Cumulative Case Apologetics
The third methodology which is employed in doing apologetics has been termed “cumulative case” apologetics. Paul D. Feinberg, in Five Views on Apologetics, makes the case for this particular method being the best. He claims that, unlike some other apologetic methods, the goal of the cumulative case approach does not attempt to provide demonstrably sound arguments, i.e., those which have premises which can be shown to be true and are logically valid which are coercive by their rational power.
Feinberg feels a better strategy is to build a probable case for the truth of theism and Christianity. This case is the cumulative case approach which he considers to be a type of inference to the best explanation. He explains:
The model for defending Christianity is not to be found in the domain of philosophy or logic, but law, history, and literature.
He explains his description of this approach as follows:
1. The argument for theism and Christianity is an informal one, not a formal one.
2. It is a broadly based argument drawn from a number of elements in our experience.
3. No single element in the argument has priority over any other. One is presenting a number of elements in no particular order and claiming that the Christian theist explanation makes the most sense of all the evidence available.
4. It is not simply a case for theism, but for Christianity. It establishes the Christian worldview. The theory that best accounts for the data is to be preferred.
In evaluating which worldview better accounts for the data, one must decide between competing truth claims. To do so, one must employ the following tests for truth (These tests for truth, by the way, ar not unique to cumulative case apologetics, but have been recognized by philosophers for a long time. I might also add that they are not all equally accepted as valid tests for truth):
1. The Test of Consistency: Is the system of belief internally consistent or does it lead to a contradiction?
2. The Test of Correspondence: Does it correspond with reality?
3. The Test of Comprehensiveness: Does it explain more of the evidence than other competing claims?
4. The Test of Simplicity: The simplest explanation is to be preferred.
5. The Test of Livability: Can one live consistently with his belief system?
6. The Test of Frutifulness: Does the belief system have fruitful consequences?
7. the Test of Conservation: The explanation which requires the least radical revision of our view of the world is preferred.
In conclusion, Feinberg claims that the best case for Christianity will be a broad-based one with many subjective and objective elements. It is like a lawyer’s brief which hopes to show that Christian theism is the most plausible explanation of all the evidence. Feinberg does not provide a sketch of what arguments he might include in his cumulative case for Christian theism, but one assumes he would include many the arguments made by classical apologists and evidentialists.
Next time… Presuppositional apologetics. I hope to share some of my own thoughts about these various views at the end of my summaries of each approach.