How Should We Do Apologetics? Part 4

In our first three parts of this series, we have examined Evidential Apologetics, Classical Apologetics, and Presuppositional Apologetics. As we noted in part one, Evidential Apologetics, or Evidentialism for short, uses historical evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus to argue for the truth of Christianity and, thus, the existence of God. Classical Apologetics adds logical arguments from natural theology to establish God’s existence before turning to evidential arguments for Christ’s deity. Presuppositional Apologetics, on the other hand, holds that, because of man’s total depravity, it is impossible to argue unbelievers into Christ’s kingdom. Rather, we must depend on the irresistible grace of the Holy Spirit to overcome total depravity and save the lost. Therefore, Presuppositionism claims its purpose is to defend the Christian faith against skeptical attacks. 

In Part 4, we shall examine Cumulative Case Apologetics, “an informal argument that pieces together several lines or types of data into a sort of hypothesis or theory that comprehensively explains that data and does so better than any alternative hypothesis.” i The model for the Cumulative Case approach is a prosecutor’s case presented in a court of law. As a prosecutor seeks to convince the jury that his argument is true “beyond a reasonable doubt,” “Christian theists are urging [unbelievers] that [Christianity] makes better sense of all the evidence available than does any other alternative worldview on offer, whether that alternative is some other theistic view or atheism.” ii The advantage of this approach is that it seeks to make a probable case for Christianity, rather than an absolute one as do some of the classical arguments of natural theology. Thus, the task is somewhat easier for the Cumulative Case approach. 

The Cumulative Case argument is similar to the argument used by many atheists to try to disprove God’s existence. For example, atheist Julian Baggini writes, “What I want to suggest is that all the strong evidence tells in favour of atheism, and only weak evidence tells against it. In any ordinary case, this would be enough to establish that atheism is true. The situation is comparable to that of water freezing at zero degrees centigrade: all the strong evidence suggests it does. Only the weak evidence of anecdote, myth, hearsay, and illusionists tells against it.” iii.  

Obviously, Cumulative Case proponents will disagree with Baggini’s claim that their evidence for God is “weak.” For instance, it is common for skeptics to assert that there is no solid evidence that Jesus ever existed. In previous columns, we refuted these “mythical Jesus” claims with historical evidence both from the New Testament and from ancient first and second-century historians.iv It is the atheist who has a major obstacle to overcome. To make his case, he must prove a universal negative: there is no God anywhere, ever. Anything less leaves us with, at most, agnosticism: we doubt that God exists. This, however, is exactly where Cumulative Case Apologetics comes in. It offers evidence that Christianity is true “beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

Paul Feinberg refers to the Cumulative Case Argument as “the witness of the Holy Spirit” to unbelievers, which he divides into two aspects: the subjective (internal) witness and the objective (external) witness. 

Feinberg argues that, internally, the Spirit convicts unbelievers of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8-11). He also appeals to the unbeliever’s conscience (Romans 2:14-16) and to his innate sense that God exists (Romans 1:18-20) as evidence of the Holy Spirit’s internal witness. However, Feinberg admits that unbelievers regularly suppress this witness. He says, “If the entire case for Christianity were subjective and personal, it might make belief simply a matter of the will. One might choose to believe whatever he wanted, claiming that he had divine assurance that he was right.”v 

Consequently, Feinberg sees the need for the external witness of the Spirit. By this, he means the combined witness of several elements. The first of these is the theistic arguments which we discussed in part two of this series.vi These include the ontological arguments, the cosmological arguments, and the teleological/design arguments. The key difference between their use in Classical Apologetics and here in Cumulative Case Apologetics, Feinberg says, is “these arguments are now introduced as arguments, not proofs. They introduce certain aspects of our experience that appear to need explanation and seem to point to God.” vii In response, the atheist must show that the naturalistic explanation of our experience is more plausible than the theistic one. This is a much more difficult task than most atheists will admit. As G. K. Chesterton pointed out, “The man of the nineteenth century did not disbelieve in the Resurrection because his liberal Christianity allowed him to doubt it. He disbelieved in it because his very strict materialism did not allow him to believe it.“viii 

Second, there is the testimony of religious experience. This does not have to be a supernatural experience, such as Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances to His disciples (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). Rather, it can be a natural encounter with Jesus through the testimony of Christians and through life situations, which can influence an individual to accept Christ as his Savior. Sanctified lives can be a powerful witness of the Christian faith to unbelievers. 

