A True Metanarrative: Part 3 A Rope and a Chain

by Dr. Darrell Dooyema

Have you ever been rock climbing or rappelling? If you are like me, the equipment that holds you in place suddenly becomes very important.

Imagine preparing to step off the edge of the rock high above the ground and being asked this question: “What is more important to you right now, your faith in this rope or the strength of this rope?” The clarity of urgent necessity may assist you in answering, or perhaps asking for reassurance that the rope is indeed strong enough to hold you.

This illustrates an important point:  The object of our faith determines its validity. If the rope is insufficient to the task of holding the climber’s weight, she will fall—regardless of how sincere or strong her faith may be.

Yet, without faith, no climber will ever step off the ledge. I remember a student who would not go over the edge, even though we gave him strong evidence that the rope could hold five thousand pounds. His lack of faith kept him from making the decision to step out.

These examples depict that faith and evidence work together. We step out in faith based on strong reasons.

In his early writings, the apostle Paul demonstrates the importance of both faith and evidence. He wrote the following words about Christian belief in an evidence-based historical fact: “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile,” (1 Corinthians 15:7). He also wrote, “It is by grace you have been saved through faith” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

So, how can we tell if the “rope” of the Christian worldview is strong enough to hold us up? Is there enough evidence to step over the edge into active faith?

Different Kinds of Arguments

Belief in God involves reason, not merely blind faith. There are endless avenues to explore regarding reasons for faith. How can we put a full case together? Here, philosophy can help us. In philosophy, we make the distinction between different types of arguments and different types of reasoning.

The first type of argument may be compared to a chain. These are called deductive arguments because the conclusions follow necessarily from true premises that are properly linked. As we know, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Similarly, in deductive arguments, if any of the premises are false, or if the connection between them is not in the right form, the argument fails.

An example of a deductive argument would be something like this:

All basketballs are bouncy.

Wilson is a basketball.

Therefore, Wilson is bouncy. 

The conclusion of this syllogism is necessarily true if the premises are also true. If we discover that any of the premises are false or weak, the argument is also weak. We may find, for example, that not all basketballs are bouncy, such as those at my local gym, which seem to be perpetually flat! If this is the case, the argument is quite weak indeed.

But there are other ways of reasoning that can be more aptly compared to a rope. The best climbing ropes are made up of thousands of tightly bound strands of nylon. While each strand is not capable of holding much weight on its own, the larger the number of strands, the stronger the rope. This is generally how we reason in inductive and abductive arguments where each bit of evidence strengthens the case. The more evidence we have, the more the conclusion makes sense.

Inductive arguments occur when we make an inference (add something) based on available evidence. For example, you see a pile of cookie crumbs, a scratch on the counter, a broken dish on the floor, a few crumbs around Scruffy’s mouth, and a puppy’s guilty face. Seeing all that, it would make perfect sense to infer that Scruffy stole the cookies off the counter. The idea that Scruffy did this seems to fit the pile of evidence, even though each bit of evidence by itself does not prove the puppy’s guilt.   

Abductive arguments are very similar; however, with this type of reasoning we also spend time evaluating possible scenarios and make an “inference to the best explanation.” The more evidence we have, the greater our chance of making a correct inference. We can also rule out explanations that are logically impossible or that can be proved wrong.

In the case of the missing cookies, we may consider that Scruffy is possibly the culprit, or that aliens descended to enjoy the cookies, or that Bill ate the cookies and blamed Scruffy, or that the cookies never existed in the first place. We may then rule out some of those explanations as demonstrably false. And we could eliminate others as highly unlikely, such as the alien invasion option. After eliminating the least plausible options, we can then compare which explanation best fits the evidence we see and make our conclusion. Again, the more evidence we have, the greater our chance of making a correct inference.  

The Cumulative Case Argument

When arguing for God’s existence and the truth of the scriptural metanarrative, we may make both inductive and deductive arguments. But, as we will see, perhaps the strongest argument of all is the combination of multiple arguments and multiple strands of evidence, all pointing in the direction of the truth of the Bible’s claims.

When we step back to consider the vast amount of evidence we have from diverse directions, and when we consider the possible alternatives, the best explanation continues to be that the biblical metanarrative is a true representation of reality. Many have called this the “Cumulative Case” argument, which is an abductive argument to the best explanation.

We will continue to explore specific arguments in the next few articles, but take a moment to consider this list of arguments as possible “strands” that all support the “rope” of the truth of the scriptural worldview. The arguments from:

·       first cause (cosmological argument)

·       the origin and passage of time (Kalam cosmological argument)

·       logic alone (ontological argument)

·       the design features of the universe (teleological argument)

·       fine tuning in the universe

·       the presence of biological information

·       the existence of consciousness

·       the vast evidence of biblical archaeology

·       the trustworthiness and preservation of the Bible

·       the minimal facts regarding the resurrection of Jesus

·       morality

·       human freedom

·       desire

·       beauty or aesthetics

·       religious experience

·       answered prayer and examples of changed lives

·       . . . and more!

Each of these represents not merely one argument; they represent whole families of arguments that all point in the same direction. Many have been examined and discussed for centuries. As we continue this discussion about the truth of the scriptural metanarrative, consider how the Cumulative Case for the biblical worldview grows and strengthens along the way.

Please comment below if you would like me to explore any of the above arguments. I can address those first.

---