Course 24 · Practice and Scholarship
Apologetic Practicum
Practice building sound arguments, answering sincere and hostile objections fairly, and, if you choose, speaking about the faith in public with honesty and restraint.
Overview
This course is a practicum. Earlier courses explain what Christians believe and why. This one trains the skills needed to explain and defend those beliefs: building an argument, testing it, hearing the strongest form of an opposing view, and answering without bluster. The word apologetics here carries its old meaning of a reasoned defense (see 1 Peter 3:15), not an attempt to win a quarrel.
The course moves from private skill to public practice. The first modules teach argument construction, the recognition of logical fallacies, Socratic questioning, structured debate and oral defense. The middle modules deal with objections: sincere and hostile, atheistic and secular, and those that come from other Christian traditions. The last modules examine the limits of online discussion and offer an optional subunit on public faith and social media.
Fairness runs through the whole course. Students are asked to state Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant positions so that a member of each would recognize them, and to state the strongest form of an atheist or secular objection before answering it. A defense of the faith that misrepresents its opponents does not serve the truth it claims to defend.
Public participation is optional. The nine assignments are done privately, in the student’s own notebook or documents, and nothing is submitted to this site. Students who wish to publish anything elsewhere may do so, but the course is complete without it. By the end, the student should be able to build, test and present an argument, answer an objection fairly, spot manipulation, and decide with good judgment when to speak and when to stay silent.
Objectives
- Construct a valid and sound argument in standard form and identify its premises, conclusion and hidden assumptions.
- Identify at least fifteen common logical fallacies in written and spoken arguments and explain why each fails.
- State an opposing position so accurately that its holder would accept the statement as fair (steelmanning).
- Use Socratic questioning to clarify a claim, test its reasons and expose its assumptions without mockery.
- Prepare and deliver a short oral defense of a Christian claim, and respond to unscripted questions.
- Distinguish sincere, hostile and bad-faith objections, and choose a fitting response, including disengagement.
- Respond to atheistic arguments, secular moral critiques and objections from other Christian traditions with accurate use of Scripture and credible sources.
- Explain a disagreement among Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Christians fairly and without caricature.
- Evaluate the limits and dangers of online theological discussion, including misinformation and rhetorical manipulation.
- Write a personal public-faith communication policy that sets standards for honesty, tone, correction of mistakes and withdrawal.
Course outline
Module 1 Building and Testing Arguments
Learn how an argument is built, how it fails, and what intellectual honesty and rhetorical discipline require of someone who argues for a faith.
Topics
- Advanced argument construction
- Recognizing logical fallacies
- Intellectual honesty
- Rhetorical discipline
Lessons
Module 2 Questioning, Debate and Oral Defense
Practice the spoken and structured forms of argument: asking good questions, debating by rules, and defending a claim aloud.
Topics
- Steelmanning opposing positions
- Socratic questioning
- Structured debate
- Oral defense exercises
Lessons
Module 3 Handling Objections
Tell the difference between a sincere question, a hostile attack and bad-faith engagement, and choose a fitting response, including the choice to stop.
Topics
- Handling sincere objections
- Handling hostile objections
- Recognizing bad-faith engagement
- Knowing when to disengage
Lessons
Module 4 Major Critiques and Internal Disagreements
Answer the main critiques from atheism and secular ethics, and then learn to treat disagreements among Christians with equal fairness.
Topics
- Responding to atheistic arguments
- Responding to secular moral critiques
- Responding to objections from other Christian traditions
- Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant disagreements
Lessons
Module 5 Limits of Online Discussion and Public Witness
Examine what online media do to argument and examine what public Christian witness has meant and can mean.
Topics
- Limits of online theological discussion
- Public Christian witness
Lessons
Module 6 Subunit: Public Faith and Social Media Apologetics (Optional)
An optional subunit on explaining the faith to general audiences, supporting claims honestly and answering critics. Public participation is optional, and all exercises can be done privately.
Topics
- Subunit: Public Faith and Social Media Apologetics (optional public participation)
- Articulate doctrine for general audiences
- Explain why you believe
- Distinguish personal conviction from established doctrine
- Support claims with Scripture and credible sources
- Respond to atheistic, secular and other-Christian objections
Lessons
Module 7 Subunit: Integrity, Criticism and Correction Online
Continue the optional subunit with misinformation, rhetorical manipulation, criticism, uncertainty and the discipline of correcting one’s own public mistakes.