Third, Feinberg notes the influence of innate moral law. As we argued in Part 2, though the claim of moral relativism is common today, the argument in favor of objective moral truth remains strong. Over seventy years ago, C. S. Lewis, one of the most influential Cumulative Case proponents, argued that a set of immutable moral truths, which he called “the Moral Law,” exists across all times, cultures, and religions.ix This Moral Law, Lewis claimed, could not be merely instinct or social convention, or it would change over time and place. Rather, it must be an objective, immutable, ultimate standard of right and wrong by which we can judge the morality of any human doctrine or behavior. Moreover, Lewis argued that the Moral Law cannot be the product of innate matter or natural law, for we can disobey the Moral Law, but not a natural law, such as gravity. Therefore, the Moral Law must come from a mind, for only a mind can tell us how to choose. 

Fourth, and finally, Feinberg includes the witness of divine revelation—the Bible.x He says, “While this claim is controversial today, orthodox Christianity has claimed that the Bible is a revelation from God. As such, it is authoritative where it speaks.” xi This aspect of the external witness of the Spirit amounts to Evidentialism, which we covered in Part 1 of this series. Here, as there, “The resurrection is the crucial piece of evidence in the establishment of the deity of Christ, and it was verifiable through empirical evidence, such as the empty tomb and Christ’s post-resurrection appearances.” xii 

Of course, as is the case for the previous three approaches, the Cumulative Case approach is not without its critics. Two primary criticisms of this approach are the “ten leaky buckets” objection and the Postmodern objection. The first objection claims that combining several ineffective arguments cannot make one good argument, just as ten leaky buckets, combined, will still fail to hold water.  

The problem with this rebuttal is that it assumes that any argument that fails to conclude is worthless. Therefore, it overlooks the possibility of another argument reinforcing the first one to bridge the gap to the desired conclusion, just as the leaky buckets can be aligned properly to cover the leaks. For example, a frequent criticism of the intelligent design argument is the claim that even if it points to an intelligent designer, it fails to prove that the designer is the biblical God. An appropriate response is to point to Romans 1:20, which ascribes the creation of the world to God, thus reinforcing the design argument. Consequently, Feinberg concludes, “The apologist is arguing that Christian theism is the best explanation of all available evidence taken together.” xiii. 

The Postmodern objection focuses on two key doctrines of Postmodernism: subjective reality and deconstruction. xiv The first doctrine holds that there is no objective reality. Rather, all reality is relative to the individual. Consequently, Postmoderns reject all “metanarratives” (worldviews), including Christianity, which attempt to explain the meaning of life for all people. Rather, each person has his own “mininarrative,” and no one’s narrative is better than any other’s. 

We can easily see that this first doctrine is self-refuting in two ways. One, if all reality is subjective, then anything we say about reality is subjective as well. However, the statement, “There is no objective truth,” if true, is an objective truth! We are confronted by a contradiction that renders the statement false.  

Two, if all reality is subjective, it is possible for contradictory states of reality to exist at the same time. Thus, in my reality, I can be President of the United States, while at the same time, Donald Trump is President in his. In Postmodernism, there is no attempt to validate or invalidate these truth claims. In the Postmodern world, individuals are free to identify themselves any way they choose, and everyone is expected to honor their identity.xv In the real world, however, if I show up at the White House demanding access to the Oval Office, I suspect my mininarrative would not get me very far. 

The second doctrine, deconstruction, holds that words have no inherent meaning, nor do they receive their meaning from their author. Rather, each reader brings his own meaning to a text, and every text has an infinite number of equally valid meanings. Thus, if one hundred people read the same passage of Scripture, they could arrive at one hundred different interpretations, all valid, and none matching the author’s intent. Again, we are confronted with a contradiction. If the author’s intent is irrelevant, what possible reason would an author have for writing? In particular, why would a Postmodern author write a book instructing his readers to ignore what he says and focus on their understanding of the text? 

Consequently, I agree with Fineberg’s conclusion: “Deconstructionism is not a livable system of belief. Since this is the case, truth in the sense needed to do apologetics is possible. We must take seriously Christian theism’s claim that it is the best explanation of all the evidence.” xvi Likewise, C. S. Lewis, the quintessential Cumulative Case apologist, considered “mere Christianity” to be the best explanation of human existence and purpose. I agree. 

Some noteworthy advocates of Cumulative Case Apologetics: 

Basil Mitchell, The Justification of Religious Belief. 

C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity. 

C. Stephen Evans, Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith. 

G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy: The Romance of Faith. 

Elton Trueblood, Philosophy of Religion.