Joseph Butler: The Cumulative Case for Christianity #shorts

This quote from a forgotten dead apologist is more relevant than ever in the age of YouTube counter-apologists.

Get the book: Joseph Butler, The Analogy of Religion (London: J. M. Dent & Co., 1906), Part 2, ch. 7, paragraphs 43-44, p. 232.

But the truth of our religion, like the truth of common matters, is to be judged of by all the evidence taken together. And unless the whole series of things which may be alleged in this argument, and every particular thing in it, can reasonably be supposed to have been by accident (for here the stress of the argument for Christianity lies); then is the truth of it proved: in like manner, as if in any common case, numerous events acknowledged, were to be alleged in proof of any other event disputed; the truth of the disputed event would be proved, not only if any one of the acknowledged ones did of itself clearly imply it but, though no one of them singly did so, if the whole of the acknowledged events taken together could not in reason be supposed to have happened, unless the disputed one were true. It is obvious, how much advantage the nature of this evidence gives to those persons who attack Christianity, especially in conversation. For it is easy to show, in a short and lively manner, that such and such things are liable to objection, that this and another thing is of little weight in itself; but impossible to show, in like manner, the united force of the whole argument in one view.

Join this channel to get access to perks:

Join this channel to get access to perks:

Outro music:
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported

[TestifyApologetics]

This statement by Butler is a huge part of the underlying philosophy behind my channel.

[Kiwifactor]

The cumulative case for Christianity is compelling.

[cgonthebeat]

So basically, you have to attack the whole of Christianity in an argument not just tiny parts of it?

[MatthewFearnley]

Would you consider doing videos unpacking quotes like this? It's easy to get lost parsing the old writing style, and if I'm honest, probably a certain amount of chronological snobbery.
I guess the ideal would be that we should understand the quote well enough that we could confidently read it out loud, understanding its meaning and knowing which words and phrases should be stressed. I know I'm a long way from that.

[hhstark]

I can provide resources for a generic intellectual guide from atheism to Catholicism.

1. For atheism to theism to classical theism:

Read Edward Feser's "The Last Superstition", then Josh Rasmussen's "How Reason Can Lead to God: A Philosopher's Bridge to Faith", then Ed Feser's "5 Proof for the Existence of God"

2. Once you accept classical theism to get yourself to Christianity:

Read "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis, read "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics" by WLC, then read "The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology" by WLC, then read Brant Pitre's "The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ", and finish with Mike Licona's "The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach"

3. Once you accept Christianity to get to Catholicism:

Read Trent Horn's "Why We're Catholic: Our Reasons for Faith, Hope, and Love" and Trent Horn's "The Case for Catholicism: Answers to Classic and Contemporary Protestant Objections"

[zoliozgamer]

Erik, do you have any sources, (apologist blogs) that might address a couple of the accusations thrown at the gospel of John? Forgery claims, inventing stories+characters, etc.

[daman]

Pinecreek is an example of this imo. He makes parody cases, like, "would you believe I had a pet dragon if I had x witnesses?"

No, because there's not enough evidence to overcome the prior. But that doesn't mean this evidence is worth nothing. Just because a piece of evidence isn't compelling ok its own, that doesn't mean it can't be compelling as part of a cumulative case

[truncated]

@Testify Happy Fathers Day!

What strikes me is that 50% of all humans are at or below average intelligence, and so would in many cases fail to understand any of this. Your best arguments help the intelligent believer to not feel foolish. Believers of below average intelligence believe without fully understanding and are saved (is that fair?). Yet what about below average IQ unbeliever who just don't believe because even if they have heard the gospel, it doesn't make sense to them and they can't be persuaded by your arguments because they can't understand them? (is that fair?).

[austinlincoln]

me trying to understand: *has aneurysm*

[vinnygiggidy]

20 pieces of bad evidence does not equal 1 piece of good. That's not how evidence works