That's Just Your Interpretation: Responding to Skeptics Who Challenge Your Faith

by Paul Copan

In our relativistic society, Christians more than ever are bombarded by tough questions about their faith. Author Paul Copan has observed that many of these questions emerge as "anti-truth claims" that are part of today's skeptical mind-set. Christians defending their faith often hear slogans and questions such Ž It's all relativeŽ Everything is one with the Divine; all else is illusionŽ The Gospels contradict each otherŽ Why would a good God create hell?This book provides incisive answers to slogans related to truth and reality; theism, pantheism/Eastern religion, and naturalism; and doctrinal issues such as the incarnation and truth of Scripture. Each of the twenty-two chapters provides succinct answers and summary points for countering the arguments. Copan's book is accessible for all Christians who want to defend the plausibility of Christianity in the marketplace of ideas. It also includes helpful summary sections, additional resources, and additional documentation in the endnotes for review and discussion.

Genres: Nonfiction, Christian, Christianity, Philosophy, Faith, Christian Living, Religion

242 pages, Kindle Edition

First published November 1, 2001

About the author

Paul Copan is a Christian theologian, analytic philosopher, apologist, and author. He is currently a professor at the Palm Beach Atlantic University and holds the endowed Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics.

From 1980-1984, he attended Columbia International University and earned a B.A. degree in biblical studies. Copan attended Trinity International University, where he received his M.A. in philosophy of religion, as well as his M.Div. at Trinity International. Copan received the Prof. C.B. Bjuge Award for a thesis that “evidences creative scholarship in the field of Biblical and Systematic Theology.”

In May 2000, Copan received his Ph.D. in philosophy of religion from Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. His dissertation topic was "The Moral Dimensions of Michael Martin’s Atheology: A Critical Assessment."

Reviews

[Tucker · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am inclined to disagree with the premise of objective theological and moral truth. The book is structured around several ideas for responding to relativists in conversation. The problem, of course, is that most people are not articulate about meta-ethics, so culling from a list of "things I have heard self-professed relativists say" inevitably results in straw-men arguments. Coming up with a quick response to shut down a half-thought-through one-liner such as "there is no truth" is not the same as responding to a book by John Dewey. Now, the author is aware of some arguments for (not just claims of) relativism, and he gets an extra star for that (strangely, most people writing on this topic do not bother to research the arguments on the other side). However, he does not fully integrate these arguments into his work.

For example: He tells us that the universe's existence cannot extend infinitely backward into the past; this would be a "logical" impossibility (p. 65). Yet God is eternal (p. 71). He does not explain why God is exempt from the infinity-laws that bind the universe. He confesses that God's infinity is "mind-boggling" and beyond his capacity to understand.

What is the difference between a mind-boggle and a logical impossibility? Why is it possible for God and not for the universe?

His argument goes roughly like this:

1. The universe cannot have existed infinitely into the past.
2. Therefore, the universe had a beginning.
3. Everything that begins has a cause.
4. God caused the universe to exist.
5. If God had a cause, there would be an infinite regress of gods, and that is unacceptable.
6. God existed infinitely into the past.

Why are there different rules for the universe and for God (#1 and #6)? Why is one infinity impossible and the other merely difficult to understand?

The whole point of making philosophical arguments about theology is to show that theology makes sense. If you are going to conclude that God doesn't make sense, why bother with philosophy?

In this instance, the author has displaced a puzzle about the universe onto a being called "God" and then claimed that the puzzle doesn't need to be solved anymore because God plays by a set of rules we can't understand.

The frustrating part is that Copan is aware of the problem with this style of argumentation! He acknowledges that people sometimes displace the universe's mysteries onto God and thereby create infinite regresses such as who-made-God?. Yet he doesn't seem to realize when he is guilty of the same crime, or else he believes he somehow gets away with it.

[Josiah DeGraaf · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was largely review for me, but there were a few good insights. I appreciated the fact that the author saw both YEC and OEC as valid approaches for Christians to take to the first couple chapters of Genesis. I didn't get a ton out of this book, but others new to the field of apologetics might find it helpful.

Rating: 3.5-4 Stars (Good).

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

COPAN'S SEQUEL TO "TRUE FOR YOU, BUT NOT TRUE FOR ME"

Paul Copan (born 1962) is a Christian theologian, philosopher and apologist, who is currently a professor at the Palm Beach Atlantic University; he has written many other books such as 'True for You, But Not for Me: Overcoming Objections to Christian Faith,' 'How Do You Know You're Not Wrong?: Responding to Objections That Leave Christians Speechless,' 'When God Goes to Starbucks A Guide to Everyday Apologetics,' etc.

