Program / Course 24: Apologetic Practicum / Lesson 1.4
What you will learn
- Describe intellectual honesty as a practice and not only as a feeling.
- Concede a good point from an opponent gracefully and without losing your main claim.
- Say ‘I do not know’ accurately, and tell it apart from evasion.
- Distinguish what you know, what you believe and what you only hope.
The big idea
Intellectual honesty means holding beliefs with the confidence the reasons deserve, no more and no less, and speaking in a way that shows it. It includes admitting when an opponent has made a good point, saying plainly when you do not know, and refusing to claim more than you can support. For a Christian apologist this is a matter of truthfulness, not only technique. A defense of the faith that bluffs undermines what it defends, while an honest ‘I do not know’ often earns trust.
Key terms
- Intellectual honesty
- The habit of following reasons where they lead, stating beliefs with fitting confidence and not misrepresenting evidence or opponents.
- Concession
- Openly granting that an opponent is right on a point.
- Epistemic humility
- A realistic sense of the limits of your knowledge. Epistemic comes from a Greek word for knowledge.
- Confidence level
- How strongly you hold a belief, which should match how strong your reasons are.
- Apophatic theology
- A way of speaking about God that stresses what cannot be said, since God exceeds human concepts. Especially prominent in Orthodox thought.
- Mystery
- In Christian use, a truth revealed by God that human reason cannot fully grasp. It does not mean a contradiction or a lack of reasons.
- Cherry-picking
- Choosing only the evidence that supports your view and ignoring the rest.
Background
Scripture links truth to speech. The ninth commandment forbids bearing false witness (Exodus 20:16), and Paul urges believers to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). In the Book of Job, Job’s friends defend God with confident speeches, and God says at the end that they have not spoken rightly (Job 42:7). The story is often read as a warning against defending God with claims you cannot support.
Christian history provides examples of both honesty and its absence. Augustine, writing in the fourth and fifth centuries, warned that it is shameful for a Christian to talk nonsense about the natural world while claiming to speak for Scripture, because unbelievers will mock the faith (a point made in his commentary on Genesis). Many teachers in all traditions have said something similar: careless claims make the faith look foolish.
Honesty about limits does not mean having no convictions. A Christian can be quite certain that God raised Jesus from the dead and quite unsure how God’s foreknowledge relates to human freedom. Honest speech marks the difference, and that is what this lesson practices.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Sort what you hold
Make three lists. First, things you know with high confidence, such as basic facts of history or your own experience. Second, beliefs you hold on good reasons but not certainty. Third, things you hope or suppose. Many arguments go wrong because a speaker presents the second or third list as if it were the first.
Within Christian belief, the traditions also separate levels. Catholic teaching distinguishes defined dogma from other teaching and from theological opinion. Orthodox teaching distinguishes the faith held by the whole church from private opinion, which Orthodox writers call theologoumena. Protestants distinguish essentials from matters on which Christians may differ. Use your own tradition’s categories honestly.
Step 2: Practice the concession
When someone makes a true point against you, say so: “That is a fair point. The church has done that.” Then say what follows from it and what does not. A concession costs little when your main case does not rest on the point. It gains much, because the other person sees you are not defending everything.
Do not concede what you do not believe merely to be polite. And do not use a small concession to escape a large one. The goal is accuracy, not either surrender or defense at all costs.
Step 3: Say ‘I do not know’ well
A good ‘I do not know’ is specific. “I do not know how to answer that yet. Here is what I do know, and here is what I would need to look up” is honest. A vague ‘who can say?’ is often a dodge. If you say you will look into something, do so and report back.
Some questions have no answer that human beings can give. The tradition calls certain matters mysteries, such as the inner life of the Trinity. Stating that you stand at the limit of human knowledge is not evasion if you can say why the limit exists and what the church has actually said.
Step 4: Handle the evidence fairly
Cherry-picking is a common fault. A quotation from a church father may be taken from a paragraph that says the opposite. A statistic may be true but out of date. Before using a source, read the surrounding context. If a source is weak, say so, or do not use it.
Be especially careful with quotations that circulate online. Some famous quotations attributed to early Christians, to saints or to scientists were never said by them. If you cannot trace a quotation to a source you can name, do not use it.
Step 5: Be honest about your motives
Admit to yourself that you want your conclusion to be true. The wish is natural but it can bend your judgment. One test is to ask: what would count as evidence against my view? If you cannot say, you may be holding the view for reasons other than evidence.
Honesty does not require that faith be reduced to a wager on evidence. Christians in many traditions say faith involves trust and grace. It does require that you not pretend to reasons you do not have.
- How confident am I in this claim, and does my wording match that confidence?
- What is the best point the other side has made, and can I say so aloud?
- What do I actually know here, and what do I only suppose?
- Have I read the full context of every source I plan to quote?
- What would count as evidence against my view?
- Am I saying ‘I do not know’ because it is true or because the question is uncomfortable?
