THCT214: Apologetics and Evangelism Joseph W. Moloney Assignment 3: You will submit an essay which explores and critically assesses one contemporary school of apologetics or one contemporary model of evangelism from the approaches presented in the Lectures. Cumulative Case Apologetics Joseph W. Moloney An apologetic is a presentation of an ordered defence of the faith and reasons to believe in the claims of a particular religion or denomination. There are a number of different ways to structure apologetics. The most common methods are: Classical, Cumulative, Evidential, and Presuppositional apologetic methods. In this essay I will critically analyse the cumulative case method of structuring an apologetic and consider the reasons for and against preferring this model, especially in contrast to the Classical method. What is cumulative case apologetics? An apologetic structured in the Cumulative Case mode (or also commonly known as abductive reasoning or best explanation apologetics) presents a number of loosely connected arguments or evidences to demonstrate a greater point. None of the arguments necessarily strictly relates to, or even leads to the other – but all arguments ultimately build up to the same final conclusion. The Cumulative Case apologist is not concerned with absolutely or conclusively proving any single point, but instead producing enough probable arguments to overwhelm the audience to accept the larger premise. Thus, a Cumulative Case apology relies on abductive reasoning, which is to consider many arguments that together are the best possible conclusion from the given data/evidence. Abduction works with less than total certainty, to present conclusions to produce probable truths.1 It would be fair to say that each sub-argument is intended only to be a “seed of doubt,” eroding the defences of the audience slowly, rather than the Classical apologist who would rather hammer one point conclusively before making the next. In this method of Cumulative “white- 1 Timothy R. Phillips, Okholm, Dennis, ed. Christian Apologetics in the Postmodern World, InterVarsity Press, 20 Aug 2009, 111. 1|Page THCT214: Apologetics and Evangelism Joseph W. Moloney anting” the apologist may employ tactics from the Presuppositional Apologist insofar as they will often build arguments on assumptions without concern for establishing the absolute truth of those assumptions. The abductive reasoning process of this method is similar to how a lawyer would structure a case, as well as the same kind of processes common to mechanics, doctors and crime scene investigators, who all diagnose a series of clues to deduce the most reasonable cause. Christian apologists that employ this method include: Basil Mitchell, C.S. Lewis, C. Stephen Evans, and Richard Swinburne. Paul D. Feinberg explains and defends the Cumulative Case mode in Five Views on Apologetics, and he argues for the Cumulative method from the angle that Christianity is best presented as “making better sense of all the available evidence than does any other alternative worldview”.2 Interesting, while William Lane Craig typically prefers the Classical method and defends it in this same book, he has also used and argued for the validity of the Cumulative method.3 As discussed further in the paper, Peter Kreeft also prefers the solid and safe foundation of the Classical method in debates, however, he readily admits the importance of being able to employ both Classical and Cumulative tactics depending on the audience and because often Classical arguments can become too complex for people.4 Speculative arguments A benefit of this method is that the apologist is not limited to “rock solid” arguments, but can enter into speculation. In fact, the agenda of the cumulative case apologist is largely speculative. This is because the next claim is not necessarily contingent on the previous claim. The apology only seeks to make enough speculative arguments to build up the probability of the larger premise. The apologist is able to speculate because the larger argument does not hinge on any one argument and this mode allows for assumptions. In this way, the Cumulative Case apology is structured much like a traditional conspiracy theory. For 2 Steven B. Cowan ed. Five Views on Apologetics, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000). William Lane Craig vs Mike Begon: "Is God A Delusion?" Liverpool, UK; 2007. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuKZjMU0h30 4 Peter Kreeft, Ronald Tacelli. “The Nature, Power and Limitation of Apologetics,” Handbook of Catholic Apologetics, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2009, 26. 