decided to write historical fiction about a previously unknown character? This conclusion is illogical in that it does not follow from the evidence.
This is an example of what’s known as “evidential apologetics,” which, historically, has been the most common and most effective method of defending Christianity. A minor and far more recent counterpart to the classical evidential apologetics is known in Protestant (especially Calvinist/Reformed) circles as “presuppositional apologetics,”22 which seeks to prove Christian truths by way of first presupposing the “self-attesting” divinity of Jesus Christ and the “self-attesting” nature of the Bible as inspired, inerrant revelation. While it is certainly true that Jesus is true God and true man and the Holy Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant, the presuppositional apologetics technique23 is generally less effective than the evidentialist approach. But it is also inadequate as a means of engaging modern culture with its relentless demand for “evidence” before it will believe in something.24
Avery Dulles, S.J., describes presuppositional apologetics, as “practiced by Protestants,” as a position that “normally rests on the premise that human reason has been so damaged by sin that evidential apologetics is useless. Presuppositionalists therefore begin by assuming that the teaching of the Bible is true. Setting out from this axiom, the apologist argues that biblical revelation yields a coherent explanation of our experience in the world and that other worldviews are, in comparison, incoherent. Some add that it is impossible to live or think without logically presupposing the reality of God, the source and measure of all truth.”25 One of my own books, The Godless Delusion (coauthored with Kenneth Hensley), is a kind of hybrid between pre-suppositional and evidentialist apologetics, incorporating the useful elements of the former (e.g., that the existence of God sufficiently explains the reality of incorporeal realities such as truth, love, and knowledge and that atheism cannot adequately explain them) and welding them to the evidentialist chassis of making the case for God by an appeal to the overwhelming evidence that he exists.
The evidentialist approach to apologetics seeks to make use of principles of evidence that are commonly agreed upon by both Christians and non-Christians, even atheists, e.g., historical evidence, eyewitness testimony, et cetera. As we have seen, the two primary categories of arguments are deductive and inductive.
Deductive arguments are structured as either a modus ponens (Latin: a way of putting) or a modus tolens (a way of taking). An example of the former is:
If Jesus performed miracles such as raising people from the dead, then it seems likely that he was more than a mere human being — possibly God.
Jesus did raise people from the dead.
Therefore it seems likely that he was more than a more human being — possibly God.
An example of the latter approach (modus tolens) is:
If the Apostles were lying about Jesus rising from the dead (knowing that he did not rise), it seems likely that they lied for some kind of personal gain, such as wealth, concubines, worldly prestige, et cetera.
The Apostles did not gain wealth, concubines, or worldly prestige but were, instead, scorned, hunted, and eventually martyred because of their message about Jesus.
Therefore, the Apostles were not lying about Jesus’ Resurrection.
When you make an apologetics argument based on documentary evidence, such as an appeal to early pagan, Jewish, or Christian authors to corroborate your claim that Jesus was a real historical person, the more examples you offer the better they help to corroborate and support your hypothesis. Another example would be that the early Church believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. To make this case, you should adduce quotations to that effect from significant and authoritative early witnesses such as St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, et cetera. Providing multiple examples to support your position is far more compelling than a single example, which may or may not be adequate support.
Be aware of and be prepared for counterexamples. For example, when you explain the biblical doctrine of the interlocking, interdependent nature of Scripture and Tradition in the Church26 by quoting passages that demonstrate the importance and necessity of Apostolic Tradition (e.g., 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, etc.), be prepared for counterexamples that may be raised against Tradition, such as Matthew 15:1–9, Mark 7:1–14, and Colossians 2:20–23. If you have carefully prepared a response to those counterargument verses, you will not be flustered or deterred when they are raised.
Remember also arguments from correlation — that is, causes and effects. A good example would be if someone raises the objection against Catholic Marian doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception or Mary’s role as the Mother of God (Greek: Θεοτοκος; Latin: Mater Dei). You should explain the correlation between the relative absence of writings about these Marian doctrines during the first two centuries of the Church and the fact that the Church in the Roman Empire experienced successive waves of severe persecution that prevented its theologians from writing on this topic because the Church was fighting for its very survival and did not have the opportunity to develop those theological truths.
Remember also that correlated issues are not necessarily related: for example, the arguments raised about alleged Catholic/pagan similarities, and so forth. It does not necessarily follow that because there is a similarity there is a correlation, much less a direct cause-effect relationship.
The art of apologetics is multifaceted, and its applications can be quite diverse. But don’t let that throw you, especially if you’re just starting out in your study of how to explain and defend the Faith. Just as an experienced golfer has learned from experience and practice which of the fourteen different clubs in his golf bag to use at any given point on the course, so too you’ll learn which apologetics tools will work best for any given apologetics situation in which you find yourself. And happily, as any veteran apologist will tell you, it’s not that difficult to tell them apart and know when (and when not) to use them.
Because there’s no “one size fits all” approach to apologetics, you’ll need to understand which apologetics tools to rely on in a given apologetics situation.
Chapter 4
From Atheists to Dissenters
An Overview of Issues
Allow me to give you brief overviews of certain aspects of apologetics with different types of people. These synopses are not intended to elaborate all the essential issues, nor show how to resolve them, but rather to give the aspiring apologist a general sense of the issues he or she will need to be familiar with in order to engage in apologetics with people in those groups. The trajectory follows the three levels of apologetics starting with the most fundamental: natural apologetics (God), Christian apologetics (Jesus), Catholic apologetics (the Church).
Apologetics with Atheists
Obviously, because atheists deny the existence of God and anything supernatural (e.g., heaven and hell, human souls, angels and demons), only the most basic level of apologetics — natural — is possible or appropriate when engaging them. This means that your efforts to find common ground must begin with God’s existence. It would be pointless to present to an atheist an apologetics defense of, say, the Holy Eucharist. This is not to say that at some point you couldn’t explain the Eucharist, the divinity of Christ, or the authenticity of the Bible, but you’ll first need to lay a solid foundation for believing in God’s existence. Just like building a house, you start with the foundation and work
