Why It’s So Hard To Argue… Debate Or Discuss Anything These Days

The Truth is… All Facts are Run Through Filters

In today’s polarized world, it’s easy to assume that the person on the other side of a debate is simply ignoring the facts. Whether the topic is science, politics, or religion, we often hear someone say, “Just look at the evidence!”

But as anyone who has engaged in a serious discussion… engaged in apologetics… or even a heated conversation… soon learns, people don’t just interpret facts in a vacuum. The way we interpret facts depends on the assumptions we bring to them. In other words, facts aren’t neutral; they must be interpreted through a framework and filters.

Philosophers call this framework a set of presuppositions. Everyone has them, whether they know it or not. Your presuppositions… your most basic assumptions about reality, truth, knowledge, and morality… form the lens through which you interpret everything you see and hear. Without acknowledging these lenses, meaningful dialogue becomes impossible and mutual understanding elusive.

The Dead Man Who Bled

Years ago, Greg Bahnsen told the story of a man who came to believe he was dead. Understandably concerned, his family sent him to a psychologist. The psychologist tried to use logic and evidence to shake the man out of his delusion.

He asked, “Do dead men bleed?” The man pondered and replied, “No, of course not.” So the psychologist asked for the man’s hand and pricked his finger with a pin. Blood came out. Triumphantly, the shrink exclaimed, “See! You’re bleeding. Therefore, you must not be dead.”

The man calmly looked at his finger and responded, “Well, I guess dead men do bleed.”

This story, amusing as it is, illustrates a vital truth: no amount of evidence can override deeply held assumptions without a change at the foundational level. The man in the story had a cluster of beliefs. When one belief (dead men don’t bleed) clashed with his larger conviction (that he was dead), he adjusted the smaller belief to preserve the bigger one. That’s how presuppositions work… they shape how we receive and interpret facts.

Beliefs Travel in Clusters

No belief stands alone. To say, “There’s a Japanese Beetle on the apple tree in the yard,” you must already know what a Japanese Beetle is, what an apple tree is, and what “the yard” means. Beliefs are interconnected. They come in clusters, forming a kind of mental ecosystem.

When we argue with someone, especially about weighty matters like morality, science, or the claims of Jesus… we’re not just confronting isolated thoughts. We’re engaging with clusters…  worldview clusters.

Our most basic assumptions are the starting points for this worldview. They are not conclusions arrived at through evidence; rather, they are the necessary conditions for interpreting any evidence at all.

They answer questions like: What is real? How do I know? What is right? What is the purpose of life? And unless you understand a person’s answers to these questions, you won’t understand how they view facts… or why they reject yours.

The Tour Book or the Eyewitness?

Imagine you travel to Mt. Rushmore, and your travel guidebook says that Thomas Jefferson’s face is on the far left. But when you visit, you clearly see that George Washington is actually on the left. Later, a friend planning his own trip asks about the monument. You explain what you saw, but he insists the travel guide must be right. “These books are written by experts,” he says. “You must have remembered it wrong.”

You reply, “I was there. I stood in front of it. I saw it with my own eyes.” But your friend won’t budge. His point of reference is the travel book… not your eyewitness account.

That’s what basic assumptions do… they become your ultimate reference point, your standard for interpreting all other information. Whether that standard is Scripture, scientific consensus, political ideology, or personal experience, it will shape how you handle facts.

Presuppositional Apologetics and the Christian Worldview

This is why presuppositional thought is so important. The apologetic method made famous by Cornelius Van Til in the sixties doesn’t start by arguing for God as a conclusion. It starts by pointing out that without the Triune God, you couldn’t make sense of anything.  You need an interpretive grid.

It becomes intellectually perilous to trust your senses, your logic, or your ability to reason about evidence on first blush. All of these mental tools work only if the Christian God exists… if we are made in His image, living in a world He created and governs. After all, He created all facts and brings all things to pass.

Presuppositional thinking and this form of apologetics challenges the unbeliever’s ultimate assumptions. It asks: What must be true in order for anything else to be intelligible? The answer is the character and nature of God. His existence is not just the best explanation… it is the necessary foundation for all explanations.

The Impossibility of the Contrary

In a well-known debate, Greg Bahnsen asked his atheist opponent how he could account for the laws of logic in a materialistic universe. Logic is abstract, immaterial, and unchanging… but a strictly material universe is ever-changing and particular with no unifying motif.

If you reject God, where do these laws come from? The atheist had no answer. His worldview couldn’t account for the debate tools he was using to argue against Christianity.

This is what Van Til meant by “the impossibility of the contrary.” It’s not just that the Christian worldview makes better sense of the facts; it’s that without it, you couldn’t make sense of facts at all. The very act of denying God assumes the logical and moral order that only God can supply.

Understanding Opposing Views

Recognizing the role of basic assumptions or “ultimate filters” helps us understand the tension and division in our culture today. People see the same facts… the same evidence, but come to wildly different conclusions because they’re starting from different places.

A secularist whose filter insists that man is the ultimate reference point will interpret all evidence through that lens. A Christian who believes the Triune God is the ultimate reference point will interpret the same evidence very differently.

Understanding this doesn’t mean we surrender to relativism. It means we discuss and debate more effectively. We need to stop trying to “just show them the facts” and start challenging the underlying worldview that gives those facts meaning. This approach doesn’t bypass logic or evidence… rather, it shows that logic and evidence themselves depend on God.

Returning to the Right Reference Point

In the end, the battle is not over facts, but over ultimate reference points. Since the Fall, man has replaced God as the ultimate standard or final reference point in all predication. “Man is the measure of all things,” said the ancient Sophist Protagoras. But Scripture calls us back to God as the true standard or yardstick.

As apologists and everyday Christians, our task is to expose faulty presuppositions, not just flawed conclusions. (Church elders, especially, must be able to do this.) We must humbly yet boldly demonstrate that only the Christian worldview renders human experience intelligible. And we absolutely must invite others not merely to change their opinions on the periphery, but to change their foundations… from man to God, from autonomy to revelation, from darkness to light.

Only then can facts finally speak the truth.

Source: https://www.offthegridnews.com/religion/why-its-so-hard-to-argue-debate-or-discuss-anything-these-days/