It is common in apologetic discussions for Christians to tie themselves to a particular Christian position, say conservative Reformed theology, but allow their opponents to occupy the role of "neutral critic" who adopts the "view from nowhere".
This means the Christian must defend everything, but the opponent must defend nothing at all.
Given that the most common actual position held by younger (<40) non-Christians these days is an incoherent melange of constructivism and materialism, this amounts to tactical surrender . . . even though your opponent occupies a position far, far more vulnerable than your own.
In case it is not obvious WHY this common position is so weak:
- Constructivism and materialism are MUTUALLY contradictory. Combining them is a mark of philosophical illiteracy.
- Additionally, BOTH constructivism AND materialism are individually self-contradictory, at point after point.
- Constructivist example: All truth is arbitrary and constructed socially (. . . . EXCEPT for this claim, which is universal!").
- Materialist example: Humans are simply complex agglomerations of proteins and external causes. As Sam Harris claims, all choices and conclusions reached by humans are the result of EXTERNAL forces acting on that particular person. Thus, human agency does not exist. (Said to a group of human agents, attempting to persuade them to change their mind!).
Commonly, the only RATIONAL conclusion many non-Christians and ex-Christians can legitimately reach -- based on their own arguments -- is a profound agnosticism about almost everything. And thus, many of their criticisms of Christian -- which suppose that there is a 'better way' than Christianity -- can be reflected back on them