Pagtugon sa Sumasalungat na Katuwiran ng Kausap sa Apologetics, Part 1 || John Pesebre (May 8, 2018)

So far po natapos na natin ang first H ng 4H apologetics which is yung Hear. The next H sa 4H apologetics is Help. This is where you will counter the argument and do your apologetics. Bear in mind na nakapag build ka na kahit papano ng environment sa Hear o yung first H with your virtuous or godly response sa argument ng kausap mo.

After you have given time and conversation to know the argument ng kausap mo and have also reflected on the serious impact of the allegation sa Christianity, it is time to share naman ang refutation mo. Tandaan mo rin lang na sa first H o Hear you were able to explain sa kaniya your previous knowledge ng argument niya at naging honest ka sa valid na argument ng kausap mo. Sa pangalawang H you will begin your refutation and apologetics.

First, you have to answer to yourself the question, “What is your counter-argument?” What this means is ano ang kokontrahin mo sa claim at support ng argument? Isa lang ba? O pareho? Kapag nasabi mo na ‘yon, you then have to provide your apologetics or supporting na paliwanag sa counterargument mo and I will walk your through that sa next episode. For the meantime let’s deal with the question muna  na “What is your counterargument?”

For example, let’s look again dito sa statement ng isang college student na kinunan natin ng argument sa first H. Sabi niya,

Nahihirapan akong ireconcile yung idea na ang Diyos ay mapagmahal subalit majority ng giyera sa kasaysayan natin ay sinimulan ng mga Christians. Bakit ganon? Di ba dapat ang Christians pa ang promotor ng katahimikan, bakit ang Kristiyanismo pa ang nagpasimula ng majority ng mga giyera sa kasaysayan?

From this we were able to at least suppose that the argument is this: “Christianity is a bloodthirsty religion because she started majority of the wars of history.”

Again the first question sa second H na itatanong mo sa sarili mo is “What is your counterargument?” A counterargument’s form is like an argument: it has a claim and a support. Kaso nga lang it is meant to refute yung maling characterization ng Christianity ng kausap mo. Sa apologetics, nasa context ka palagi ng conflict of views kaya it is quite proper lang to express sa kausap mo ang iyong counterargument. This is how you begin to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5). Ang mga apologetics encounter natin would most likely put us in a situation kung saan ang kausap natin would set themselves up against the true knowledge of God. So bilang isang mananampalataya, it is your duty to refute.

What you are doing here is what we call negative apologetics. Negative apologetics simply means refutation. Apollos did this in Acts 18:28 “For he vigorously refuted his Jewish opponents in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah.” Such forceful tone like “vigorously refuted” can also be felt in Paul in 2 Corinthians 10:5 "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” May dalawa po tayong episodes nung Feb 20 at 22 patungkol sa negative apologetics. Maari niyo siyang ma access sa FB page natin na Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo. Balik tayo sa pinag uusapan natin sa refutation sa kausap.

Dito sa stage na ito, all you have to do is to refute lang muna yung statement ng kausap mo. Sasabihin mo lang na may problema ka sa sinasabi ng kausap mo. Sa issue ng ating case study nung college students, you can state your refutation this way: “Christianity is NOT A bloodthirsty religion because she DID NOT start majority of the wars of history.”

Ganon lang. It gives yung kausap mo ng doubt sa kaniyang position kasi you have presented a competing argument. Naalala niyo siguro yung idea natin sa past episode na dalawa as dubitare or the number two. Dito you are perfectly justified to give doubt din sa kausap mo dahil sa wrong na idea niya about Christianity. Kung hindi man maging successful ang apologetics encounter na ito in terms of production of new belief sa kaniya, at least you have stood your ground sa objection niya. Ang maganda pa nga dito, is within this second H o Help you will provide a defense pa sa counterargument to put pressure pa sa wrong na idea niya ng Christanity.

