When it comes to apologetics, could we make stronger arguments by making weaker assertions?

So contends author and philosophy professor Dolores Morris. While Morris believes God’s existence is the best explanation for a world with objective moral values, is it the only possible explanation? We may be tempted to insist, Of course! But not so fast. Claiming that atheistic moral realism is impossible—rather than simply improbable—is not only a harder-to-defend claim. It’s likely a less effective approach.

But does this strategy grant too much to the skeptic? Why limit ourselves to a weaker claim—that atheistic moral realism is very improbable—when we could take the stronger stance and declare it impossible? Yet here and elsewhere, Morris observes, “It’s a counterintuitive fact that the stronger claim often makes for the weaker argument. Therefore, when we practice epistemic humility and take care not to overstate the case for theism, we actually make the job of the atheistic moral realist more difficult.” How so? She explains:

[If] I argue the existence of God is a simpler, more straightforward, and more likely explanation of moral realism than any atheistic alternative, [then] to object, the atheistic moral realist must give evidence her view is a better explanation than mine. Mere possibility isn’t enough; this is a question of plausibility. But when a Christian leads with the impossibility of another’s view, any possibility at all will suffice to undermine her argument.

There is much food for thought in the article. As we labor to show skeptical friends the beauty of an enchanted world, designed by God’s love and suffused with his glory, let’s resist the temptation to overstate the evidence. Modest assertions can yield mightier arguments.