Topics
- Recognize misinformation
- Identify fallacies and rhetorical manipulation
- Respond to criticism without hostility
- Avoid becoming an online provocateur
- Know when a conversation is no longer productive
- Communicate uncertainty
- Correct public mistakes transparently
- Keep integrity online
Lessons
Suggested schedule
| When | Work |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | Module 1: Building and Testing Arguments |
| Week 2 | Module 2: Questioning, Debate and Oral Defense |
| Week 3 | Module 3: Handling Objections |
| Week 4 | Module 4: Major Critiques and Internal Disagreements |
| Week 5 | Module 5: Limits of Online Discussion and Public Witness |
| Week 6 | Module 6: Subunit: Public Faith and Social Media Apologetics (Optional) |
| Week 7 | Module 7: Subunit: Integrity, Criticism and Correction Online |
| Week 8 | Independent assignment and self-assessment |
Readings
Required
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fallacies
A scholarly guide to logical fallacies. Use it to sharpen argument checking.
How to use it: Read selectively to build a working list of fallacies with an example of each. Practice naming them in arguments you meet.
Read online (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) In the library - William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics
A widely read textbook of classical and evidential apologetics.
How to use it: Study as a model of structured Christian argument. Read for method and for the way objections are stated and answered, and note where critics reply.
Find in a library or bookstore catalog (Open Library) In the library - C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
A clear, accessible case for central Christian belief, based on wartime radio talks. A good first book for apologetics.
How to use it: Read as a model of plain-language explanation for a general audience. Compare its tone with the tone of online debate.
Find in a library or bookstore catalog (Open Library) In the library - Justin Martyr, The First Apology
A second-century defense of Christianity addressed to the Roman emperor. The model of early Christian reasoning with outsiders.
How to use it: Read selectively as an early example of public Christian defense addressed to a hostile audience. Note how it answers accusations and how it appeals to reason.
Read online (New Advent (Church Fathers)) In the library - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Problem of Evil
A full and fair survey of logical and evidential arguments and the main theistic responses.
How to use it: Read to learn the strongest atheistic argument from evil in its own terms, and the main Christian responses, before attempting an answer of your own.
Read online (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) In the library
Recommended
- Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil
The short book that set out the free-will defense against the logical problem of evil.
How to use it: A careful philosophical reply to the logical problem of evil. Read selectively.
Find in a library or bookstore catalog (Open Library) In the library - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Hiddenness of God
The argument from divine hiddenness and the replies to it.
How to use it: The argument that a loving God would be more evident, with replies.
Read online (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) In the library - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Hume on Religion
Introduces Hume’s critique of natural theology and miracles.
How to use it: A classic source of many modern objections. Useful for steelmanning.
Read online (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) In the library - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Religion and Science
A careful survey of how science and religion have been related.
How to use it: For answering the claim that science and faith are at war.
Read online (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) In the library - Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God
A rigorous cumulative-case argument for God’s existence. Advanced.
How to use it: A rigorous cumulative case. Read selectively to see how a probabilistic argument is built.
Find in a library or bookstore catalog (Open Library) In the library - Blaise Pascal, Pensées
Notes toward a defense of Christianity by a great mathematician. Memorable on faith, reason and the human condition.
How to use it: Pascal on the limits of argument and on addressing the whole person.
Read online (Christian Classics Ethereal Library) In the library - Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction
A clear textbook that surveys doctrine and its history across traditions.
How to use it: A reference for stating doctrine accurately across traditions.
Find in a library or bookstore catalog (Open Library) In the library - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Religious Diversity (Pluralism)
Maps the views on how Christianity relates to other religions.
How to use it: For the objection from the plurality of religions.
Read online (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) In the library
Passages in the Scripture Study
- 1 Peter 3:15 Be ready to give a reason for hope, with gentleness and respect. The charter text for apologetics.
- Acts 17:22 Paul addresses the Areopagus, beginning from his hearers’ own world and not from condemnation.
- Acts 17:11 The Bereans examine the Scriptures daily to see whether what they heard was so.
- Colossians 4:6 Speech that is gracious and seasoned with salt, knowing how to answer each person.
- 2 Timothy 2:24 The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind, able to teach and patient.
- Titus 3:9 Avoid foolish controversies and quarrels, which are unprofitable.
- Proverbs 26:4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly.
- Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly. Read with the previous verse: the two show that judgment is needed in deciding how to respond.
- Proverbs 18:17 The first to plead his case seems right until another comes and examines him. A reason to hear both sides.