He wrote in the Introduction to this 2001 book, "Whether at work, in the university, around the neighborhood, or at a party, believers are confronted with one-liners or criticisms attacking truth, morality, or belief in God. My previous book was... centered about commonly heard challenges.... This follow-up volume is similar in format and offers responses to a new---and wide-ranging---set of commonly heard challenges by skeptics and critics of belief in God and Christianity in particular." (Pg. 9)

He says, "let's go back to the question, 'Who made God?' First, the theist does not claim that whatever exists must have a cause, but whatever BEGINS to exist must have a cause. No right-thinking theist argues that everything must have a cause; if this were the case, then God would need a cause too! Rather, we begin with the fundamental principle about reality that anything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe clearly began and therefore has a cause. On the other hand, the eternal and self-existent God by definition does not need a cause; he is uncaused." (Pg. 71)

Against the argument that "God is just a comforting father figure," he says, "the father figure argument could be turned on its head and used against the skeptic: 'You reject God because you don't want a heavenly Father in your life.' ... psychologist Paul Vitz essentially says... many hard-nosed atheists and skeptics [Voltaire; Hume; Freud; Marx; Feuerbach; d'Holbach; Russell; Camus; Nietzsche; Sartre]... did not have significant father figures in their lives... the Christian could respond by turning the argument on its head: The rejection of God in this hard-nosed atheism emerged because these noted atheists had no earthly father whom they saw or could trust and respect." (Pg. 114-115)

He suggests, "even though Genesis 1:1-2:4 is most likely a historico-poetic genre rather than straightforward prose, it should not be deemed inferior to a straightforward historical narrative. The early part of Genesis appears to be a combination of poetry and historical narrative... it seems sensible to consider this passage something other than straightforward historical narrative." (Pg. 146-147) He points out, "Arthur Custance [Time and eternity] makes the commonly heard claim that an ordinal ('first, second, third,' etc.) before the word DAY always refers to a literal twenty-four hour day in Hebrew... this is not true. For instance, Hosea 6:2 uses the word 'day' preceded by an ordinal in reference to an extended period of time: 'After two days [God] will revive us; on the third day he will restore us.' Here 'third day' is not a literal twenty-four hour day. Rather, day is obviously used figuratively." (Pg. 156)

He argues, "The biblical writers did not speak directly against slavery for the same reason that Jesus did not speak directly against the rule of Rome: social reform was secondary to certain internal, attitudinal transformations." (Pg. 175)

Copan presents some fairly sophisticated arguments in a more "popular" style, as well as using "current" language; his books are all very helpful tools for Christians studying apologetics.

[Tim Baumgartner · Rating 5 out of 5]

My copy is now very marked up (and I didn't write/type things out), as there were LOTS of interesting and intriguing arguments on a wide variety of topics. I view this book as a resource guide when I want to investigate thoughtful answers to challenging questions on the following topics:

-PART 1: CHALLENGES RELATED TO TRUTH AND REALITY:

Ch 1) It's ALL Relative
Ch 2) That's Just YOUR Interpretation
Ch 3) That's Just YOUR Reality
Ch 4) Reality is Shaped by Forces Beyond Our Control

--PART 2: CHALLENGES RELATED TO WORLDVIEWS:

Ch 5) Everything is One with the Divine; All Else Is an Illusion
Ch 6) Why Not Believe in Reincarnation?
Ch 7) If God Made the Universe, Who Made God?
Ch 8) If God Knows What We're Going to Do, Then We Don't Have Free Will
Ch 9) If God Predestines Some to Be Saved, What Choice Do I Really Have?
Ch 10) The Coexistence of God and Evil Is a Logical Contradiction
Ch 11) Why Would a Good God Send People to Hell?
Ch 12) Religion Is Nothing More Than the Human Wish for a Father Figure

--PART 3: CHALLENGES RELATED TO CHRISTIANITY:

Ch 13) How Can God Be Three AND One?
Ch 14) Isn't the Idea of God Becoming a Man Incoherent?
Ch 15) If Jesus Is God, How Could He REALLY Be Tempted?
Ch 16) The Genesis Creation Account Contradicts Contemporary Science (Part 1)
Ch 17) The Genesis Creation Account Contradicts Contemporary Science (Part 2)
Ch 18) How Could a Loving God Command Genocide?
Ch 19) Doesn't the Bible Condone Slavery?
Ch 20) The Gospels Contradict Each Other
Ch 21) Old Testament "Prophecies" Are Taken Out of Context in the New Testament

Ch 22) Conclusion


I REALLY like how this Christian apologist (defender of the faith), Paul Copan, responds to each question/challenge with oftentimes TEN arguments/reasons why certain things are the way they are (for the topics above). These chapters are written in a very logical and organized way. Most of these chapters could be written as books in and of themselves, but Copan does a great job condensing LOTS of information and allowing thoughtful responds to be much more accessible to the general public.

It seems like people don't like to read as much these days, but checking this out can CERTAINLY be a VERY BENEFICIAL use of one's time. I wrote questions in the margins, highlighted great ideas and thought about these topics in new and fresh ways.