Banggitin ko lang, at sana wag po nating kakalimutan ito na there are instances na hindi mo ire-refute pareho ang claim at support. Sa case kasi ng counterargument na nilagay ko sa taas, dalawa ang na negate mo: yung claim at yung support: hindi totoo na bloodthirsty religion ang Christianity (refuting the claim) at hindi rin totoo na majority ng mga gyera sa mundo ay sinimulan ng mga Christians (refuting the support).

There are instances kasi that you will just refute either the claim or the support kasi maaari kang mag agree either sa support o sa claim. For example, sa isang kausap ko ang sabi niya, “Jesus is a homosexual because he had 12 male apostles” (of course suggesting na mahilig daw ang Panginoon sa mga lalaki kaya hindi siya pumili ng babaeng apostol). Sa refutation ko sa kaniya, ang nirefute ko lang ay ang claim niya. Sabi ko, “Jesus was not a homosexual because he had 12 male apostles.” Agree ako sa support niya na 12 ang male apostles ni Christ pero ang hindi ako agree ay yung claim nya na homosexual si Kristo. You can also find yourself refuting naman yung support, but affirming the claim, for example, “God is a vengeful God because God committed genocide with the Canaanites.” While I agree that God is a vengeful God, hindi ako nag agree that what He did with the Canaanites was genocide.

So ganiyan lang po ang pagtugon sa first question ng second H.
In much the same way na nag-communicate ka ng godly mind sa first H ganito din ang ginagawa mo dito kasi you are showing sa kausap mo na you are a person who can think critically ng mga bagay -- hindi ka pushover. You are communicating sa kausap mo na may intellectual courage ka na harapin ang isang objection with what you know.

So by way of summary, sa episode na ito, natutunan mo how to refute yung argument ng kausap mo by stating a counterargument. You can either refute the claim or the support or both depende sa sitwasyon.

Wala pa tayo dun sa defense mo ng counterargument mo dahil sa susunod pong episode ‘yan ang gagawin natin -- tatalakayin natin ang second question sa second H: “What is your defense to your counterargument?”

Pakikinig sa Katwiran ng Kausap sa Apologetics, Part 3 of 3 || John Pesebre (May 3, 2018)

In the previous episode tinalakay ko po yung first question sa first H ng 4H apologetics: “What is the claim of the argument?” Kung matatandaan ninyo, an argument has two parts: a claim and a support. Tinalakay ko din the previous episodes, kung ano ang three types of claims: claim of fact, claim of value at claim of policy. Tandaan natin na ang first H is Hear, so makikinig ka. Ngayong episode, andudun pa rin tayo sa first H na ‘yon na Hear pero ang concern naman natin ngayon is to know the support of the claim, ulitin ko po: to know the support of the claim. In other words, kailangan mo dito malaman ang kaniyang substantiation sa kaniyang assertions.

You may know this by asking honest questions based on Greg Koukl’s book Tactics as summarized here by GraceLead —

First inquiring question: “What do you mean by that?”

Use variations of this question to gather information. Your tone should be mild and inquisitive. Make an effort to understand WHAT the person means. (Sometimes people have not thought through the issues.) Be patient. Use questions to help the person state his views specifically instead of in vague generalities.

The second inquiring question is, “How did you come to that conclusion?”

Use this type of question to find out WHY the person believes what he believes. Opinions are not proofs. Whoever makes the claim is responsible for providing the proof. An assertion without evidence is not useful.

Ang ginagawa mo dito ay ginagawan mo ng pattern ang reasoning niya. Kailangan kasi magkaroon ng manageability ang argument niya sa’yo. So sa dalawang tanong na yan based kay Koukl, your goal is simply to know a person’s CLAIM and to the understand the SUPPORT to the person’s claim.

It wouldn't be an argument if he just claims something. The argument must have a support -- a substantiation of the assertion about reality. Finding out etong argument na ito is crucial kasi this provides you the foundation of the doubt.  Support answers the question, "What reason do you have for me to believe your claim is true and real?" yan ang tanong.

