? More evidence is not the answer.
In 2 Timothy 2:24-25 (…the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, able to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth) we are told that biblical apologetics involves demonstrating to the unbeliever that their worldview is ultimately a contradictory one. Incidentally, there is no reason to think that Paul is only singling out a particular group of unbelievers. Any departure from scripture will ultimately lead to a contradiction since logic is a reflection of the way that the biblical God thinks and any ideas that do not coincide with biblical truth are thus antithetical to the way God thinks. Since the verse above defines “those that need repentance to the acknowledgement of the truth” as those that “contradict themselves”, we must conclude that the unbeliever is always transgressing the laws of logic when it comes to the worldview they profess. In other words, when you perform an internal critique of the unbeliever’s worldview it will always lead to a contradiction; the only question is: how many contradictions will you find?
Paul demonstrates this technique when he delivered the gospel to the Athenian Epicurean and Stoic philosophers at Mars hill. Apparently, the Athenians were fond of idol worship and held the notion that the gods were graven idols of gold, silver and stone (Acts 17:29). They even had an altar with the inscription: “TO THE UNKNOWN GOD” which apparently was a devotion to the living God of the bible who they only knew in ignorance. As Paul is giving his presentation of the biblical God, he quotes a saying from one of their poets in order to demonstrate a contradiction in their worldview. What was the contradiction? The Athenian poet claimed (in regards to the “UNKNOWN GOD” of the bible Who lives) “for we are also His offspring” yet the Athenians simultaneously held the view that their gods were tangible entities (i.e. statues made from lifeless material). How could they be the offspring of man-made statues of stone, silver or gold? Secondly, they used their hands to create and worship their gods, but Paul points out that the “UNKNOWN GOD” of the bible Who exclusively created all things is neither created nor worshiped with men’s hands.
Paul exposes these contradictions to them in order to demonstrate that their worldview had some serious problems. As a result of Paul’s apologetic method, we are told that God gave some of the Athenians repentance to the acknowledgement of the Truth (Acts 17:34).
One of the most common contradictions unbelievers employ is their insistence on using biblical standards and presuppositions in order to mount an attack on the bible. If you (as an unbeliever) do not believe that the biblical God exists then stop using His standard of goodness or evil to present an argument against Him. Come up with your own standards based on your Godless worldview. If you disbelieve in the biblical God then stop trying to use logic to construct an argument against Him. The laws of logic have no basis outside of the biblical worldview but especially in an atheistic worldview where typically matter is all there is. After all, can the immaterial laws of logic be detected using any scientific method or apparatus? Why should a law of logic in my mind that I adhere to (i.e. the law of non-contradiction) conform to a law in your mind since we are each composed of different matter and have different chemical reactions? Is scholarship as we know it even possible in a logic-less (and thus God-less) worldview. Again, don’t appeal to the bible’s code of moral conduct when accusing the biblical God of being unkind, uncaring or evil; if the biblical God does not exist then why on earth is it wrong for a person to dash infants into pieces just for sport (especially if doing so benefits that persons perceived survival value)? In summary, if you’re an unbeliever and can follow the preceding lines of argument, then you have been found guilty of using the laws of logic to comprehend and consume this information. You should now either switch sides or refrain from stealing presuppositions from the biblical worldview. On the other hand, outside of the biblical worldview, ultimately, there is nothing wrong with stealing; so carry on.
It is always the case that the unbeliever has no rational defense for their position and must utilize biblical presuppositions to present arguments against the bible. So the next time someone accuses the bible of having contradictions, before trying to explain or clarify what is probably a misunderstanding of one or more biblical passages (i.e. what they perceive to be a contradiction is not really a contradiction), consider using the following reply: Why it is wrong to embrace ideas that contain contradictions since in a Godless worldview it is impossible to account for the laws of logic? Their response (if any) will ultimately betray their crutch to be something that we call the biblical worldview.