Skip to content

Course 19 · Lesson 8.2

Building a structured response

10 minute read

Lessons in this course

Course 19 outline

Module 1: The Secular Age: Humanism and Naturalism

  1. What secular, secularism and secularization mean
  2. Secular humanism: its claims and its moral vision
  3. Philosophical naturalism and its alternatives
  4. Christian responses to naturalism and humanism

Module 2: Science, Evolution and Faith

  1. Models of science and religion: conflict, independence, dialogue, integration
  2. What the theory of evolution claims and what it does not
  3. Christian positions on creation and evolution
  4. The history of the conflict story and its critics

Module 3: Criticism of the Bible

  1. The rise of historical and literary criticism
  2. What critics claim about authorship, sources and development
  3. Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant responses to criticism

Module 4: Truth, Relativism and Postmodernism

  1. What postmodernism is, and why the term is hard to define
  2. Truth, language and interpretation
  3. Moral relativism: descriptive, cultural and philosophical forms
  4. Christian responses to relativism and postmodern thought

Module 5: The Masters of Suspicion

  1. Marx on religion, ideology and economic life
  2. Nietzsche on Christianity, morality and the death of God
  3. Freud on religion as illusion
  4. The genetic fallacy, and when explaining the origin of a belief matters

Module 6: Power, Corruption and Morality

  1. Church, state and political power in history
  2. Institutional failure and abuse
  3. Critiques of Christian morality and how Christians reply
  4. Judging a faith by its failures: what follows and what does not

Module 7: Mind, Meaning and Nihilism

  1. Consciousness and the limits of materialism
  2. Meaning and purpose in secular and Christian thought
  3. Nihilism, despair and Christian hope

Module 8: Writing a Response

  1. Stating a challenge in its strongest form
  2. Building a structured response
  3. Conceding what is true in the critic’s case

All courses

Program / Course 19: Modern Challenges / Lesson 8.2

What you will learn

  • Describe the parts of a structured response to a challenge and their order.
  • Distinguish a claim, a reason, evidence and an objection.
  • Compare two or more Christian replies and defend one with reasons.
  • State what is settled, what is debated and what is a matter of personal judgment.

The big idea

A good response to a challenge has a shape. It states the challenge fairly, concedes what is true in it, defines its terms, sets out more than one Christian reply, weighs them, defends one, meets the strongest remaining objection and says honestly what is still open. Following this shape does not guarantee that the reader will agree. It guarantees that the reader can see what was claimed, what reasons were given and where the argument could be questioned. That is the basis of honest disagreement.

Key terms

Thesis
The main claim a piece of writing defends, stated clearly near the beginning.
Premise and conclusion
A premise is a reason offered for a claim. The conclusion is what the premises are meant to support.
Valid and sound
An argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises. It is sound if it is valid and the premises are true.
Objection and reply
An objection is a reason to doubt a claim or an argument. A reply answers it, by denying a premise, showing an error or accepting the point and adjusting the claim.
Settled, debated, personal judgment
Three levels of confidence. Settled means broad agreement among informed people. Debated means serious disagreement among informed people. Personal judgment means that reasonable people may differ and the choice rests with the individual.
Burden of proof
The responsibility to give reasons. Who bears it in a given case is often one of the issues in dispute.
Concession
Granting that an opposing point is true or has force.

Background

The model for a structured reply in the Christian tradition is the medieval disputed question. Aquinas, for example, states the question, lists objections, gives a contrary authority, states his own answer and then replies to each objection. A modern essay is less formal, but a similar order serves it well. Philosophers also use a standard layout: introduce the problem, state the strongest opposing view, give the thesis, argue for it, answer the main objection and conclude with limits.

The assignment for this course follows that order, and the final three lessons prepare for it. The structure is not a mechanical device. It is a way of making sure that the writer has faced the difficulty. Many weak responses to challenges fail because they omit one of the steps, most often the concession and the statement of limits.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: Plan the parts

A response of three to four thousand words can follow eight parts. First, state the challenge in its strongest form with a source. Second, name what is true or important in it. Third, define the key terms and note which are disputed. Fourth, present at least two Christian replies, and show where Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant thinkers differ. Fifth, evaluate the replies. Sixth, defend the one you find strongest. Seventh, raise and answer the strongest remaining objection. Eighth, state what is settled, debated and personal.

It helps to write one sentence for each part before drafting. If a part cannot be reduced to a sentence, the writer does not yet know what he thinks about it.

Step 2: Build the argument

Write the main argument in numbered premises, as a test. Ask of each premise: is it true, and what supports it? Reasons can come from philosophy, history, Scripture, tradition or experience, and the writer should say which he is using. Scripture is a source for Christians, but it does not carry weight with a critic who does not accept its authority. When writing to such a reader, supply reasons that he can weigh.

Check the argument for fallacies. Common ones in this field are the genetic fallacy, the false dilemma (only two options), equivocation (a word used in two senses, as secular was in the first lesson) and appeal to consequences (a belief must be true because its absence would be terrible).

Step 3: Compare the replies

When presenting two replies, give each the advantages its holders claim. Then name the cost of each. For example, in reply to naturalism, a writer might compare the cumulative case argument of Swinburne with the proper basicality argument of Plantinga. The first offers public reasons and is open to the criticism that the probabilities are disputed. The second offers a way of holding belief rationally and is open to the criticism that it is too permissive.