"Argument requires justification of its claims, is both a product and a process, and it combines elements of truth seeking and persuasion," according to Ramage et al, in Writing Arguments.
If we are in this mindset, we are now in a good place to be trained in to identify an argument.

Taking time to listen will give you deeper understanding and learning from the reasoning of other people. James Hoskins concludes in his fine blog over at the Christ & Pop Culture website these statements,

[T]he most valuable thing I learned from my philosophy professors—besides how to think critically—is something they did not intend to teach me. Through my interactions with them, I learned first hand that the Christian doctrine of common grace is absolutely true. God has revealed some truth to every person. Therefore, we can learn something from everyone; even people who believe the opposite of what we do. Thinking we can’t learn something from unbelievers not only causes us to miss out on some deeply enriching relationships, it also ensures we won’t learn anything.‡

Ang support ng claim is the reason for the claim. Sa characterization last time nung isang Christian na college student na “Christianity is a bloodthirsty religion” ano ang support niya? Here it is again –

Nahihirapan akong ireconcile yung idea na ang Diyos ay mapagmahal subalit majority ng giyera sa kasaysayan natin ay sinimulan ng mga Christians. Bakit ganon? Di ba dapat ang Christians pa ang promotor ng katahimikan, bakit ang Kristiyanismo pa ang nagpasimula ng majority ng mga giyera sa kasaysayan?

Obviously ang support niya ay “dahil majority ng gyera sa mundo ay sinimulan ng Christianity.” So ngayon ang full argument niya is this: Christianity is a bloodthirsty religion because she started majority of the wars of history.”

At this point hindi ka muna sasagot dahil tandaan mo, you are building an environment na hiyang para sa pagsasaliksik. Maganda muna mag disarm ka ng kausap mo. Lagi mong tatandaan yung Montaigne Rule: “submit yourself to the force of reasoning ng kausap mo.” So at this point, you have to remember two things: provenance at problem. Provenance simply means yung record ng pinanggalingan ng idea na ito. Ang problem naman is ‘yung legitimate na allegation ng objection ng kausap mo na dapat mong irecognize din.

Sa dalawang letter P na ito, what you are trying to establish is intellectual humility, impartiality and open-mindedness. This is your witness that God has trained your mind na maging makadiyos at mapanuri.

Sa provenance, magsasalaysay ka lang ng iyong previous knowledge of the argument. Sa kaso ng objection nung Christian college students sa taas, I would say that the idea of “Christianity is an immoral religion because she started majority of the wars of history” has been a standing objection that would reference ‘yung Crusades, mga battles sa Inquisition, Thirty Years War na kumitil ng 8 million na tao sa Europe was a war between Protestants and Roman Catholics at yung Taiping Rebellion na 20M naman ang namatay.

These are true facts by the way. It is embarrassing but it is the truth. There is nothing wrong to express your honesty in what you know about the argument. But you mention them sa conversation to set up an environment na congenial for inquiry.

So depende sa alam mo sa nature ng objection, you can add some more.

Now ang susunod na witness mo ng intellectual virtue is sa second P, Problem. Here you have to be honest of the effect of say The Thirty Years War and Taiping Rebellion sa perception ng mga tao about the Christian religion. It is wouldn’t be very difficult for me to admit that wars like this really provide good support to the objection or the argument. They are forever etched in the history of Christianity.

Malakas ang witnessing sa Hear, at ang iwi-witness mo sa kausap mo ay isang isipan na makadiyos at mapanuri. I hope you are also confident that this is your mind when you studying God’s word para naman hindi rin maging ploy lang ang iyong witness. Balikan mo ‘yung dalawang previous episodes natin na “Mga Disposisyon ng Makadiyos at Mapanuring Isipan sa Apologetics” both part 1 at part 2.

