I consider anyone a skeptic that does not trust the Constitution for our government and the Bible for abundant life. So, this could include those from hard core atheists (Constitutional and Christian) to those who profess to believe but in actuality, DOUBT. Here is what I do.
The first principle is - DON'T debate conclusions. It's not what we determine as truth that is the issue, it's the way we determine truth. This is fundamentally different for the skeptic than for me. I simply say, "I am not going to try to swim better in your pool. I am sure you are smarter and can always deflect my arguments and defend yours. If we are to debate, we must debate the core assumptions or biases from which we build conclusions." The point is, the difference lies in the starting beliefs, not in the final conclusions.
This leads to defining the difference in the core assumptions (biases). Both would want to have the perspective of an authority. The issue is "who is the authority?" The skeptic assumes self is the authority and can determine what is true though the power of reasoning applied to sensory perceptions that uniquely belong to humans. I assume authority is in the source and that truth about something is best obtained by receiving it from the one that originated it. Both involve reasoning, but they are two mutually different starting points. The core assumptions upon which conclusions are based should be the focus of the debate. I will not try to swim better in their pool (perception as the authority). They must agree to swim with me in this other pool (source as the authority). Otherwise, there is no opportunity for resolution.
Example, if you want to know what is true about a building, you can make observations as much as you would like, but you will never know more truth about the building than if the architect "tells" you in some way. This is especially the case for what is true about the purpose of the building. There is no conclusive evidence found for purpose in observing the building.
When it comes to the Constitution, there is no more effective way to know the truth about how our government should work than consulting the founding fathers. Since they are not physically around, you do this by reading what they wrote and what others who lived at that time wrote about them and what historical experts can confirm is the way things really were when the founding fathers wrote it. You do not gain truth about the Constitution by receiving opinions of those who came along much later and apply their own speculation of what the Constitution should have said based on their perception of the way things are now.
It's the same with the Bible. If you want to know what is true about this world, ask the one who created it. If you want to know how things work, ask Jesus, the God-head authority over heaven and earth. Since we do not interact with these sources through physical senses, we rely on similar ways to receive what they say. However, unlike the founding fathers, we have intimacy with Jesus through the Holy Spirit, who reveals to us the words of Jesus beyond just reading them with our physical senses.
What is interesting, the skeptic has actually received his/her starting point in some way other than sensory perception. They just don't like to admit it or think about it that way. This is sometimes called conscience, or intuition, or gut feel, as well as revelation. Getting the skeptic to examine their starting point (biases) is the only way to effectively engage the skeptic.
If they agree to this form of debate, I ask these questions:
1. what is your source of the truth?
2. how did you receive the truth from the source?
3. what makes your source trustworthy?
This will be challenging for skeptics because they are not always aware of their biases or core assumptions. That is what makes them biases. We all have them but are not clear where we got them. They may think they got them through science or other visible evidence, but they didn't. Maybe they have revelation from a source different from us. Seriously exploring these questions will provide more productive debate. Of course, you should be prepared to answer these for yourself and your biases.
Actually, biases or core assumptions are what we call faith. Faith is not restricted to only religious people or spiritual truths. Faith is the evidence we trust that we got in some way other than through our physical senses. Faith forms the starting point for all reasoning about truth. Everyone operates on faith. The issue is the object of the faith as determined by the questions above.
This truly establishes a new and different paradigm for determining truth. The debate is simply the answer to the primary question in the picture above, "who has the power?"
Every person should be able to clearly articulate the answer to these three questions to be seriously considered a skeptic or a believer.
Try it out, or at least ponder its possibilities.....
