Skip to content

Course 19 · Lesson 8.1

Stating a challenge in its strongest form

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 8.1

What you will learn

  • Explain why a response is only as good as the statement of the challenge it answers.
  • Apply a method for stating a rival view so that its holders would accept it.
  • Recognize and avoid straw man, weak man and caricature.
  • Practice with a challenge from this course and test the statement.

The big idea

A reply to an objection is worth something only if the objection was stated well. A common failure is to answer a weaker version, because it is easier to defeat. This is called a straw man. A better habit is to state the challenge so well that its strongest defenders would say that this is what they think, and perhaps even say it was put better than they had put it. This is hard, and it is also an act of honesty and charity. It makes any later answer worth hearing.

Key terms

Straw man
A distorted or weakened version of an opponent’s view that is easy to refute, presented as if it were his actual view.
Steel man
The opposite practice: stating an opponent’s view in its strongest and most defensible form before replying.
Principle of charity
The rule of interpreting another’s words in the way that makes the best sense of them, within reason.
Primary source
A text written by the thinker himself, such as Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals, as opposed to a summary by someone else.
Ideological Turing test
A test in which a person tries to state an opposing view so well that the holders of that view cannot tell it from their own.
Caricature
A picture of a person or view that exaggerates its worst features.
Premise
A statement offered as a reason for a conclusion. Stating a challenge fairly usually means setting out its premises.

Background

The practice is old. Aquinas, in the Summa Theologiae, begins each article by stating objections to his own answer, often with real force, before giving his reply. Medieval disputations required a student to defend a position and to answer the best objections. John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty that a person who knows only his own side of a case knows little of that. He said that one must hear opposing views from those who actually hold them, in their most persuasive form.

In the digital age, people more often see opposing views through summaries made by opponents. The result is that each side holds a picture of the other that the other would not accept. A student of this course has reason to be on guard, because most of the challenges to Christianity come with popular versions that differ from the arguments of the main thinkers. This lesson asks the student to go to the main thinkers.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: Go to the source

Begin with a primary text, or a leading scholarly account, by someone who holds the view. Read enough to see the argument and its context. Slogans such as God is dead, religion is the opium of the people, or truth is relative are the least reliable way to learn what a thinker said. The main thinkers in this course said more subtle things, and the course has tried to show this.

Where it is not possible to read the original, use a good account written by a sympathetic reader. Avoid accounts written by the thinker’s opponents when learning what he said.

Step 2: Set out the argument

State the premises and the conclusion in plain words. Ask what problem the thinker was trying to solve, what evidence he gave, and what he assumed. Identify the part of the argument that carries the weight. For example, in Freud’s argument, the claim that religious beliefs arise mainly from wishes carries the weight, and the evidence for it is a matter for examination.

Include what is true in it. A fair statement does not omit the points where the challenge has force, such as the record of church failure in the critique of power. If a Christian reader finds that the statement makes him uncomfortable, it is probably better than if it did not.

Step 3: Test the statement

Ask four questions. Would a holder of this view accept it as a fair account? Does it use his own terms, and not those of his opponents? Is it in a form that a thoughtful person might actually find persuasive? Is it as strong as the best published statement? If there is a person who holds the view and is willing to read it, ask him. Otherwise, compare it to the best published statement.

A useful discipline is to write the statement without using any word that signals disapproval. Phrases such as claims without evidence, so-called, or alleged mark a statement as unfair.

Step 4: Avoid common errors

Several errors are common. The straw man replaces the argument with a weaker one. The weak man chooses the least capable defender of a view and treats him as typical. The motive attack replaces the argument with a story about why the critic believes it, a form of the genetic fallacy. The mixture error treats several different views, such as secularism, humanism and naturalism, as if they were one.

A last error is the opposite fault: to make the challenge so strong that it cannot be answered, by crediting it with claims its holders do not make. Fairness runs both ways. The aim is the best statement that is truly the critic’s own.

  1. Who would accept this statement as a fair account of his view?
  2. Is it based on his own writing or on a summary by an opponent?
  3. Does it include the premises and the evidence he gives?
  4. Does it use words of disapproval?
  5. Does it include what is true in his view?
  6. Is the view I am describing one thinker’s view or a mixture of several?