A defense of one reply should say why it is preferred and what would count against it. If the writer’s tradition differs from another on the point, that should be stated plainly, and the other tradition’s strongest reason should be given.

Step 4: Meet the objection and mark the limits

The strongest remaining objection is the one that gives the writer the most trouble. It should be stated at its full strength. Then the writer may reply, concede part, or admit that there is no complete answer. All three are honorable. What is dishonorable is to leave it out.

The final section should rank claims. Some are settled, such as the fact that the church has sometimes served power. Some are debated, such as how to read Genesis. Some are personal judgments, such as how much weight to give an argument from experience. A reader should be able to tell which is which.

  1. What is the thesis, in one sentence?
  2. What are the premises, and which supports each?
  3. Which sources are used, and does the reader accept their authority?
  4. What does each Christian reply cost?
  5. What is the strongest remaining objection, and have I stated it at full strength?
  6. Which of my conclusions are settled, debated or personal?

Examples

An outline

A student writing on the problem of the origin of morals begins with Nietzsche’s genealogy, concedes that some Christian morality has been used for control, defines morality and genealogy, presents a natural law reply and a divine command reply, defends the first, meets the objection that natural law is disputed, and ends with what is settled, debated and personal. (A constructed example.)

A weak response

A draft states a challenge in a sentence, gives one Christian answer as if there were no others, quotes Scripture as proof for a skeptic, and ends with the conclusion that critics are mistaken. The reader cannot tell what was conceded, what was weighed or what is uncertain. (A constructed example.)

Different perspectives

Catholic

The scholastic method, used by Aquinas and taught in Catholic schools, is the classic model of a structured reply. It values the clear statement of objections and the distinction of senses. Catholic tradition holds that faith and reason cooperate, so it welcomes reasoned argument while recognizing the authority of the Church in matters of faith.

Orthodox

Orthodox writing often favors confession of faith and contemplation over disputation, while the Fathers, such as Gregory of Nyssa and John of Damascus, used careful argument when needed. An Orthodox student may stress the limits of argument and the priority of worship, and still follow the order of this lesson as a discipline of honesty.

Protestant

Protestant traditions have produced both careful apologetics and plain proclamation. Reformed scholasticism used a method like Aquinas’s, and Lutheran and Reformed catechisms set out questions and answers. Protestants often add that Scripture should be used openly and that the writer should state the tradition from which he speaks.

Secular and scholarly views

Writers on argument, such as Stephen Toulmin, describe an argument as a claim supported by grounds, warrants and backing, with qualifications and possible rebuttals. This resembles the order of this lesson. Scholars agree that arguments should state their limits and anticipate objections, whatever the subject.

Why it matters

A person who can build a structured response can discuss hard questions without anger and without evasion. The method also protects the writer from himself, since the steps force him to meet difficulties that he might prefer to avoid.

Common misunderstandings

Misunderstanding: Giving more than one Christian reply shows weakness.

Correction: It shows knowledge of the tradition. Christians have held a range of views on many of these questions, and a writer who presents only one misleads the reader.

Misunderstanding: Scripture can settle any argument.

Correction: For Christians it carries authority, but to a reader who does not accept it, it needs supporting reasons, and its interpretation is itself often debated.

Misunderstanding: Admitting what is unresolved weakens a response.

Correction: It strengthens credibility. Readers trust writers who say where their argument ends.

Misunderstanding: A good structure guarantees a true conclusion.

Correction: It guarantees that the reasoning is visible and can be tested. The conclusion may still be mistaken.

Knowledge check

List the eight parts of a structured response.

State the challenge in its strongest form with a source; name what is true in it; define key terms and note disputed ones; present at least two Christian replies; evaluate them; defend the strongest; raise and answer the strongest remaining objection; and state what is settled, what is debated and what is personal judgment. The order helps keep the response honest.

What is the difference between a valid and a sound argument?

An argument is valid if its conclusion follows from its premises, so that if the premises were true, the conclusion would be. It is sound if it is valid and the premises are in fact true. An argument can be valid and unsound. Checking both validity and the truth of the premises is part of testing a response.

How should a writer handle the strongest remaining objection?

He should state it at its full strength, and then reply, concede part of it, or admit that he cannot answer it completely. All three are honest. To leave it out, or to reduce it to a weaker form, is not. Readers trust a writer who names the point at which his argument is most exposed.

What do settled, debated and personal judgment mean?

A settled matter has broad agreement among informed people, such as that the church has at times served power. A debated matter has serious disagreement among informed people, such as the right reading of Genesis. A matter of personal judgment is one on which reasonable people may differ and the choice rests with the individual. A good conclusion labels its claims in this way.

Think it through

  1. Which part of the structure would you most likely omit if you were in a hurry?
  2. When have you been persuaded by an argument that admitted its limits?
  3. How would you respond to a critic who says that structure is just a way to look rational?
  4. Which of your own beliefs is closest to being a personal judgment and not a settled matter?

Independent assignment

An outline with sentences

In your notebook, choose a challenge from this course and write a one-sentence summary for each of the eight parts of a structured response, with two sources for each part where possible. Then write a numbered list of the premises of your main argument and mark the weakest. This should be 500 to 700 words in all. Do not send it.

Further study