21 Lessons for the 21st Century: Lesson 7

C.S. Lewis & Francis Schaeffer: Lessons ... from the Most Influential Apologists of Our Time | 1998 | Scott R. Burson & Jerry L. Walls

[logos]

7. Critical rationalism and cumulative case argumentation

In chapter nine we suggested that Lewis and Schaeffer occasionally employed the principles of cumulative case argumentation, an attractive alternative to classical foundationalism. Now we want to propose further that this mode of reasoning and marshaling of arguments has considerable apologetic promise because it can respond to some of the central themes of postmodernism without falling into the relativism that is characteristic of postmodern epistemology. Postmodernism is difficult to define precisely, and its correct contours remain a matter of (perhaps interminable) controversy. This alone is a good reason for Christian apologists to exercise appropriate reserve before assuming the whole world has gone postmodern for now and forever. At any rate, a central postmodern theme is the claim that all fundamental beliefs and commitments are arbitrary and thus impervious to reason and evidence. Given this notion, there is no basis for thinking a rational conversion from one fundamental commitment to another is possible. Thus Stanley Fish characterizes the breach between believer and nonbeliever as follows: "The difference between a believer and a nonbeliever is not that one reasons and the other doesn't, but that one reasons from a first premise the other denies; and from this difference flow others that make the fact that both are reasoning a sign not of commonality but of its absence." Given one's commitment to one's first premise, one can absorb any and all evidence and interpret it to fit one's fundamental belief.

Consider in this light the much-publicized mass suicide of the members of the Heaven's Gate cult in California. In an essay in Time magazine, Pico Iyer argued that the incident raised the question "When does a 'cult' become a faith?" The essence of the essay is that there is no clear answer to this question and, moreover, no way to rationally adjudicate competing religious claims. "The leap of faith is - and has to be - a plunge into the unrational (which to skeptics seems 'unreasonable'), and by its nature it is a move that leaves the rest of us behind. Every religion is a different language that, to those outside it, makes as little sense as Mandarin dialogue or Cyrillic characters do to me." This is an example of a typically postmodern comment, which Stanley Fish would enthusiastically endorse.

It may be that a verificationist methodology, crafted along cumulative case lines with a sensitive feel for the various facets of evidence, has a better chance than any other approach of engaging and converting the postmodern mind. This approach recognizes that we do indeed reason from some fundamental hypothesis, presupposition, paradigm or first premise. Moreover, we do so unavoidably. But such fundamental commitments are subject to verification and confirmation or, on the other hand, disconfirmation or falsification. This is not to deny that a sufficiently ingenious person may not be able to interpret virtually any piece of data to fit his or her first premise. However, not all such hypotheses and first premises are created equal, and not all account equally well for the various multifaceted data that need to be explained in a satisfying worldview. Demonstrating this is the key to avoiding relativism. Doing so creatively and persuasively is the ongoing task of the Christian apologist.

[logos]

NEXT: A new category: Enchanting the Emotions; a new lesson, Emotional redemption

[logos]

A little late this morning.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for this next installment!

It may be that a verificationist methodology, crafted along cumulative case lines with a sensitive feel for the various facets of evidence, has a better chance than any other approach of engaging and converting the postmodern mind. This approach recognizes that we do indeed reason from some fundamental hypothesis, presupposition, paradigm or first premise. Moreover, we do so unavoidably. But such fundamental commitments are subject to verification and confirmation or, on the other hand, disconfirmation or falsification. This is not to deny that a sufficiently ingenious person may not be able to interpret virtually any piece of data to fit his or her first premise. However, not all such hypotheses and first premises are created equal, and not all account equally well for the various multifaceted data that need to be explained in a satisfying worldview. Demonstrating this is the key to avoiding relativism. Doing so creatively and persuasively is the ongoing task of the Christian apologist.

So very true. Strangely, I just made a post with a very similar theme; on that thread the point was that Young Earth Creationists and atheists arguing evolution is futile and contentious until they've first explored the fundamentals, in particular "what is reality?"

[Alex Murphy]

A little late this morning.

You know what this means, don't you? You'll be docked a full letter grade for your tardiness, and your GPA will suffer as a result.

If I were you, I'd be looking for extra credit assignments right about now!

[logos]

Ha! The day I go back to school on any formal basis has already been identified in Scripture - it's known as the Rapture...

[logos]

..."what is reality?"

To be sure. If reality cannot be agreed upon, there is no discussion; lots of noise and smoke perhaps, but no discussion.

[Alamo-Girl]

To be sure. If reality cannot be agreed upon, there is no discussion; lots of noise and smoke perhaps, but no discussion.

So very true. Thanks for your reply!

[blue-duncan]

You know, being around you is like Charlie Brown being around Schroeder. All I see is cows, doggies and kitties while you see Mozart, Hayden and Beethoven I'm going to have to shut off ESPN or learn not to feel guilty.

[Alex Murphy]

...the point was that Young Earth Creationists and atheists arguing evolution is futile and contentious until they've first explored the fundamentals, in particular "what is reality?"

Welcome to Epistemology and Presuppositional Apologetics!

[betty boop]

The difference between a believer and a nonbeliever is not that one reasons and the other doesn't, but that one reasons from a first premise the other denies; and from this difference flow others that make the fact that both are reasoning a sign not of commonality but of its absence.

Stanley Fish's insight is right on the money, IMHO. I often get the impression in conversing with people that, although both correspondents live on the same planet, each lives in a different world.

Thanks so much for today's installment, logos!

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOLOL! You give me waaaay too much credit, blue-duncan! But thank you so much for the encouragement.

[Alamo-Girl]

Welcome to Epistemology and Presuppositional Apologetics!

Thank you! I'm glad to be here!

[Alamo-Girl]

I often get the impression in conversing with people that, although both correspondents live on the same planet, each lives in a different world.

Soooo very true. It is very difficult to make a connection with some, even to ackowledge the differences and agree to mutual respect. Without that the rest of the conversation is a waste. But with it, if the correspondent becomes persuaded, all of the rest of his worldview will topple like a row of dominoes set on end.

[betty boop]

...if the correspondent becomes persuaded, all of the rest of his worldview will topple like a row of dominoes set on end.

Which is seemingly the very thing that some correspondents desperately seek to avoid. Or so it seems to me, sometimes. It's a tough problem, dear A-G.

[blue-duncan]

"if the correspondent becomes persuaded, all of the rest of his worldview will topple like a row of dominoes set on end." The problem then becomes, once you have cleaned the Aegean Stables, not to fill it again with the same stuff you just cleaned out. That I see is a major problem with apologetics today. We can teach the four spiritual laws and Evangelism Explosion, but once the first question comes, like "how do you know?", for the most part we are not equipped to handle it. We would rather spend eight weeks on "The Jesus I Never Knew" course (and I don't mean to insult Yancy) and feel good, than the elementary Apologetics of "Know What.." and "Know Why.." of Paul Little that may cause brain fatigue. And by all means don't make us write our thinking down somewhere, that is so confining.

[newgeezer]

Another home run, and it describes my sister's liberal husband perfectly. He's one of those who says all religions are equally unprovable and irrational. (How very 'tolerant' of him.)

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. It is a tough problem. I'm hoping this series will help us work through at least some of it.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply!

The problem then becomes, once you have cleaned the Aegean Stables, not to fill it again with the same stuff you just cleaned out. That I see is a major problem with apologetics today.

Indeed. And I strongly suggest that the response cannot be scripted, by man that is.