Also let me remind you na wala ding assurance na ‘yung kausap mo ay sasama sa’yo sa congenial environment na sinisikap mong akayin siya papunta. Marahil dahil ito sa matagal na niyang katanungan ito o gayunpaman marami pang mga added supports na hindi pa niya nasasabi. Ganun pa man nawa’y wag kang panghinaan ng loob and you have to return to your motive. Look up the previous episodes on faith, hope and love as motives for apologetics to help put things in perspective for you at hindi ka panghinaan at ma frustrate.

Pakikinig sa Katwiran ng Kausap sa Apologetics, Part 2 of 3 || John Pesebre (May 1, 2018)

In the previous episode tinalakay ko bilang panimula ang topic ng finding out about the claim of an argument. You would recall din na an argument statement has two parts: a claim and a support. A claim is something that one asserts, and a support is how one substantiates what one is asserting. An example of this is the claim “Christianity is a bloodthirsty religion” which we drew out galing sa sinabing ito ng isang Christian na college student --

Nahihirapan akong ireconcile yung idea na ang Diyos ay mapagmahal subalit majority ng giyera sa kasaysayan natin ay sinimulan ng mga Christians. Bakit ganon? Di ba dapat ang Christians pa ang promotor ng katahimikan, bakit ang Kristiyanismo pa ang nagpasimula ng majority ng mga giyera sa kasaysayan?

To claim something is to “state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof” (wiki). Sa case natin dito sa apologetics, we put a claim alongside its support for us to have an argument. Mahalaga na ma-identify natin ang claim kasi maaaring sa sobrang dami ng sinasabi ng kausap mo, hindi kayo makapagsimula maski isang topic na dapat tapusin. Again, kung naaalala ninyo yung lesson sa akin ng aking professor nung ako’y nag aaral pa ng aking Master of Theology, sabi ni Dr. Ron Watters, kailangang makita mo ang malawak na problema na parang sahig na composed ng mga tiles. In order for you to solve all the problem, you might have to begin with taking one tile at a time.

Kung hindi ka magkakaroon ng pagpapahalaga in finding the claim ng kausap mo, you might end up exasperated sa dami ng hindi niyo matapos tapos. Writing the claim down on a piece of paper might help you achieve your apologetics goals. Once you have identified the claim or claims, you can then feedback sa kaniya kung ano ang naunawaan mo sa mga ina-assert niya. Once na nag agree siya sa naunawaan mo na mga claims niya, then you can then proceed to ask yung kausap mo na kung pwede isa-isahin ninyo ang mga claims na ito. Kung magkataon man na ibahin niya ulit ang topic, you can just reference yung kausap mo back sa claim na tinutugunan muna ninyo sa panahon na iyon. This way maiiwasan niya yung tinatawag na informal fallacy ng moving the goalpost kung saan iniiba niya ang mga adhikain ng inyong pag uusap.

This is a good way to witness attentiveness and focus, two very important intellectual virtues that might set up a congenial environment for the conversation. Nawa’y makita ng kausap mo na dahil sa ginagawa mong eto na pagde determine ng kaniyang claim na ikaw ay “quick to listen but slow to speak.”

Balikan niyo na lang po ang previous manuscript nung April 26, 2018 para sa karagdagan pang discussion on finding the claim. Ang episode kasi natin ngayon has very simple goals lang po and that is to list down three kinds of claims. These are: 1) claims of fact, 2) claims of value and 3) claims of policy. We will talk about these three types today and next episode po tayo uusad sa support.

Claim of fact. Ang claim of fact ay isang pangungusap that can be falsifiable or verifiable by referencing to actual state of affairs na nangyari sa mundo. For example, when one says “Si Kristo ay hindi historical figure” that is a claim of fact. O di naman kaya’y “The resurrection never happened” is also a claim of fact. Notice na ang mga ito ay falsifiable or verifiable by doing research sa history. Another claim of fact is “Christ is a version of the Egyptian god Horus.” All you have to do dito sa claim na ito to falsify it or verify it is to go to a study sa history. That also gives you a clue on how to do apologetics: go to a counterclaim about the non-factuality ng sinasabi ng kausap mo, by simply saying, for example, “Christ is not a version of the Egyptian god Horus” then you will proceed to defend that based on a study of Egyptian history and mythology alongside your historical study of Jesus Christ.

