Program / Course 13: Foundations of Apologetics / Lesson 5.2
What you will learn
- Distinguish a rebuttal, a counterargument and an objection to a premise or step.
- Explain the difference between a rebutting defeater and an undercutting defeater.
- Describe how to respond to a strong objection, including when to concede.
- Write a short reply to an objection that targets the right part of an argument.
The big idea
Once an argument has been stated fairly, it can be answered in several different ways. A critic may deny a premise, deny that the premises support the conclusion, or offer an argument for the opposite conclusion. A defender may reply to such an objection by showing it mistaken, by showing it does not reach the real argument, or by conceding part of it and adjusting the claim. Philosophers use the word defeater for a reason that weakens a belief. Knowing the types of defeaters makes replies sharper and prevents the common mistake of answering the wrong objection.
Key terms
- Rebuttal
- A reply that answers an objection or counterargument.
- Counterargument
- An argument for a conclusion that opposes the one under discussion.
- Rebutting defeater
- A reason to think that a claim is false, by supporting its opposite.
- Undercutting defeater
- A reason to doubt that the evidence offered for a claim really supports it, without showing that the claim is false.
- Reductio ad absurdum
- A way of arguing in which a claim is assumed for the sake of argument and shown to lead to an absurd or unacceptable result, so that the claim must be rejected.
- Concession
- Admitting that a point made by an opponent is correct, in whole or in part.
- Counterexample
- A case that shows a general claim to be false.
Background
Medieval teachers organized debate carefully: a thesis was stated, objections were raised and each was answered in turn. The exercise trained students to hold several arguments in mind at once. Modern philosophers have continued to study the forms of reply. The American philosopher John Pollock distinguished two kinds of defeater in the 1970s and 1980s, and the distinction has been widely used, including by the Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga.
The topic is practical. Anyone who gives reasons for faith will meet objections. How they are answered affects whether the conversation goes on, whether the objector feels heard and whether the apologist learns something. A clumsy reply can make a good case look weak, and a sharp reply can show that an apparent difficulty is not a difficulty at all.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Locate the target of the objection
Every objection aims at something. It may attack a premise, saying it is false or unsupported. It may attack the inference, saying that the premises do not lead to the conclusion. It may attack the conclusion directly with a counterargument. Or it may attack the source or the motive, which is usually less to the point. A good reply begins by working out which target is in view.
To do this, restate the objection in numbered form, as in the mapping lesson, and ask which line it touches. Replying to a charge against the conclusion when the objector has really challenged a premise leaves both parties talking past each other.
Step 2: Know the two kinds of defeater
A rebutting defeater gives a reason to think the claim is false. If someone says the bridge is safe, and an engineer shows that its supports have cracked, the engineer has given a rebutting defeater. An undercutting defeater leaves open whether the claim is true but removes a reason for believing it. If a friend says that the bridge is safe because a certain inspector approved it, and it turns out the inspector was not qualified, the claim is not shown false, but the support is gone.
The distinction helps in apologetics. The problem of evil is often offered as a rebutting defeater of belief in God: it is said to show that God does not exist. Many believers respond that it is not that strong, but may still weaken some arguments for God, acting as a partial undercutter. Critics of arguments from design sometimes argue that evolutionary explanation undercuts the inference to a designer without showing that no designer exists. The distinction can bring clarity.
Step 3: Choose the right kind of reply
Several replies are available. A defender may deny a premise and give a reason. A defender may grant the premises and deny that the conclusion follows, perhaps by showing a counterexample to the form. A defender may offer a counter-defeater: a reason to think the objection itself is mistaken. A defender may also turn the objection around, a move sometimes called reductio, by showing that the objection leads to results the objector would not accept.
The last move is easily abused. If someone argues that no claims about God can be tested, a reply that the claim itself cannot be tested may be fair or may be a clever trick, depending on how the objection is worded. Honest use requires checking that the objection was in fact stated in the self-defeating form.
Step 4: Concede where concession is due
A strong reply often begins with an admission. If an objector is right about one point, the defender gains by saying so. A concession may be partial: yes, that argument does not prove everything it claims, but it still supports a more modest claim. It may show that one line of a cumulative case is weaker than supposed. It may be that no good answer has yet been found, and then the right thing is to say so.
Concession is not weakness. It builds trust and shows that the speaker is not simply defending a position at any cost. A tradition that has argued for two thousand years has had time to learn which arguments fail, and many Christian thinkers have openly given up arguments they once used.
Step 5: Keep the exchange honest
Answers should meet the objection that was raised, not a convenient nearby one. They should avoid changing the meaning of key terms in the middle. They should say what would count as a better objection. And they should allow the other side to reply. Few conversations about the deepest questions end with a decisive victory. More often, an exchange of objections and replies clarifies where the real dispute lies.
A useful closing move is a summary: here is what was claimed, here is the objection, here is how the reply addresses it, and here is what remains open. It shows respect and keeps the record straight.
- What are the three main targets of an objection?
- What is the difference between a rebutting and an undercutting defeater?
- How can you tell whether you have answered the right objection?
- When is a concession wise, and when might it be a mistake?
