Course 13 · Apologetics
Foundations of Apologetics
Learn what Christian apologetics is, how its main methods differ, and how to build, test and criticize an argument honestly.
Overview
Apologetics is the work of giving reasons for Christian belief and answering objections to it. This course introduces its purpose, its biblical roots and its limits, and then teaches the practical skills needed to do it well: how to state an argument clearly, how to test whether it holds, and how to deal fairly with someone who disagrees.
The first half of the course surveys four well-known approaches: classical, evidential, presuppositional and cumulative-case. Each is described as its own defenders describe it, with its strengths and the objections raised against it. The second half is a short course in logic and argument. It explains premises and conclusions, validity and soundness, the burden of proof, and the difference between evidence and inference, with plain examples.
The course also treats the character of the apologist. It teaches how to restate an opponent’s position so strongly that the opponent would say it was fair, how to answer rebuttals, and how to hold conclusions with confidence and humility together. It does not assume that argument alone produces faith, and it asks you to think about how reason and faith relate.
By the end you will be able to read an argument for or against Christianity and find its weak points, and to write your own in a form that others can check. The independent assignment asks you to do this in a structured essay of your own.
Objectives
- Explain the biblical basis of apologetics, including the setting and meaning of 1 Peter 3:15.
- State the purposes of apologetics and the limits of what it can accomplish.
- Describe the classical, evidential, presuppositional and cumulative-case methods and compare their strengths and weaknesses.
- Identify the premises and conclusion of an argument in ordinary writing.
- Distinguish validity from soundness and test simple arguments for each.
- Explain who carries the burden of proof in a given discussion and why.
- Distinguish evidence from inference and recognize common informal fallacies.
- Restate an opposing argument in its strongest form and write a fair rebuttal.
- Describe how Christians have understood the relation between faith and reason, and explain what intellectual humility requires.
Course outline
Module 1 What Apologetics Is and Is Not
Read the biblical texts that call Christians to give an answer, and ask what apologetics can and cannot do.
Topics
- Biblical foundations of apologetics, especially 1 Peter 3:15
- Purpose and limitations of apologetics
Lessons
Module 2 Four Methods of Apologetics
Learn the main schools of method and the reasons their defenders give for them, with the best objections to each.
Topics
- Classical apologetics
- Evidential apologetics
- Presuppositional apologetics
- Cumulative-case apologetics
Lessons
Module 3 Logic and Argument Construction
Learn how arguments are built from premises and conclusions and how to tell a strong argument from a weak one.
Topics
- Logic and argument construction
- Premises and conclusions
- Validity and soundness
Lessons
Module 4 Evidence, Inference and the Burden of Proof
Examine how claims are supported, how conclusions are drawn from evidence and who has to prove what.
Topics
- Burden of proof
- Evidence and inference
Lessons
Module 5 Fair Argument: Steelmanning, Rebuttal and Humility
Practice the habits that make an argument honest: stating the other side well, answering it directly and admitting limits.
Topics
- Steelmanning opposing arguments
- Rebuttal and counterargument
- Intellectual humility
Lessons
Module 6 Faith and Reason
Ask how belief and argument relate in the Christian tradition and what the main positions on this question are.
Topics
- Faith and reason
Lessons
Suggested schedule
| When | Work |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | Module 1: What Apologetics Is and Is Not |
| Week 2 | Module 2: Four Methods of Apologetics |
| Week 3 | Module 3: Logic and Argument Construction |
| Week 4 | Module 4: Evidence, Inference and the Burden of Proof |
| Week 5 | Module 5: Fair Argument: Steelmanning, Rebuttal and Humility |
| Week 6 | Module 6: Faith and Reason |
| Week 7 | 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 the introduction and a few of the named fallacies. Practice finding each in a short piece of writing.
Read online (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) In the library - Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, Q. 2: The Existence of God
The short section containing the ‘Five Ways’. The standard starting point for classical arguments for God.
How to use it: Read the question once to see the form of an argument in the medieval tradition. Identify the premises in each way.
Read online (New Advent) 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 Book 1 as an example of a popular argument from moral experience. Map it into premises and a conclusion.
Find in a library or bookstore catalog (Open Library) 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: Read selectively to see how a classical-evidential apologist describes method and answers objections.
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: Read selectively, especially the passages about the limits of reason and the wager. Note how Pascal argues without relying on proofs alone.