3 2|Page THCT214: Apologetics and Evangelism Joseph W. Moloney example, we can’t directly observe gravity, but we can observe its effects. Similarly, we can’t observe God, but we can draw conclusions from observations. Therefore, the nature of the case for Christianity is not a formal argument or a scientific proof, and so this method of abductive reasoning is most suitable. Dealing with opinion Another benefit of using this method in a theological discussion is that the nature of Scriptural interpretation is that many points of the faith and theology ultimately rests on personal opinion – and so by its very nature is speculation. If I argue that a certain passage from Scripture means one thing, which is in opposition to another person’s opinion, I can only use other proof texts and reason to make my argument, but I can’t genuinely offer anything absolutely certain to the audience the way a Classical apologist would. I may add some historical evidence to support my hermeneutic of interpretation, but in the end, I have even had opponents of mine denounce St Ignatius of Antioch as a heretic – a man who was ordained by St Peter and a disciple of St John the Apostle. This example demonstrates well the lack of any authority above opinion when it comes to debating Scripture. Hence, where two parties clash over a verse, the apologist of the Cumulative method can acknowledges the claims of the opposition regarding this subargument and then changes tact to come at the argument from another direction, possibly using another passage from Scripture, to build the case. In this way, the flexibility of the Cumulative method and the ability to deploy the argument from multiple angles, helps to overcome the problem of arguments stalling. Mystery and faith One of the most important aspects of the Cumulative Case apology, I believe, is that it encourages faith and promotes a sense of mystery - without asking the audience to abandon their reason or logic. The arguments put forth must be logical, but they don’t ask for, or lead to, perfect proofs. Again, this is why this method is so well suited to arguing theology, for what kind of a faith doesn’t require faith? In this way, the arguments tend to handle and promote the mysteries of the faith more honestly and allow for uncertainty in the presentation of individual pieces of evidence. Every day, people accept less than absolute proofs in their 3|Page THCT214: Apologetics and Evangelism Joseph W. Moloney life, instead relying more on our reason and logic to come to sound conclusions based on the evidence available.5 This method plays into the same pattern of thinking, that is, based on the available evidence, God is a more reasonable conclusion than the alternative explanations. Cumulative Case is the best because it is the most flexible and allows the apologist a certain license to be creative in their approach. I am always amazed at the diverse reasons and arguments that people give for their conversions. In a conversation about the faith, I like to try to read the person and send arguments their way that I feel would best resonate with their personality. So, much like a shotgun approach, I attempt to use every method and argument possible and see what hits. For example, the Classical two-step method of apologetics would be most useful against someone who is more emotionally inclined because they are less likely to be able to respond to a simple clear articulation of why there is a God and why Jesus is that God. On the other hand, I might try to undermine the seasoned atheist apologist with a jovial mockery of their sub culture. Having disarmed them, I would then lead them to question their intentions and reveal their hidden motivations for being a hard atheist, all as opposed to a long slog trying to “prove” God, which is what they specialise in, and where a Classical approach would likely be fruitless or laborious. In this same vein, Peter Kreeft argues for the place of both the Classical and the Cumulative method. Kreeft admits miracles and religious experience as evidence because they “claim strong probability” although “not demonstrative certainty”. Kreeft says that he uses them because “they form part of a strong cumulative case,” because even though arguments with stronger certainty exist, such as Aquinas’s five ways, he admits that they are complex “and therefore are not the most convincing to most people”.6 In the end, Kreeft says that like twined rope, these stronger arguments and more speculative ones together make a very strong case. C.S. Lewis is also considered a Classical apologist, however, in his later writings, developed a Cumulative approach (also characteristically deist) that focused on the deity of Christ and he would admit more imaginative and speculative arguments to build a case for belief in God and Christianity. He argued 5 Kenneth Boa, Robert Bowman. Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith, InterVarsity Press, 2012, 212. 6 Peter Kreeft, Ronald Tacelli. “The Nature, Power and Limitation of Apologetics,” Handbook of Catholic Apologetics, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2009, 26. 