How to Use a Tactical Plan with Difficult Skeptics

Helps for the Answers Class: How to Use a Tactical Plan with Difficult Skeptics

Columbo Questions[1]

Bring these questions with you to the Answers Class. The right tactics can assist you in staying in the driver’s seat by directing the conversation.  Questions are a good way to approach group members with diplomacy rather than with verbal combat.  Use questions to make your case without a lecture and making claims you will be responsible to defend when dealing with skeptics who have not thought out their own positions carefully. The truth is on our side!

Once a participant answers a question about your topic stating a non-biblical point of view, ask them a series of questions.

1)      What do you mean by that? [You are asking, “What do you believe?”] Make them define their terms.  Gather information by using clarification questions.

2)      How did you come to that conclusion?  (or)

·        Why do you say that?  (or)

·        What are your reasons for holding that position? (or)

·        I am curious, why would you say such a thing? (or)

·        Why should I believe what you just stated? (or)

·        Can you give me some reasons why I should believe that is truth? (or)

·        What makes you think that is the right way to see it?

·        And what would be your evidence for that? 

·        And what support do you have for that idea?

·        The essence of this second type of question is: How do you know that is true? What are your reasons for coming to this conclusion?

You are reversing the burden of proof.  The person who makes the claim bears the burden of proof.  Challenge their commitment to unbelief.  Don’t go into a defensive posture when the skeptic makes a claim.  Ask them for their reason for holding their view.  If they change the subject, navigate the discussion back to their reasons for holding their view.  They have made an argument; they should do the work of proving why their view is the most reasonable solution to the evidence. Once they make a claim, the burden of proof is on them.  Don’t fall for the trap to have to defend your view.  Ask them to slow down and give you their view and the reasons for it, and let you think about it.  Don’t let them reverse the burden of proof when they made the claim, they must give reasons why their view is the most plausible, not just possible.  It is their job to not only make a point; they must also give reasons why this is the best understanding of the facts.  An alternative explanation is not a refutation.  He must show that his explanation is the best explanation, most plausible pointing to the facts, evidence, and truth.  Don’t let them dodge the issues.  If they make a controversial claim, they should be able to defend it with reasons. 

We should all listen while they explain why they think what they are claiming is true.  Ask them to carefully explain their view and the reasons why they hold this view so that you can think about it.  Ask simple leading questions that are interactive, probing, and amicable.

3)      Have you ever considered (or),

·        Can you help me with this? 

·        Maybe you can clear this up for me. 

·        The third type of Columbo question is to use more questions to find a flaw, a clear weakness, a wrong assumption, or a contradiction in their thinking. (Carefully listening to how they reason from the # 2 question above)  Here is sample conversation using this third type of question:

Participant: “You should not push your morality on me.” 

Facilitator: “Why not?”  Notice they just pushed their morality on you by saying there is something you should not do.  Everything they say next will be attacking themselves.

Participant: “You are intolerant because you believe in absolute truth.” 

Facilitator: “What do you mean?” 

Participant: “Well, you think you are right about this and others are wrong.”

Facilitator: “Help me out, here.  Something is bothering me.  How is it when I think I am right I am intolerant, but when you think you are right, you are just simply right?  You can’t have it both ways.” 

Participant: “That is just your interpretation.” 

Facilitator: “What do you mean by ‘just’?”  If they mean all interpretations are equal, then misinterpret something they just said to force them to admit that some interpretations are incorrect and some are correct. 

Participant: “How can there be evil if there is a good God?” 

Facilitator: “What do you mean by evil?  How can there be an objective standard of good and evil if there is no great lawgiver?” 

Facilitator: “Would you be willing to consider an alternative explanation?”  Anticipate objections and think of questions in advance (see Luke 20:1-8, 20-26). 

Facilitator: “Let me ask you a question.”  You as the facilitator are going on the offensive in a disarming way by the repeated use of questions.  Your plan is to point out errors with questions rather than with statements.  When they evade your questions by making other claims, question those claims as well.  What if they start using the Columbo method on you?

Facilitator: “I am sorry; I am not prepared to answer that question tonight.  Why don’t you tell me what you believe about this and the reasons why you believe it.  Once I understand your view, I will see if I can offer an alternative or state my agreement with you.”

After the session, think through the false claims that were made.  Think through the questions that you could have asked to make the person think about the self-contradictory and illogical statements that class members made.  Write these down for the next time you teach this session.  Pay close attention to ideas that have internal contradictions and learn to expose these with questions to get the entire group to think.  For example, Participant: “There are no absolutes.”  Facilitator: “Are you absolutely certain about that?”  Participant: “There is no such thing as truth.”  Facilitator: “How do you know that what you just said is true?”

See www.str.org for more information on using questions to expose error.

---

[1] The material in the section is adapted from Gregory Koukl’s lecture, “Tactics in Defending the Faith,” available from Stand to Reason, at www.str.org .