Scholarly Reflections
Koukl, Gregory. (2019). "Chapter Twelve: Sibling Rivalry and Infanticide." In Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (updated and expanded). pp. 165-177.. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
In this chapter, Koukl discusses two types of self-defeating views which "are not internally contradictory but are self-defeating in their own unique ways" (Koukl 2019, p. 165). In the situation Koukl terms as "sibling rivalry" a person will make two objections which are not logically consistent with each other. Both objections cannot be held at the same time, so at least one has to go. Koukl observes that this realization sometimes takes away both objections since the person realizes a logical problem (Koukl 2019, p. 166). Koukl gives a number of examples of views which can't be held together, for instance, that heaven is for definitively good people but that we don't have any way of identifying definitive good or evil. The problem is especially common when someone holds a moral relativist position. It quickly becomes impossible to speak of good and evil (Koukl 2019, p. 168).
The suicide argument Koukl considers most difficult to deal with he calls "infanticide" (Koukl 2019, p. 170). Here, a claim is made (the child) which denies the basis on which the claim depends (parent). For instance, a verbal claim that vocal cords do not exist depends on the existence of vocal cords. A more frequently occurring example is when someone who believes in objective eil says its existence means God cannot exist (Koukl 2019, p. 171). The argument is dependent on the existence of a definitive standard of good and evil. Demonstrating a standard of good and evil requires some manner of definition. Without the existence of God, the endeavor is fruitless (Koukl 2019, p. 172). Koukl particularly observes that in the sigling rivalry, two arguments can't be held together. In the infanticide situation, there is only one argument but it is predicated on something which is denied (Koukl 2019, p. 173). The argument thus falls apart, though some observable elements may continue to exist. For instance, the person who denies the existence of God may act in a moral manner, though he doesn't have a definitive and understandable framework (Koukl 2019, p. 174). Koukl observes that scientism is incapable of being proven simply because it needs to have some first principle which is considered to be proven. Without such a tenet, the philosophy cannot be held (Koukl 2019, p. 174).