Matt Slick debating techniques: part 2 Another technique Matt Slick uses is “setup questions” (D.A. Carson call this fallacy 'question framing'): Here is an example from CARM of this technique (with critical remarks): Is Atheism a Worldview? A worldview is a perspective that someone has with which he interprets experience. Atheism is a worldview (or at least part of a worldview), because atheists have presuppositions with which they interpret the world. An atheists presuppositions necessarily include a conscious decision to exclude God as a possible explanation for experience. So, when seeking to answer questions related to our existence, rationality, purpose, morality, etc., atheists must automatically negate God as an explanatory option. This has huge philosophical implications. Therefore, atheism is a worldview since it is a perspective, or part of a larger one, with which a person interprets experience.

Question Framing: Is atheism a worldview or does a person’s worldview include atheism? Ways to Attack Atheism By asking questions Atheism is an intellectual position. What reasons do you have for holding that position? Your reasons are based upon logic and/or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position that you defend?  Notice this doesn’t offer any reason FOR believing in God, it simply puts the atheist on the defensive. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then isn’t that simply faith? Notice once again, nothing is offered for a positive reason for believing.  This is a rhetorical device which lacks intellectual integrity.  It is a dishonest approach to the discussion.

More from CARM: If you say that atheism is supported by the lack of evidence for God, then it is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no evidence for God. Your atheism then, is nothing more than an opinion. But, if it is, should you derogatorily argue against Christians and in favor of your opinion? If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions you hold based upon lack of evidence…like say, screaming blue ants? Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief in them, too? People behave according to what they believe, not what they lack belief in. So, if you are an atheist and you work against the idea that God exists, then aren’t you behaving in a manner consistent with your beliefs?

Critical remarks: How about you Matt Slick?  Is the behavior here exhibited a reflection “people behaving according to what they believe”? Since you have not positively asserted anything of belief, only avoiding the questioning of your own positions and beliefs.  Doesn’t this show your own position as a “lack of belief”?

Laws of Logic: Continuing from CARM: By using logic Atheist, how do you account for the laws of logic within your atheism? Isn’t logic a process of the mind? Yes. Isn’t logical thought based upon the laws of logic? If logic is conceptual (a process of the mind) and certainly appear to be universally true, then what are the conditions that must be in place in order for the laws of logic to be universally true so that you can cite them and use them? How do the truth statements that we call the laws of logic obtain their universal nature? How do you know that the laws of logic are true? Do you just assume they are true?  Whenever Matt Slick uses logic remember: MATT SLICK HAS NO FORMAL TRAINING IN LOGIC OR CRITICAL THINKING. His pathetic assertions about the nature of logic are once again, designed to attack the opponent.  And by continually attacking the opponent, it relieves him of positively SHOWING any of his logical assertions (usually referred to as “burden of proof”). 

Conclusion: THIS IS A DISHONEST APPROACH Notice that Matt Slick sets his questions up in a way that there is no right answer. If the opponent says “yes” it is wrong,and a “no answer” also is wrong. This is yet another technique for Matt Slick to escape responsibility for his own terms, positions and the consequences of his positions. THIS IS A DISHONEST APPROACH This approach LACKS intellectual integrity