Read online (Christian Classics Ethereal Library) In the library - Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief
A leading philosopher argues that Christian belief can be rational without being proved by arguments. Advanced.
How to use it: Read selectively to see the proposal that belief in God can be reasonable without argument. This is a demanding book; focus on the introduction and summaries.
Find in a library or bookstore catalog (Open Library) In the library
Recommended
- Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God
A rigorous cumulative-case argument for God’s existence. Advanced.
How to use it: A model of cumulative-case reasoning using probability. Read the opening chapters on method.
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: An early example of an apology written for outsiders.
Read online (New Advent (Church Fathers)) In the library - Augustine of Hippo, Confessions
Augustine’s account of his restless search for God. Read Book I and then Book VIII, the story of his conversion.
How to use it: A record of an inquirer’s journey from doubt to belief, useful for thinking about faith and reason.
Read online (New Advent (Church Fathers)) In the library - Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion
Anselm’s short and famous argument for the existence of God. Read the first few chapters slowly.
How to use it: Read the preface and the first chapters for Anselm’s phrase about faith seeking understanding.
Read online (Christian Classics Ethereal 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: Read for the questions about fairness toward other views.
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: Read the introduction for the common assumptions behind many objections.
Read online (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) In the library
Passages in the Scripture Study
- 1 Peter 3:15 Be ready to give an answer for the hope in you, with gentleness and respect.
- Acts 17:22 Paul at the Areopagus begins from what his audience already knows.
- Acts 17:11 The Bereans examine the Scriptures to see whether what they hear is true.
- Acts 26:25 Paul tells Festus that he speaks words of truth and reason.
- Jude 1:3 Contend for the faith that was delivered once for all.
- Isaiah 1:18 Come, let us reason together.
- Colossians 4:5 Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, and let speech be gracious.
- 2 Corinthians 10:5 Taking thoughts captive to Christ; used by presuppositionalists and others.
- Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord as the beginning of knowledge, central to presuppositional arguments.
- Romans 1:20 God’s attributes seen in creation; a key text for classical apologetics.
- Hebrews 11:1 Faith as assurance of things hoped for; central to discussions of faith and reason.
- John 20:27 Jesus invites Thomas to examine the evidence.
- 1 Corinthians 15:6 Paul points to eyewitnesses of the resurrection, an appeal to evidence.
- Luke 1:3 Luke says he investigated everything carefully before writing.
- 2 Timothy 2:24 The servant of the Lord must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone.
Independent assignment
Building and Defending a Christian Argument
- Purpose
- To construct one clear argument in support of a Christian claim, test it for validity and soundness, state the strongest objections fairly and write a reasoned reply.
- Instructions
- Choose one claim for which you can offer reasons, such as the reliability of a gospel account, the reasonableness of belief in God, the moral objectivity of human rights, or the historical case for the resurrection. Write it as one precise sentence.
- Say which apologetic method you will use (classical, evidential, presuppositional or cumulative-case) and give two sentences on why it fits the claim.
- Lay out your argument in numbered premises leading to a conclusion. Keep each premise to one sentence and label it as an empirical claim, a philosophical claim or a claim from revelation.
- Test the form: show whether the argument is valid, and explain what must be true for it to be sound. Rewrite it if it is not valid.
- Support each premise with evidence or reasoning from at least one source, and distinguish evidence from your inference from it.
- State where the burden of proof lies for your claim and what you must show to carry it.
- Write the strongest objections you can find, at least three, from writers who hold the opposing view. Restate each so that its defenders would say you had been fair.
- Write a rebuttal to each objection. Say whether it defeats a premise, denies the inference or accepts the point and limits the conclusion.
- Write a conclusion that says how confident you are, what would change your mind and what the argument does not prove.
- Required sources
- At least three of the required readings.
- At least one source representing the opposing view, drawn from its own defenders.
- At least four of the Scripture passages listed for this course, if Scripture is part of your argument or tone.
- Length and scope
- About 2,500 to 3,500 words, or eight to eleven pages, including the numbered argument. Keep it in your own notebook or document. Do not send it anywhere.
- Questions to address
- What exactly am I claiming, and what am I not claiming?
- Is my argument valid, and which premises are most open to doubt?
- What is the best objection, and have I stated it in a form its defenders would accept?
- What kind of evidence supports each premise, and what inference am I drawing from it?
- How certain am I, and what would change my mind?
- Expected output
- A structured written argument with numbered premises, support for each premise, at least three fairly stated objections with replies, and a reasoned conclusion.
