As stated in the previous post, there are 4 critical thinking questions which are essential for Christians to employ in their consideration of ideas.  Whether ideas are proposed to us in a discussion, from a book, or from our own minds, we need to have the tools necessary to think carefully and critically about them.  Therefore, I want to continue looking at the last 2 of the 4 critical thinking questions.
The 4 critical thinking questions are:
(1) What do you mean?
(2) How do you know that?
(3) What’s your argument?
(4) What difference does that make?

(3) What’s your argument?  What follows from that?
When someone proposes or suggests a truth claim to you, this third type of question seeks to uncover the person’s actual argument.  You’ll find that most of the time a person’s argument isn’t actually stated.  Instead, what you’ll probably hear is just his conclusion.  This is why it is so very important to distinguish between an assertion (a mere claim or conclusion) and an argument (a line of reasoning for another person to follow in order to reach the same conclusion).  So, we’re wanting him to help us “connect the dots” of his evidence/reasons which we uncovered in question (2).  To pose this type of question you might begin something like this:

      How do you reach that conclusion?
      I’m not sure I see how you get to this conclusion … explain it to me.
      How is that relevant?
      How does that follow from this?

Abortion Illustration
In keeping with the same abortion illustration as in the previous post, imagine coming across the pro-choice slogan which reads, “If you can’t trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?”  Let’s try to connect the dots of the two points being made here.  We’re being asked to believe that because a person is entrusted with the decision making process of rearing a child, he or she should also be trusted the decision making process of whether or not to kill the child.  Often times all it takes for a slogan like this to sound silly or ridiculous is to rephrase it.  And all of the sudden, the two points being made don’t appear to relate to one another at all.  Again, all we’re trying to do with this third type of question is uncover the hidden premises or assumptions in order to expose the full argument—if there is one there at all.

(4) What difference does that make?
The aim of this final type of question is to ask how an idea fairs in the real world.  Nearly all ideas or believes have implications upon our existence.  So, we must ask how the truth claim is personally relevant.  For example, many people hold competing beliefs about the nature of the world (God, humanity, morality, meaning, etc.).  By “competing” I mean that she might believe that (1) the universe is made up of exclusively material reality, and also that (2) a certain school library is haunted by a ghost (this reflects a real situation that I know of).  Obviously, if the world is purely material there cannot be ghosts, and if there are ghosts then the universe is not only material.  Here are some examples of how this type of question is addressed:

     What difference does it make in your personal life if you believe that?
     Do you really live as though that is true?  (Do you really believe that?)
     What happens if you are wrong?

Abortion Illustration
If you’ve been behind the wheel of your car very long you’ve probably seen the bumper sticker which reads, “Every child a wanted child.”  Now, if you asked critical thinking questions 1-3 you’d probably discover that the line of reasoning behind this slogan suggests that abortion is justified to reduce the number of unwanted children who too often become abused or neglected children.  The bizarre reasoning behind the slogan suggests that while it’s wrong to harm a child (through abuse and neglect), it certainly isn’t wrong to kill a child (through abortion).  We might ask the person making this slogan if she really would act in keeping with an ethic which argues that if someone is unwanted, and possibly in danger, then that person is better off dead.  We might even ask her hypothetically, “If you found yourself in a place in which you were unwanted by absolutely everybody, would it be morally justifiable for me to kill you?”  If the answer is, “no,” then she probably doesn’t really believe her earlier assertions.  This last question also involves what Francis Schaeffer called “taking the roof off” (if you’re a Schaeffer fan I don’t even need to explain it).

REFLECTION QUESTIONS:
1. Do you think that most people are able to state their “argument” for their truth claims on significant issues?
2. Why is it so beneficial to ask the question in number 4: “What happens if you are wrong?”  Is this a helpful question to pose in order to get people to think through the consequences of their beliefs?