4|Page THCT214: Apologetics and Evangelism Joseph W. Moloney that sensitivity to personal and relational concerns were important because apologetics was a function of the whole human person.7 Criticism The Cumulative Case method has its shortcomings. Typically, an apologist would make arguments or statements that are either true or false – not somewhere in between. The risk of the Cumulative method is that the credibility of the apology and apologist is at stake when arguing for less certain articles of the faith such as miracles. For example, if one argument can be thrown into sufficient doubt, this fact will cast doubt on all the subsequent arguments and the final conclusion of the apologist. So while the Cumulative method is flexible in admitting speculation and less incontestable evidence, it is at the same time its weakness. The cumulative method is more likely to overwhelm an individual to a particular conclusion, but is less effective on a larger impersonal audience. This is because the strength of this method is in its flexibility and ability to tailor the discourse as necessary. However, where the approach cannot be tailored, or where there is no specific respondent, but a general audience, this is not possible. That’s not to say that an overwhelming case can’t be made or won’t be successful, just that this doesn’t play as well to the strengths of the method. Classical apologists, will usually hammer one valid argument to establish their conclusion. On the other hand, a cumulative approach would be to leverage several lesser arguments. Yet, several invalid or poor arguments do not necessarily combine to form one strong and valid conclusion. Anthony Flew is a famous critic of this method, and says that “If one leaky bucket will not hold water there is no reason to think that ten can”8. He says that a failed proof is not a pointer to anything. To this I would agree, but I think it 7 Classical Apologetics: It Stands to Reason, Faith Has it’s Reasons Series, Bible.org, 2006, 16. https://bible.org/seriespage/5-classical-apologetics-it-stands-reason 8 Anthony Flew, God and Philosophy, Harcourt, Brace & World, 1966, 63. 5|Page THCT214: Apologetics and Evangelism Joseph W. Moloney misunderstands the spirit of the cumulative case apology, which is not to level invalid or “failed” arguments, but to admit less than certain arguments. However, this is not attractive to all apologists, because it requires probabilities to be assigned to premises and to consider likelihood, hence to some this method is unappealing because it requires concession from the very start. Thus, the use of the cumulative argument is a tacit admission that no single argument is entirely satisfactory in itself. Conclusion For this reason, the Cumulative Case method and its use of abductive reasoning is most appropriate for Christian apologetics. The Cumulative method doesn’t rely on absolute proofs, but instead draws on a person’s faith. Most importantly, this method allows for, and encourages us, to ponder the mystery of creation, all the while making a case for God and the Christian faith. I have argued that this method best deals with mystery and uncertainty, because it is only about leading the audience to the most probable conclusion by an accumulation of evidence. That’s not to say that empirical data or evidentiary value is not important, just that we can admit speculation and arguments that are not strong in these categories and that we can still build a case outside of these. Absolute proof is not required for belief in God. A rational person can have a reasonable faith that is based upon less than absolute proof. Hence, the Cumulative Case method is entirely suitable for theological discussions and plays well into the complexities and sensitivities of human nature in these discussions. 6|Page THCT214: Apologetics and Evangelism Joseph W. Moloney BIBLIOGRAPHY Boa, Kenneth, Robert Bowman. Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith, InterVarsity Press, 2012, 212. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=U4VqOAuQWagC&pg “Classical Apologetics: It Stands to Reason”, Faith Has it’s Reasons Series, Bible.org, 2006, 16. https://bible.org/seriespage/5-classical-apologetics-it-stands-reason Cowan, Steven B. and Stanley N. Gundry, eds. Five Views on Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2000. Craig, William Lane vs Mike Begon: "Is God A Delusion?" Liverpool, UK; 2007. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuKZjMU0h30 Flew, Anthony. God and Philosophy, Harcourt, Brace & World, 1966. Gaillardetz, Richard. “Do we Need a New(Er) Apologetics?” America, Feb 02, 2004. 26, http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/docview/209686583?accountid=8194 Kreeft, Peter, Ronald Tacelli. “The Nature, Power and Limitation of Apologetics,” Handbook of Catholic Apologetics, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2009, 13-26. Phillips, Timothy, Dennis Okholm. ed. Christian Apologetics in the Postmodern World, InterVarsity Press, 20 Aug 2009, 111. 7|Page