Claim of value. Ang claim of value ay nangyayari kapag ang kausap mo ay magbibigay ng kaniyang subjective na conclusion patungkol sa Christianity. For example, “Hindi maganda maging Kristiyano.” Ang claim of value ng kausap mo ay magpapalagay ng kaniyang opinion o pakiramdam patungkol sa iyong pananampalataya. Another example would be, “Belief in God is bad.” In these types of claim, ang kausap mo ay may value-judgment sa mga bagay na alam niya about your faith. Ang claim of value is a value-judgment of facts of Christianity.

Again to refute this, kailangan mo lang naman ilalagay mo lang naman sa negative or refuting statement ang counterclaim mo, for example, “Belief in God is not bad” bilang tugon sa sinabi ng kausap mo na “Belief in God is bad” or “Maganda maging Kristiyano” bilang tugon doon sa claim of value ng kausap mo na “Hindi maganda maging Kristiyano.”

Claim of policy. Ang claim of policy naman ay isang pag uudyok na gumawa ng isang action ng iyong kausap. For example, “We must disrespect Christianity” or “Christians shouldn’t be allowed to evangelize in public places.” Ang mga claims na ito ay may pag uudyok.

Ang tatlong types of claims na ito ang iniikutang mga claims sa apologetics. You should be able to identify kung ano ang claim ng iyong kausap para naman mas lalong specific ang point na tutugunan mo.

Sa kaso ng ating case study on the statement ng college student na “Christianity is a bloodthirsty religion” we have here a claim of fact, lalupa’t alam natin na ang support niya diyan ay dahil sa ang Christianity daw ang nagpasimula ng majority ng mga gyera sa mundo.

Pero depende sa pagkasabi ng kausap mo ng kaniyang case ang mga claims na ire-restate mo sa kaniya. Taking our case study here, maari mo ring i-confirm sa kaniya ang isang claim of value like, "Nakakalito ang sabihing Christianity is a religion of peace." All you have to do is to restate ito sa kaniya and if he agrees then you have something to talk about. Mas madaling mag refute ng claim of value kapag nasa side mo ang facts. All you have to do is to challenge ang kaniyang interpretation by you providing a counter-interpretation na nagsasabing "Hindi nakakalito ang sabihing Christianity..." and then you proceed to give support why.

Maari mo din namang i-frame ang claim into a policy based sa kaniyang sinasabi, like "Huwag kayong papasok sa Christianity na akala niyo religion of peace . . ." Claim of policy 'yan kasi nag uudyok ang kausap mo na may active action ang thrust ng sinasabi niya. Sa claim of policy, ang pag refute is just to provide an alternative action by stating, "Maari mong iconsider ang Christianity kung ang hanap mo ay religion of peace." Napansin ninyo na ikaw din ay nagbigay ng counter claim of policy.

I hope na marami kayong natutunan maski siguro sumakit ulo ninyo sa episode natin ngayon. Again ang tatlong types of claims ay: 1) claim of fact o yung claim na may ina-assert na factual data, 2) claim of value, o yung claim na may pagpapalagay o value-judgment ang iyong kausap, at 3) claim of policy, o yung claim na nag uudyok ang kausap mo na dapat mayroong gawin.

Ang tatlong claims na ito ay mga critical apparatus mo to navigate sa marahil complex na mundo ng kausap mo. In doing this you will not only help the conversation become fruitful but also you might help yung kausap mo malinawan din sa mga gusto niyang sabihin. Lagi nating tatandaan na ang apologetics ministry is also a witnessing ministry kaya nararapat lamang na magbigay tayo ng patotoo sa ating mga miniministeryuhan na mga tao.