Welcome to Breakpoint, a daily look at an ever-changing culture through the lens of unchanging truth. For the Colson Center, I'm John Stone Street. To claim, as some progressive politicians do, that Jesus would have been pro-abortion is nonsense, of course.
However, it does point to a larger problem that's been made worse in the internet age. Lacking an understanding of logic and critical thinking, people often confuse assertions with arguments.
Now, an argument is a particular kind of thing. It's not just saying something's true, it's offering reasons why it's true. An assertion only reveals what the person making the assertion believes about the world. An argument tells others why they should believe it too. And in the process, it provides us all a line of thinking for which to evaluate and consider what might be true about the world.
The statement, Jesus was pro-choice, is an assertion. Assertions can be said with enough confidence to often feel persuasive, and pressure can be added in an attempt to persuade. But claiming to be offended because someone doesn't agree with an assertion is not an argument either. Saying something with confidence, that's not evidence. Confident or pressured assertions are still just assertions.
And as the saying goes, what's asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's what's called the burden of proof. An argument has two essential parts: a claim and then reasons for the claim. And both parts are necessary. As apologist Tim Barnett has described in a brand new What Would You Say video, it's part of a How to Think T-H-I-N-K series.
Think about a house, where the claim is the roof and the reasons are the walls. Just as a house has a roof supported by walls, an argument is a claim supported by reasons. Without walls, you don't have a house. Without reasons, you don't have a house. You don't have an argument.
No matter how passionately someone believes in something, an assertion is a claim without support. It's a roof without walls. It's like a roof just lying on the ground. The person who makes the claim is the one responsible to defend it. Especially online, people often feel the need to refute every assertion that they disagree with.
And that is the source of endless social media fights and very little clarity, because those who did not make the claim are not the ones responsible to refute it. A better response is to ask for reasons, including evidence for the assertion. And the one making the assertion has the burden of proof. Maybe the claim's true, maybe it's not, but until the person who professed it gives reasons to believe it, no one has. Cause to believe it.
So the next time someone disclaims Jesus is pro-choice without offering evidence, here's two options. First, just dismiss it with a quick, no, he isn't. Of course, that'll likely shut down any hope of a productive discussion.
So to advance the conversation, an even better reply would be, that's an interesting claim. What reasons do you have to believe it? In other words, you're simply asking them to defend their assertion. Anyone who's honestly interested in truth won't be bothered by that kind of request. If the response to that is, well, Jesus is pro-choice because he had a high respect for women and their choices, well, that's an actual argument.
Doesn't mean it's a good one, but it's an actual argument. Because you have a claim, Jesus is pro-choice, and you have a reason. He respected women and their choices. And that gives us something to evaluate, refute, and discuss. Remember, the goal of an argument isn't to win the conversation.
It's to find out what is true. When someone offers an actual argument, it has to be tested. We ask ourselves, do the reasons and the evidence support this claim? For example, does Jesus' respect for women and their choices mean that he would support the taking of preborn human lives through abortion?
Now, of course, the answer is no, but a conversation dealing with reasons and evidence instead of just claims is one that is much closer to the truth, which of course is the goal. And it's why God gave us minds to love him with in the first place. You can check out the entire How to Think T-H-I-N-K series with Tim Barnett on the What Would You Say YouTube channel. It's a great way to learn critical thinking skills and also a great way to teach them to other people. For the Colson Center, I'm John Stone Street with Breakpoint.
If you're a fan of Breakpoint, leave us a review wherever you download your podcast. And for more resources or to share this commentary with others, go to breakpoint.org.