Examples

A straw man

A speaker says that atheists believe that everything came from nothing by accident and that life has no value. Most atheists would reject this account and say that they hold nothing of the kind. The answer to it then has no force against them. (A constructed example.)

A stronger statement

A better statement says that many atheists hold that the universe is a natural system, that its origin is an open scientific question, and that human life has value because people have value for each other. The Christian reply now has something real to meet. (A constructed example.)

A test with a friend

A student writes a page on Marx’s view of religion and gives it to a friend who is a socialist. The friend says that it is fair except that it ignores Marx’s point that religion is also protest. The student revises it. (A constructed example.)

Different perspectives

Classical and medieval practice

Aquinas and the medieval schools made the statement of objections a required part of scholarship. A student had to be able to argue the other side as well as its defenders could. The practice reflects a conviction that truth is not afraid of the best objections and that a mind learns by meeting them.

Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant ideals

All three traditions teach that Christians should not bear false witness (Exodus 20:16), which applies to how one describes opponents. Catholic and Protestant apologists have both been criticized for caricatures of unbelief, and many in each tradition have called for better practice. Orthodox writers stress humility and love as the condition for speaking of others.

Secular and scholarly views

Philosophers such as Mill and in recent decades Daniel Dennett have set out rules for fair criticism, including to state the opponent’s position so clearly that he says thanks. Scholars of religion generally hold that a fair study requires understanding a view from the inside before judging it. Critics of religion are often asked to follow the same rule.

Why it matters

A student who learns to state views fairly gains more than a technique. He gains the trust of those who disagree with him, and he frees himself from fear of the best objections. Both are signs of a mind that is secure in the truth and ready to look for it.

Common misunderstandings

Misunderstanding: Stating a view fairly means agreeing with it.

Correction: It means describing it accurately. A person can state a view well and reject it.

Misunderstanding: A strong statement of the opposing view weakens one’s own.

Correction: A response that survives the best objection is stronger. One that depends on a weak version of the objection has not been tested.

Misunderstanding: Slogans are a good summary of a thinker.

Correction: Slogans leave out the argument and context. They are the least reliable guide to what a thinker said.

Misunderstanding: Charity means ignoring the faults of an argument.

Correction: Charity means giving the best reading first. Faults can then be pointed out accurately.

Knowledge check

What is the difference between a straw man and a steel man?

A straw man is a weakened or distorted version of an opponent’s view that is easy to defeat. A steel man is the strongest and most defensible form of the view, stated before replying. The second practice is harder and more honest. It makes any reply more credible, because it answers the view that holders actually hold.

What steps help in stating a challenge fairly?

Go to a primary source or a sympathetic scholarly account, set out the premises and conclusion in plain words, include what is true in the challenge, and test the statement against the question whether a holder would accept it. Avoid words that signal disapproval, such as so-called. If possible, ask a person who holds the view to read it.

Why is attacking a critic’s motives an error?

Because it replaces the argument with a story about its source, which is the genetic fallacy. The motives of a critic, even if bad, do not decide whether his claim is true. Christians should also expect that the same method can be turned on them. The reply should concern the evidence and the reasoning of the challenge.

Can a statement of a challenge be too strong?

Yes. If a writer credits the challenge with claims that its holders do not make, or merges several views into one, he distorts it in the opposite direction. Fairness means stating the best version that is truly the critic’s own. The test is whether a thoughtful holder of the view would agree that it is his view.

Think it through

  1. What view that you reject have you never seen stated by its own defenders?
  2. How would you feel if a critic of your faith read a summary of it that you wrote?
  3. Why is it easier to state a view fairly after meeting someone who holds it?
  4. Which challenge in this course was stated more strongly than you expected?

Independent assignment

The strongest statement

In your notebook, choose one challenge from this course. Write 500 to 700 words stating it as its strongest defenders would, citing at least one primary or leading source. Do not reply to it. Then list the premises in numbered form and mark the premise you think is weakest and the one that is strongest. Do not send it.

Further study