The Canards of Unbelief: An Academic Exploration through Socratic Inquiry   by Jack Kettler   Abstract:   The following paper examines common objections or “canards” articulated by skeptics against the Christian faith and church attendance. Employing the Socratic method, this study seeks to dissect these objections through critical questioning, aiming to reveal these skeptical assertions' underlying assumptions, logical coherence, and implications.   Introduction:   In contemporary discourse, skepticism towards religious institutions, particularly Christianity, often manifests through repeated clichés or canards. These are not merely dismissive remarks but reflect deeper philosophical and existential concerns. This study utilizes the Socratic method, a dialectical approach that involves questioning to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions.   The method is structured around three pivotal questions:   The three questions of the Socratic technique:   1.         What do you mean?   This question forces a person to define their terminology and get beyond surface language similarity.   2.         How do you know that?   This question forces the person to give reasons for their definitions. Are they parroting things that they heard out of the grab bag of excuses?   3.         What are the implications of this viewpoint?   This question makes a person look to the conclusion of where their position leads. Are they logically consistent or contradictory? Are their conclusions biblical?   Methodology:   The Socratic method is applied to five common canards:   1.      “The church is full of hypocrites.”   ·         Definition of hypocrisy. ·         Evidence supporting the claim. ·         Comparative analysis with other institutions.   What do you mean by hypocrite? How do you know that the church is full of hypocrites? Does a personal observation support this contention? If so, explain. Are other organizations full of hypocrites? If so, how does this affect how you live?   2.      “Christians are always judging other people.”   ·         Clarification of what constitutes judgment. ·         Personal or anecdotal evidence. ·         The necessity and morality of judgment in broader contexts.   What do you mean by judging or judgment? How do you know that this is true? Can you provide a personal example of Christians judging? Do you never make judgments? Are all judgments wrong? Were the Nazis wrong to kill the Jews? Is that a judgment? Do you ever say that things are right or wrong? Why, since this is judging? How can you live without making judgments?   3.      “I do not like organized religion; I have a personal relationship with God.”   ·         The concept of “organized” versus “personal.” ·         Verification of personal religious experiences. ·         The consistency of disliking organizations in religious but not secular contexts.   “I do not like organized religion. I have a personal relationship with God that can take place in the mountains.” What do you mean by organized? How do you know your assertion is true regarding personal rather than organized? Have you ever been a member of organized religion? If so, when and where? So, you do not like something that is organized. Why is disorganized better? Do you like organized sports or disorganized sports? What do you mean by a personal relationship with God? How do you define God? How do you know that God approves of your approach? How often do you go into the mountains to worship God?   4.      “The church is a business.”   ·         Definitions of church and business. ·         Analysis of similarities and differences. ·         Critique of the intrinsic value judgment of business.   How do you define business? How do you define religion or church? Can a church and business have similarities and yet be different? Is your assertion that the church is a business a personal observation? Are you saying that all businesses are wrong or just churches?     5.      “The church is backward and not relevant for today.”   ·         Understanding of relevance and backwardness. ·         Historical and contemporary relevance of religious teachings. ·         Evaluation of the dismissal of historical ideas.   What do you mean by backward or relevant? How do you know that the church is not relevant? In what way is the church not relevant? Is this assertion from personal experience? Are all ideas and practices from the past discredited? How so? What about Plato’s Republic and Aristotelian ethics?   The goal of questioning the questioner is to cut to the chase, so to speak, get to the important aspect of the canard and expose it for what it is: an excuse for unbelief.   Analysis:   Each canard is subjected to rigorous questioning to explore the following:   Clarity of Terms:   Ensuring the terms used are clearly defined to avoid semantic confusion.   ·         Epistemological Basis: Challenging the source of knowledge or belief in the assertion. ·         Logical Consistency: Examining whether the position holds under logical scrutiny or leads to contradictions.   Biblical and Philosophical Context:   The approach is contextualized with examples from the New Testament, particularly Jesus' interactions with the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians, where he uses questions to reveal the inadequacy of their challenges (Matthew 22:41-46). This provides a historical precedent and a theological foundation for the method.   Conclusion:   When applied with sensitivity and not merely for argumentative victory, the Socratic method is a powerful tool for unveiling the true nature of skepticism. It aims not to belittle but to enlighten, encouraging a deeper reflection on one's beliefs or disbeliefs. This study concludes that many canards against Christianity are often superficial or inadequately examined, serving as excuses rather than reasoned objections. The process of questioning, therefore, is not just an academic exercise but a pathway toward understanding and potentially resolving existential doubts.   Grok perfected the above study, which was grammatically finalized with Grammarly AI.   “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)   Mr. Kettler is a respected author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler's extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.