- Matthew 21:24 Jesus answers a challenge with a question, an example of questioning that exposes assumptions.
- Matthew 7:6 Do not give what is holy to dogs. Often read as a warning about wasting words on those who will only abuse them; it needs careful interpretation and should not be used to dismiss people.
- 2 Corinthians 10:5 Taking every thought captive to Christ and tearing down arguments raised against the knowledge of God.
- James 1:19 Quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger.
- Romans 12:18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.
- Exodus 20:16 The prohibition of false witness, which grounds honesty in argument and the fair representation of opponents.
Independent assignment
Nine Private Practicum Assignments
- Purpose
- To practice the full range of apologetic skill in nine separate exercises, each done privately in your own notebook or documents. Public participation is optional, and nothing here requires you to publish anything.
- Instructions
- Assignment 1: Write a 500-word explanation of one central Christian doctrine (for example the incarnation, the Trinity or the resurrection) for a general audience. Use plain language, define any technical term and mark which statements are shared by all Christians and which are disputed.
- Assignment 2: Develop a series of educational posts (five to eight short pieces) on one theological topic. Write them out in a document. For each, note the sources behind the claims, and draft a one-sentence correction notice you would use if a claim proved wrong.
- Assignment 3: Write responses to five realistic objections to Christianity, drawn from at least three different kinds (for example evil, science, history, morality, other religions). Begin each response with a fair statement of the objection.
- Assignment 4: Choose a controversial theological exchange on social media or in a public forum. Describe it in your notebook and analyze it: what was claimed, what reasons were given, where the exchange went wrong and what a better reply would have looked like. Do not name or target private individuals.
- Assignment 5: Identify the logical fallacies in a public religious debate (recorded, transcribed or written). Name each fallacy, quote or paraphrase the passage briefly, explain why it fails and say whether the underlying point could be repaired.
- Assignment 6: Take a piece of aggressive but substantive criticism of Christianity. Separate the tone from the argument, state the argument in its strongest form and write a response that answers the argument and not the tone.
- Assignment 7: Create a personal public-faith communication policy: standards for honesty, sources, tone, correcting mistakes, handling hostility, privacy, the limits of your competence and when you will stop a conversation. Include a review date.
- Assignment 8: Explain a theological disagreement between two Christian traditions (for example Catholic and Protestant on justification, or Orthodox and Catholic on papal authority) fairly. Write it so that a member of each tradition would recognize their own view, and cite a primary text for each.
- Assignment 9: Prepare a documented reflection on one subject studied in this program (for example the resurrection, the canon or the problem of evil). Present your question, your sources, your conclusion, your uncertainties and what you would still like to learn.
- After completing the nine, wait one week, reread them and mark every place where you were unfair, vague or unsupported. Revise at least three.
- Required sources
- At least four of the required readings across the nine assignments.
- At least eight of the Scripture passages listed for this course.
- At least one primary text from each of two Christian traditions for Assignment 8.
- At least one source from an author who disagrees with Christianity, for Assignments 3 and 6.
- Length and scope
- Assignment 1 is about 500 words. The others are about 500 to 1,000 words each, for a total of about 5,000 to 8,000 words. Keep everything in your own notebook or documents. Nothing is submitted to this website.
- Questions to address
- Have I stated the opposing view well enough that its holder would agree with my statement?
- What would I accept as evidence that I am wrong?
- Which of my claims rest on established doctrine, and which on my own conviction?
- Is my tone doing the work of an argument?
- When would I walk away from this conversation, and why?
- If I published this, what would I want to correct a year from now?
- Expected output
- Nine written pieces in your own notebook or documents, a personal public-faith communication policy and a short list of revisions you made after review.
- How it will be evaluated
- Opposing views are stated fairly and in their strongest form.
- Arguments are laid out clearly, with premises and conclusion identifiable.
- Fallacies are named correctly and not used as a way to dismiss a point.
- Claims are supported by Scripture and credible sources, and doctrine is distinguished from personal conviction.
- Uncertainty is communicated honestly where it exists.
- Tone is firm and courteous, with no mockery, bluster or manipulation.
- The communication policy is concrete and reviewable.
- Common mistakes to avoid
- Answering a weak version of the objection.
- Calling something a fallacy to avoid its force.
- Treating a personal conviction as settled doctrine.
- Quoting Church Fathers, scholars or scientists from memory or from secondary websites without checking.
- Winning an argument by tone, wit or volume instead of reasons.
- Describing another Christian tradition from its critics and not from its own texts.