- How it will be evaluated
- The claim is precise and the argument is laid out in numbered premises.
- The argument is valid in form, or its invalidity is acknowledged and repaired.
- Each premise has real support, and evidence is distinguished from inference.
- Opposing arguments are stated in their strongest form, from their own sources.
- Rebuttals answer the objection actually made and do not change the subject.
- The conclusion is honest about confidence and limits.
- Common mistakes to avoid
- Arguing against a weak version of the opposing view.
- Confusing a valid argument with a sound one, or a true conclusion with a good argument.
- Using a fallacy such as an appeal to authority or a personal attack as if it were evidence.
- Shifting the burden of proof without saying so.
- Claiming more than the argument can show.
Knowledge check and self-assessment
What does 1 Peter 3:15 say, and what does it ask of Christians?
The verse tells Christians to honor Christ as Lord in their hearts and to be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks for a reason for the hope they have, and to do so with gentleness and respect. It describes a response to people who ask, not a campaign to win debates. Both the readiness and the manner are part of the command.
What are the main limits of apologetics?
Apologetics can clear away misunderstandings, answer objections and show that belief is reasonable, but it cannot compel faith. Christians of all traditions teach that faith involves trust and the work of God as well as assent to arguments. Apologetics is also limited by what any argument can show: a good case for God’s existence does not establish the whole of Christianity, and a weak argument does not show that the claim is false.
How do classical and presuppositional apologetics differ?
Classical apologetics argues in two steps: first for the existence of God using reasoning accessible to anyone, then for Christianity using evidence such as history. Presuppositional apologetics, associated with Cornelius Van Til, holds that no one is neutral, because every argument depends on starting assumptions. It argues that only the Christian view makes reasoning, morality and knowledge intelligible, and it challenges opponents’ starting points.
What is the difference between a valid and a sound argument?
An argument is valid if the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises: if the premises were true, the conclusion could not be false. An argument is sound if it is valid and all its premises are actually true. A valid argument can have false premises, so validity alone proves nothing about the world. For example, ‘All birds can fly; a penguin is a bird; so a penguin can fly’ is valid in form but unsound, because the first premise is false.
What is meant by the burden of proof?
The burden of proof is the responsibility to supply reasons for a claim. In ordinary discussion, the person who asserts something usually carries it. Disagreement arises over which claims count as the default. Christians and skeptics alike may be tempted to assign the burden to the other side. A fair approach states the claims each side holds and asks each to support them.
What does it mean to steelman an opposing argument, and why does it matter?
To steelman is to restate an opponent’s argument in its strongest and most careful form, so that its defenders would say it had been represented fairly. It is the opposite of a straw man, which replaces the real argument with a weak one that is easy to knock down. It matters for honesty, because a rebuttal to a weak version proves nothing, and for learning, because you may find the argument is better than you expected.
Distinguish evidence from inference with an example.
Evidence is what is observed or reported, such as a manuscript, a testimony or a measurement. Inference is the reasoning that moves from the evidence to a conclusion. For example, the existence of early manuscripts of a letter is evidence; the claim that the letter was written within a given decade is an inference. Disagreements often lie in the inference, not the evidence, so it helps to write the two separately.
Describe two Christian views of the relation between faith and reason.
Thomas Aquinas held that faith and reason are distinct but harmonious: reason can show some truths about God, while others are known only by revelation, and the two cannot truly conflict. Reformed epistemologists such as Alvin Plantinga argue that belief in God can be rationally held without being the conclusion of an argument, much as belief in other minds can. Both reject the idea that faith means believing without any reason.
Judge your own progress
- When you finish the modules, answer the knowledge questions from memory, without notes. Aim for 70 percent or better; if you score lower, reread the relevant module and try again.
- Write your structured argument (the independent assignment). Wait three days, reread it, and mark every premise that lacks support.
- Check your work against the evaluation criteria in the assignment. Rate each criterion as strong, adequate or weak and write one sentence on how you would improve each weak one.
- Return to the key ideas after 1 day, 7 days, 30 days and 90 days. At each point, take a new short argument from a book or article and map its premises and conclusion without notes.
- You can map any short argument into premises and a conclusion and judge it for validity and soundness.
- You can state each of the four apologetic methods so that its defenders would recognize it.
- You can restate an opposing view fairly, reply to it directly and say what your own argument does not prove.