He has also written the following books that can further help ANYONE to process the biggest questions in life that all lead to chipping away one's mind AND lifestyle to become the masterpiece God has created us to be:

--"When God Goes to Starbucks"
--"How Do You Know You're Not Wrong? (Responding to Objections That Leave Christians Speechless)"
--"That's Just Your Interpretation (Responding to Skeptics Who Challenge Your Faith)"
--"True For You, but Not For Me: Deflating the Slogans That Leave Christians Speechless"
--"Creation Out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration"
--"Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan"
--"Is God a Moral Monster? (Making Sense of the Old Testament God)"

If You want to borrow any of these or have any questions, just ask!

[Angus Mcfarlane · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have read a lot of this kind of thing over the years, and while there are bits of this that are fairly standard, the focus on relativism/post modernism is a newer area and worth a look. Copan works through each chapter via an introduction, key points, a series of recap points and extra reading, with many of the source references hyperlinked to end notes. Most are not too long, but he is willing to take the time to get at the detail also.
Some of the area I highlighted were:
1. Relativism as the result of a basic lack of humility - an excuse for not having to accept that we are all subject to reality.
2. Predestination as something that applies to groups rather than individuals, i.e. The church not individual members in the bible's portrayal of it
3. The problem of suffering as an inevitable consequence of a universe in which good is possible, rather than a limitation of God's goodness. We know that the fine tuning of both universe and earth are pretty sensitive - no suffering would mean no life. Likewise in relationships, we could avoid suffering if we didn't need to interact with one another, however,.....
Some of the thornier, but perhaps traditional concerns are also looked at, including trinitarianism, biblical war, slavery, science/creation and Christian reinterpretation of the Hebrew bible. These round out the other topics, but probably aren't new for many who might read this.
It's probably fair to say that this is more likely to help Christians help themselves or one another, rather than the skeptics the book proposes to be helping. But that's ok, since Christianity has always sought to be a rational religion. This is acknowledged at the end alongside an encouraging exhortation to live Christianity well, probably the more important component of knowing vs being.

[Ron W. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Copan's book is a much broader text than his other well known publication, "Is God a Moral Monster?" This book is a lot more detailed inasmuch as Copan takes on quite a brave task in tackling both philosophical and theological topics (truth, reality and nature of God and the trinity and so forth) from skepticism through to Christianity. There are a couple of matters which I don't agree with, which Copan seems quite emphatic on and one of them is regarding Genesis 1:29 which states that Adam and Eve were given plant matter (vegetables, fruit) to eat rather than meat. Copan seems to argue that they also ate meat because they were given dominion over birds and fish and so forth. I'm not convinced this is the case as the text is quite clear that humanity was originally vegetarian until the Noahide covenant. Anyway, this is not the place to get bogged down with such petty issues. The book is worth the read if you are interested in apologetics.

[Nelson Banuchi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Copan offers some controversial issues and formulates his responses to them on a Biblical basis. This book is a basic help with answering questions from skeptics who challenge the validity of knowing reality on a Biblical basis, and the Christian worldview and beliefs.

Copan covers issues such as:
– Can we know truth an reality or is it all relative?
– Is reincarnation a valid belief?
– Do humans have free will?
– How can God be three, yet one?
– Is Jesus God?
– Are there contradictions in the Bible?
and much more.

An excellent read, especially for those new to the study of apologetics.

[Quinton · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is made up of logical explanations or answers to some common, and not at common, questions about the Christian faith.
I thought it was quite well done. There were a couple responses that I felt missed the mark, but the vast majority were great. Some of the questions, I hadn’t asked, so it was neat thinking through it, while reading his thoughts.

It was a good read for someone who is asking tough questions.

[Jeremy Lee · Rating 3 out of 5]

A Mixed Bag

This book is a mixed bag. There is really no overall theme just answers to several apologetic/philosophical answers to questions about Christianity - some good answers mixed with bad theology: Arminianism, a passable God, and libertine freewill. The chapters on Old Testament prophecies and the Bible's teaching concerning slavery were especially helpful.

[Charles Carter · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was my second encounter with Copan, and it was not as good as the first, but it was still VERY good. He's not always easy to track with or follow, but he is certainly worthwhile, so pay attention and keep up.

[Justin · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are a few swings and misses here, but Copan's clarity makes it a useful read, particularly his chapter on the Trinity.

[Sheila Myers · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think this is a book every Christian should read.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wish there was a half star option here because this book is slightly better than most of my 3 star books but not as good as some of the 4 star books. Copan takes some interesting views regarding matters of doctrine but his first section in the book on relativism makes up for it.

[Sue Warren · Rating 3 out of 5]

lots of important questions to look at and consider.

[Greg Ellis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good answers to several arguments. Two chapters wasted trying to defend evolutionary creationism instead if Biblical creationism. Also, some of his theology is quite unique.