- How can the reductio form of reply be used unfairly?
- What does it mean to say that a strong exchange ends by clarifying the dispute?
Examples
Rebutting and undercutting
A student argues that the Gospels must be accurate because they were written by eyewitnesses. A critic could offer a rebutting defeater by showing that the Gospels contain a specific error. A critic could offer an undercutting defeater by arguing that there is no good evidence the authors were eyewitnesses, without claiming the Gospels are false. The two replies call for different responses.
Answering the right premise
An argument claims: everything that begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; so the universe has a cause. A critic says that quantum events seem to lack causes. The defender asks whether the objection touches the first premise as stated, since the premise may concern things that begin to exist in a particular way. This shows how a precise reply depends on knowing the premise.
A fair concession
A believer who has used an argument based on the complexity of the eye reads about the history of the eye’s development and sees that the argument does not show what it was thought to. The believer drops the argument, keeps others that do not depend on it and explains why. This is a constructed example of intellectual honesty.
Different perspectives
Reformed epistemology
Alvin Plantinga treats belief in God as properly basic, but allows that such belief can be defeated by good objections. He therefore spends considerable effort on replying to proposed defeaters, such as the problem of evil and historical criticism of Scripture.
Roman Catholic scholastic
Aquinas models reply: he grants truth in each objection where it exists and distinguishes senses of key terms. His responses often begin with a distinction, showing that the objection is correct in one sense and mistaken in another.
Eastern Orthodox
Orthodox theologians have responded to objections in councils and treatises, but warn that arguments cannot capture the mystery of God. They are therefore often willing to say that a question exceeds reason and to point to worship, without claiming that every difficulty has a neat solution.
Skeptical and secular philosophers
Many secular philosophers hold that a belief should be given up when a defeater is found and not replaced. They argue that some Christian replies are too ready to claim mystery and that replies should be judged by the same standard as the original argument.
Jewish tradition
Rabbinic study records objections alongside answers and often leaves questions open. The Jewish tradition of question and response shows that disagreement can be a form of fidelity, and that unresolved questions may continue to be studied for generations.
Why it matters
An apologist is not mainly judged by the arguments offered but by the replies given to challenges. Careful reply separates real difficulties from apparent ones, protects the speaker from claiming too much and gives the listener something worth hearing. For the student, the same skill guards against being shaken by an objection that sounds strong but misses its target.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Any objection that cannot be answered immediately defeats the argument.
Correction: A person may need time to study. Many serious objections have taken centuries to examine. Failing to answer at once is not the same as being refuted.
Misunderstanding: Conceding a point means losing the argument.
Correction: Honest concession often strengthens a case, since it separates the claims that can be defended from those that cannot.
Misunderstanding: A rebuttal must prove the opposite conclusion.
Correction: An undercutting reply only needs to show that the reasons offered do not support the conclusion. It need not prove it false.
Misunderstanding: Turning an objection around is always a good reply.
Correction: It is good only if the objection really has the self-defeating form. Used loosely, it becomes a trick.
Knowledge check
What are the three main targets of an objection to an argument?
An objection may target a premise by denying it or calling it unsupported, target the inference by saying the premises do not lead to the conclusion, or target the conclusion with a counterargument. Identifying the target is the first step in a good reply.
What is the difference between a rebutting and an undercutting defeater?
A rebutting defeater gives a reason to think a claim is false. An undercutting defeater gives a reason to doubt that the evidence offered actually supports the claim, without showing that the claim is false. The responses called for are different.
What is a reductio ad absurdum?
It is a way of arguing in which a claim is assumed and shown to lead to an absurd or unacceptable result, so that the claim should be rejected. It is legitimate only when the claim really does lead to that result.
Why might it be wise to concede a point?
Conceding an objection that is correct separates what can be defended from what cannot, builds trust and avoids claiming too much. A concession can be partial. Many thinkers have strengthened their case by giving up weak arguments.
What does a good closing summary of an exchange include?
It states what was claimed, what objection was raised, how the reply addresses it and what remains open. This keeps the record straight, shows respect to the other party and makes it clear where further work is needed.
Think it through
- Think of a time you were given an objection that you could not answer. What did you do?
- Which type of reply do you reach for first, and is it always the best?
- What is the difference between a stubborn answer and a firm one?
- How would you tell the difference between an unanswered objection and an unanswerable one?
Independent assignment
Objection and reply
In your own notebook, write 500 to 700 words. Take the numbered argument you wrote in an earlier assignment, or choose one from your reading. Write two different objections to it: one aimed at a premise and one aimed at the inference or the conclusion. Label each as a rebutting or undercutting defeater. Then write a reply to each, including one concession if it is honest to do so. Keep this for yourself.
Further study
- Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief Read selectively for the discussion of defeaters.
- Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil A model of reply to an objection: the free will defense against the logical problem of evil.
- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Read how each objection is answered in turn.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Problem of Evil Notice how objections and replies develop over time.
- Job 38 Read the beginning of God’s reply to Job and note how it differs from a reasoned rebuttal.
- Titus 1:9 Read the verse on being able to convince those who contradict.