Knowledge check and self-assessment
What is the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument?
An argument is valid when its conclusion follows from its premises: if the premises were true, the conclusion would have to be true. An argument is sound when it is valid and its premises are in fact true. A valid argument can have false premises, so validity alone proves nothing. In practice, most disagreement is about whether the premises are true, so a careful arguer states each premise openly and asks what supports it.
What is steelmanning, and why does it matter in apologetics?
Steelmanning means stating an opponent’s position in its strongest and most reasonable form before replying. It is the opposite of a straw man, which attacks a weak or distorted version. It matters because an answer to a weak version leaves the real objection untouched, because it is honest, and because the opponent is more likely to listen to someone who has shown understanding. A good test is whether the opponent would say, ‘Yes, that is what I mean.’
Name and explain three common logical fallacies.
Examples: ad hominem attacks the person instead of the argument. A straw man misrepresents a view in order to refute it. Begging the question assumes the conclusion in a premise. Other correct examples include false dilemma, equivocation (using a word in two senses), the genetic fallacy (rejecting a claim because of its origin) and appeal to authority where the authority has no relevant expertise. A fallacy shows that an argument fails, not that its conclusion is false.
What is Socratic questioning, and what is its aim?
It is a method of asking questions to clarify what someone means, to examine the reasons given and to bring out hidden assumptions. It takes its name from Socrates, as shown in Plato’s dialogues. Its aim is understanding, not humiliation. Done well, it leads both people to see the strengths and weaknesses of a claim. Done badly, it becomes a trap. It requires real curiosity, patience and willingness to be shown wrong oneself.
How do sincere, hostile and bad-faith objections differ, and how should each be handled?
A sincere objection is a real question from someone who wants an answer; it deserves a patient, full reply. A hostile objection may be angry or contemptuous but still contain a real argument; answer the argument and not the tone. Bad-faith engagement does not seek truth: it uses trolling, moving goalposts, endless demands or quotation out of context to provoke or to win an audience. It should be recognized and, after a clear and courteous attempt, left. Motives are hard to read, so allow generous doubt.
Why is it important to describe Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant disagreements from their own sources?
Because each tradition is often described by its critics in a form its members do not accept. A fair account of, for example, the filioque, papal authority, justification or the relation of Scripture and tradition must use each tradition’s own texts and terms. Quoting a tradition’s catechism, confession or councils lets a member of that tradition recognize the description. Unfair summaries produce needless conflict and weaken any attempt to speak across the divisions.
Why do Proverbs 26:4 and 26:5 appear together, and what do they teach?
The two verses give opposite instructions: do not answer a fool according to his folly, and answer a fool according to his folly. Most readers take the pairing as deliberate. Whether to reply, and in what manner, depends on the case: sometimes an answer in kind prevents the foolish from seeming wise, and sometimes answering only lowers the speaker to the same level. The verses teach that wisdom is a matter of judgment and not of rule, which suits the question of when to disengage.
What commitments should govern a Christian’s public communication online?
Accuracy: check sources and quotations before repeating them. Honesty about the status of a claim: say whether it is established doctrine, a majority view, a debated question or a personal conviction. Gentleness and respect, as 1 Peter 3:15 requires. Candor about uncertainty. Willingness to correct mistakes openly. Restraint, including silence when a conversation has stopped being productive. The aim is to serve the truth and the hearer, not to build an audience or to score points.
Judge your own progress
- After the modules, answer the eight knowledge questions from memory and without notes. Aim for 70 percent or better; if you score lower, reread the relevant lesson and try again.
- Complete the nine assignments in your own notebook or documents. Wait a week, reread them, and mark every unfair statement of an opponent, every unsupported claim and every moment where tone replaced reason.
- Ask a trusted reader, if you have one, to read one assignment and tell you which opposing view they think you stated unfairly. Revise accordingly.
- Rate yourself against the evaluation criteria as strong, adequate or weak, and write one sentence on how to improve each weak one.
- Return to the central skills (stating the strongest opposing view, naming fallacies, deciding when to disengage) after 1 day, 7 days, 30 days and 90 days, and practice each on a new example.
- You can state the strongest form of an atheist, a secular and an other-Christian objection, and answer each without distortion.
- You can lay out an argument in standard form and name fallacies in other people’s arguments, and in your own, accurately.
- You can explain a disagreement among Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Christians so that a member of each would recognize their view.
- You have a written communication policy that you could follow, and you know what would make you stop a conversation.