Examples
A fitting concession
A critic says, “Christians have used the Bible to defend slavery.” An honest reply begins: “Yes, some did, and that is a grave failure. Here is how others, such as many abolitionists, read the same book differently, and here is where I think the moral case against slavery comes from in Scripture.” The concession is true and the main claim stays intact. (Constructed example.)
A good ‘I do not know’
A questioner asks why God allowed a specific tragedy. The honest answer is: “I do not know. I can tell you what Christians have said in general about suffering, and what I have found helpful. I cannot tell you why this happened.” (Constructed example.)
A false quotation
A speaker uses a line widely credited to a famous saint about preaching without words. Researchers have not been able to locate it in that saint’s writings. A careful speaker either avoids it or says, “often attributed to him, though the source is uncertain.” (This reflects a widely noted case.)
Different perspectives
Orthodox thought
Orthodox theology gives great weight to the apophatic tradition, which speaks of God by saying what he is not, since God exceeds all concepts. Orthodox writers therefore often value silence and admitted limits, and warn against pretending to know more than the church has received.
Catholic thought
Catholic teaching holds that faith and reason are complementary, and that reason can know some things about God. It also holds that some truths are mysteries beyond full human comprehension. Thomas Aquinas taught that human beings can know more of what God is not than of what God is.
Protestant thought
Protestant teaching emphasizes that Scripture is clear on matters necessary for salvation (the Westminster Confession speaks of this), while admitting that some passages are hard. Many Protestants commend a willingness to say ‘Scripture does not tell us’ about questions it leaves unanswered.
Scholarly and secular view
Philosophers and scientists treat willingness to revise beliefs in light of evidence as a mark of good reasoning. Many skeptics respect believers who say plainly what they do not know, and distrust those who claim certainty in every area.
Why it matters
Credibility depends on honesty. People can tell when someone is bluffing, and each bluff teaches them that the faith cannot be defended by honest means. An apologist who can say, “You are right about that,” or, “I do not know,” has more persuasive force than one who answers everything. Honesty also guards the speaker from pride, which Scripture treats as a serious danger.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Admitting uncertainty shows weak faith.
Correction: Faith and certainty are not the same thing. Many saints and theologians admitted doubt and limits. Honest uncertainty about a particular question is compatible with firm trust in God.
Misunderstanding: Conceding a point gives the opponent the victory.
Correction: A concession on one point leaves other points standing. Often it makes your remaining case more believable. It is a loss only if you are trying to win.
Misunderstanding: Mystery means anything goes.
Correction: In Christian use, a mystery is a truth that exceeds full understanding, not a license for contradiction or vagueness. The church has said a good deal about each mystery, and honest speech reports what it has said.
Misunderstanding: A quotation that circulates widely must be genuine.
Correction: Many popular quotations are misattributed or invented. Trace them to a source before using them.
Knowledge check
What does intellectual honesty require of a person who defends a belief?
It requires holding the belief with confidence that matches the reasons, representing opponents and evidence fairly, admitting good points against you, and saying plainly when you do not know. It is a habit of truthful speech applied to reasoning, not a technique for winning.
How can a concession help a defense of the faith?
It shows that you are not defending everything blindly, which builds trust. It focuses the discussion on points that matter. A concession should be true and limited: it grants what is correct without giving up claims that your reasons still support.
How is a good ‘I do not know’ different from a dodge?
A good one is specific. It says what you do know, what you do not, and what you would need to find out, and it is followed by real effort. A dodge is vague, shuts the conversation down and is often used to avoid a hard question.
Why should an apologist avoid unverified quotations?
Unverified quotations may be false, and a false quotation damages your credibility if exposed. It can also mislead others. Use only quotations you can trace to a named source and read in context, and mark any that are only ‘attributed to’ someone.
What does the story of Job’s friends suggest about defending God?
It suggests that confident speech on God’s behalf can itself be wrong. In the story, God says the friends have not spoken rightly of him. Many readers take this as a caution against explaining God’s actions with claims you cannot support.
Think it through
- When did someone’s honest ‘I do not know’ increase your trust in them?
- Which topics tempt you to claim more than you know?
- How does your own tradition separate central teaching from opinion?
- Is there a conclusion you are afraid to examine honestly? What are you afraid of?
Independent assignment
Confidence ledger
In your own notebook, write 400 to 600 words. Make a ledger of ten beliefs connected with the Christian faith or with your arguments. Next to each, mark whether it is something you know, something you believe on good reasons, or something you hope. Write one sentence of reasons for each. Choose two where your confidence may be too high or too low, and explain how you would change your wording when speaking about them. Finish with a short paragraph describing one occasion on which you could have conceded a point. Keep this private.
Further study
- Augustine of Hippo, Confessions Read selectively to see an author describe his own doubts, errors and limits openly.
- Blaise Pascal, Pensées Pascal on the limits of reason and the honesty about what reason cannot do.
- Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church An Orthodox account of apophatic theology. Read the opening chapter selectively.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fallacies Review the entries on cherry-picking and on appeals to authority.
- Job 42:7 God says Job’s friends have not spoken rightly of him.
- Ephesians 4:15 Speaking the truth in love.
- Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord.