Program / Course 13: Foundations of Apologetics / Lesson 5.1
What you will learn
- Define steelmanning and contrast it with the straw man.
- Follow a step-by-step method for restating an opposing argument so that its defender would accept it.
- Explain how medieval and modern traditions practiced this discipline.
- Practice steelmanning an argument you reject.
The big idea
To steelman an argument is to state it in the strongest, most defensible form its defenders could give, before replying to it. It is the opposite of the straw man, which states a position weakly so that it is easy to knock down. The practice serves honesty, because a view cannot be fairly judged until it is fairly understood. It also serves the apologist’s own cause, since a defense that answers only weak versions of an objection will fail the first time a strong version is met. The test of success is whether the opponent would say that the restatement is exactly what was meant.
Key terms
- Steelman
- To restate an opposing view in the strongest form, even improving it where the opponent stated it poorly.
- Straw man
- A deliberately or carelessly weakened version of an opposing view, set up to be easily refuted.
- Charity
- The practice of interpreting another person’s words in the most reasonable way before criticizing them.
- Rapoport’s rules
- A set of steps attributed to the social psychologist Anatol Rapoport for fair criticism: restate the other view, list points of agreement, name what you learned, and only then criticize.
- Objection
- A reason given against a claim or an argument.
- Disputed question
- A medieval teaching form in which a question is posed, objections are stated, a reply is given and each objection is answered.
Background
The word steelman is modern, a play on straw man, but the practice is old. In the medieval universities, theological and philosophical questions were taught through disputation. In his Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas states each question and then sets out the strongest objections to his own view before giving his answer. Readers can see that he often puts the case against himself with force.
The Hebrew Scriptures contain a related idea: He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him (Proverbs 18:17). The nineteenth-century English philosopher John Stuart Mill argued in On Liberty that a person who knows only his own side of a case knows little even of that. Whatever the era, the principle is that understanding requires the strongest form of the other side.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Listen for what the opponent actually says
Begin with the source. Read or listen to the opponent’s own statement of the position, in their own words, and not a summary by someone on your side. Take notes on the main claim, the reasons given and the examples used. Note what they say matters most to them.
Then ask what is at stake. People rarely argue for a view for no reason. An argument against belief in God may come from the experience of suffering, from the study of science or from a wound inflicted by religious people. Seeing the motive helps to see what the argument is trying to do.
Step 2: Restate it in your own words
Write the argument in a few clear sentences or in numbered form. Use the opponent’s own key terms. Where their statement is vague or weak, strengthen it: supply the unstated premise they would likely accept, fix a minor error and add the best supporting reason a defender of the view could give. This is the difference between summarizing and steelmanning.
Check the result by asking whether the opponent, if present, would say it is fair. If possible, show it to someone who holds the view and ask for corrections. Accept their corrections even if they make the argument harder to answer.
Step 3: Use Rapoport’s rules
Rapoport’s rules, as later popularized, give a reliable order. First, restate the other position so clearly and fairly that the other person says that this is a better statement of the view than the one they gave. Second, list any points of agreement, especially those that are not general or widely held. Third, mention anything you have learned from the other view. Only then may you say a word of rebuttal or criticism.
The rules do not require agreeing with the opponent. They require doing the work of understanding first. People who follow them often find that disagreements narrow, because some of what seemed to be a clash was a misunderstanding.
Step 4: Look for the best reasons, not the worst representatives
A common temptation is to answer the weakest spokesperson. A Christian may answer the angriest atheist, or an atheist the most careless preacher. This feels satisfying but teaches little. The better course is to find the strongest published case for the other side. For arguments against Christianity, that might include the philosopher David Hume on miracles and religion, the problem of evil as discussed by many modern philosophers, or Nietzsche’s critique of Christian morality. For Christianity, an honest skeptic should read the best defenders, not only the loudest.
A related habit is to separate a view from its bad reputation. A position may be associated with unpleasant people or with historical harm, and still contain arguments that deserve a serious reply.
Step 5: Know the limits and the purposes
Steelmanning is not flattery, and it does not mean pretending that every argument is strong. Sometimes the strongest version is still weak, and an honest reply says so. It also does not mean inventing an argument the opponent never made and then praising it. The task is to improve the statement while keeping to the substance of the position.
The aim is understanding first, and then truth. A believer who steelmans an objection will either find a better answer or be reminded of a real difficulty. Either result is a gain. A skeptic who steelmans a Christian argument will either find the weak point more exactly or see that it carries more weight than expected.
- How does a steelman differ from a straw man and from a mere summary?
- What does Proverbs 18:17 suggest about hearing only one side?
- Why did Aquinas state objections to his own view before answering them?
- What are the four parts of Rapoport’s rules?
- Who are the best spokespeople for a view you reject, and have you read them?
- What might you gain from steelmanning an argument that you will still reject?
Examples
A weak and a strong statement of an objection
Weak: Atheists think there is no God because they want to sin. Strong: A person may reason that if a good and powerful God existed, the amount and kind of suffering in the world would be hard to explain, and that the explanations offered by believers do not reduce this difficulty enough. The second version states a serious argument, the problem of evil, as its defenders might put it.
Aquinas and the objections
In the Summa Theologiae, Aquinas asks whether God exists. Before giving his Five Ways, he states two objections: that the existence of evil argues against God, and that nature can be explained without God. He gives them in their strongest form and then replies to each. The method is meant to show that his answer has survived a fair test.
Rapoport’s rules in a conversation
A Christian student speaks with a classmate who thinks religion is outdated. The student asks whether the following is right: the classmate thinks that science has made religious explanations unnecessary, and that holding to faith is a habit more than a conclusion. The classmate says that is right and adds a point. The student then notes where they agree, that some religious claims about the physical world have been refuted, and what she learned. Only after this does she disagree. This is a constructed example.
Different perspectives
Roman Catholic scholastic tradition
The disputed question was developed in medieval universities and remains a model in Catholic education. Aquinas treated opponents, including Jewish, Muslim and pagan philosophers, as serious contributors to a common search for truth, citing Aristotle and Maimonides respectfully.
Jewish tradition of debate
The Talmud records disagreements among the rabbis and preserves minority opinions alongside majority ones. A well-known tradition holds that the school of Hillel was honored in part because its members taught the views of the school of Shammai as well as their own, and mentioned them first.
Protestant tradition
Protestant theologians such as John Calvin and Francis Turretin set out opposing views before replying, though polemics of the period were often harsh. Modern evangelical writers increasingly encourage fair statement of opposing views as part of Christian integrity.
Eastern Orthodox
Orthodox writers stress humility and the danger of pride in argument. The desert tradition warns against the desire to win and counsels listening, a spirit that supports the fair hearing of an opponent.
Secular philosophy and science
Philosophers and scientists commonly teach that a view should be tested against its best rivals. The principle of charity is a standard part of academic philosophy, and the steelman has become a popular ideal in public discussion.
Why it matters
Apologetics that has not met strong objections will fail in the face of them. Steelmanning builds resilience in the apologist and builds trust with the listener, who can tell whether his or her view has been understood. It is also a matter of justice: to report another person’s views accurately is a way of respecting that person. For a Christian, it fits the call to love one’s neighbor and to avoid bearing false witness (Exodus 20:16).
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Steelmanning means agreeing with the opponent.
Correction: It means understanding the view well enough to state it fairly. A person can steelman a view and still reject it.
Misunderstanding: A steelman is a trick for winning.
Correction: Used as a trick, it fails. It is a discipline of understanding. The benefit is accuracy, and any advantage in persuasion follows from it.
Misunderstanding: Only polite opponents deserve a steelman.
Correction: The question is whether the argument is strong, not whether its defender is pleasant. Even rude critics may make real points.
Misunderstanding: Strengthening an opponent’s argument means making it up.
Correction: A steelman keeps to the substance of the position. It adds only what the opponent would accept or what their best defenders have said.
Knowledge check
What is steelmanning?
It is the practice of restating an opposing view in the strongest, most defensible form, even improving it where the opponent stated it poorly, before replying. The test is whether the opponent would say that the restatement is fair and accurate.
How does it differ from creating a straw man?
A straw man presents the opposing view in a weak or distorted form so that it is easy to refute. A steelman presents it at its strongest. The first protects the speaker’s confidence at the cost of truth. The second serves truth, even when it makes the reply harder.
What are Rapoport’s rules?
Restate the other position so well that the other person approves. List points of agreement. Mention anything learned from the other view. Only then offer rebuttal or criticism. The order ensures that understanding comes before disagreement.
How did Aquinas practice a similar discipline?
In the Summa Theologiae he begins each question with the strongest objections to his own position, stated in their own terms, then gives his answer and replies to each objection. This form lets the reader see that the view has met a real test.
Why should one look for the best spokespeople for an opposing view?
Answering the weakest or loudest representative teaches little and gives a false sense of security. The best published case is the real test. Reading the strongest authors also shows what motivates the position and where its genuine difficulties lie.
Think it through
- Whose argument have you rejected without reading their best statement of it?
- How would you feel if someone summarized your most important belief as its critics do?
- What is the hardest part of stating a view you find offensive?
- How could steelmanning change the tone of a family or church disagreement?
Independent assignment
Write a steelman
In your own notebook, write 600 to 800 words. Choose one argument against Christianity that you find challenging (for example, an argument from the problem of evil, or from Hume on miracles). Read a strong source for it. Then write a steelman of the argument as its best defender would state it, in about 300 words, followed by Rapoport’s other steps: points of agreement, something learned, and only at the end a brief, honest reply. Keep this for yourself.
Further study
- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Open any article and read the objections first. Notice how they are stated.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Problem of Evil A fair survey of the problem of evil and the replies.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Hume on Religion Hume’s critique of natural religion, to be read with a steelmanning goal.
- Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals Read selectively to meet a powerful critique of Christian morality in its author’s own words.
- Proverbs 18:17 Read the verse as a principle of fair hearing.
- Exodus 20:16 Read the commandment against false witness and ask how it applies to describing another person’s views.