Does apologetics "work"?

[Barney2.0]

Well it worked on me.

 

[Caliban]

Well it worked on me.

What arguments did you find compelling?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Epistemology was the death knell to my faith. I am familiar with the interiority of The Johari Window, but how does it relate to what you mentioned. That sounds interesting.

Well it has to do with various topics like "The Construction of Reality" which is kind of a worth while topic. That's a Sociology concept that fits various paradigms in Psychology like "every person is a scientist" (but doesn't know it).

The Social Construction of Reality - Wikipedia


I guess you can say I do believe in some form of Dialectics. (On the Joehar Window topic that is.) Basically if things like science or epistemology etc. cause you to loose Faith that probably means that their was something seriously wrong with the belief system.

e.g. - a young Christian person who loves rocks, minerals etc. and wants to be geologist and blows a Cognitive Dissonance gasket eventually while majoring in Natural Sciences ;because, he believed or was taught that he somehow had to believe in Young Earth Creationism, that was the only valid belief and it was necessary etc. That kind of thing should never happen, even when you consider such parts of the Bible as the parable of the Foolish Man and Wise Man building their houses.... OK Christ might be thee rock in that parable, but the idea does work for "truth" and "Truth" in general in the Bible.

 

[Caliban]

Basically if things like science or epistemology etc. cause you to loose Faith that probably means that their was something seriously wrong with the belief system.

Or more simply, (using Occam's razor) it was just wrong.

 

[ZNP]

Thanks for the info.

One of the courses I teach is forensics. I find it interesting to use various cases during the class. The JFK assassination is a good case to study, 9/11 is quite interesting because it involves a lot of engineering which is somewhat unique. I bring this up because neither is the most studied from a forensic point of view, rather the Shroud of Turin has the most extensive forensic analysis and it involves a very interesting aspect of forensics, authenticating artifacts and exposing forgeries.

Prior to studying it I assumed it was a fake, but when you combine the evidence that has been gathered from the scientists with the Bayesian analysis the case for this to be authentic becomes overwhelming. One scientist actually said that, he said we would have authenticated it a long time ago if the implication of that were not so significant.

So then how do you explain the carbon dating? I also teach Earth Science and Chemistry, both of which include radioactive dating as part of the curriculum. There is only one way I can reconcile the carbon dating (which would make the shroud too young) with all the other evidence which is truly overwhelming. We have done carbon dating on trees from the pacific which "are from the future". According to the carbon dating these samples of wood are from a hundred years or more in the future. How can this be? They were exposed to radiation when we were testing atomic bombs. As a result they got a mega dose of radioactive carbon. So then, the only possible answer that explains all the evidence from the Shroud of Turin is that it is authentic and that the resurrection involved the shroud receiving a dose of radiation. Any other explanation has to ignore a tremendous amount of compelling physical evidence.

Regardless of how one feels, one basic step in a forensic analysis before you can call an artifact a fake is to show how the forgery was made. There have been many theories, I sure hope you don't parrot them back at me, I am already familiar with them, and yet no one has been able to replicate the forgery. Therefore the claim that it is a forgery would never hold up in a court of law.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I have done this in tears. When questioning my faith, I had a very real crisis. God never came. When I ask Christians about this they either quote 1 John 2:19 or they say I was not truly repentant. Of course they can't possibly know that. People usually stop there and move on without further discussion.

What precipitated the crisis?

Maybe a trauma that has crippled forgiveness?

I wandered away from the faith for 11 years and had a deep hunch that to get free of the mess I had created, I needed to return to my Christian roots.

So I deliberately sought to find fresh faith and made that my first priority.

I was sovereignly met by Him and put back on the rails.

That was the start of a seven year period of restoration. I has to reach the bottom first it seems.

 

[Caliban]

Prior to studying it I assumed it was a fake, but when you combine the evidence that has been gathered from the scientists with the Bayesian analysis the case for this to be authentic becomes overwhelming. One scientist actually said that, he said we would have authenticated it a long time ago if the implication of that were not so significant.

I don't know much about the Shroud of Turin. As a Protestant, those in my circles never thought much of it. I will reconsider the claim when it is confirmed. Maybe (a big maybe) the shroud got a dose of radiation. That is not evidence for anything related to the supernatural. At this point, all anyone could say is--I don't know what happened. That sounds a lot like my agnostic-atheist position. I think what you are hinting at is really a God of the Gaps argument.

 

[ZNP]

I don't know much about the Shroud of Turin. As a Protestant, those in my circles never thought much of it. I will reconsider the claim when it is confirmed. Maybe (a big maybe) the shroud got a dose of radiation. That is not evidence for anything related to the supernatural. At this point, all anyone could say is--I don't know what happened. That sounds a lot like my agnostic-atheist position. I think what you are hinting at is really a God of the Gaps argument.

No, the studies done are truly fascinating, there is a lot you can say. Very interesting from many different angles.

For example, you can scientifically prove the shroud was placed in a cave in Jerusalem and you can prove that it was involved in a standard Jewish burial according to the law, and you can prove what month of the year this was as well. You can also trace the cities it was in from Jerusalem all the way to Turin.

What is most interesting about the Shroud are the things that don't match the typical account of the crucifixion depicted in our paintings. The nails were below the wrist, not in the palm, and the "crown of thorns" didn't look like a woven crown but rather like a thorn bush had been shoved on his head.

Then there is one thing that does not match the Jewish burial tradition or the word of God. I think it is the most compelling piece of evidence. They would take a strip from the length of the cloth, cut it off the cloth and then use it to tie the shroud around the body. This strip has been very carefully and skillfully sewn back onto the Shroud. Obviously no one would do that for other shrouds as they would stay on the dead body in the burial chamber. But this appears to be a labor of love. Why would someone do that if this were a forgery?

A whole other aspect to the studies is from a historical perspective and that is truly amazing, never seen that kind of forensics but probably very typical for a painting or any other historical artifact. Even the folds in the Shroud tell a fascinating story.

The blood evidence is also compelling at they have been able to match the blood type to Jesus' blood type (we have another artifact from the crucifixion, the head covering, which has been deemed authentic). Since only 10% of the population has that blood type it does make the possibility of a forgery a 1/10 shot at best. Also, it can't simply be the shroud from some other person who was crucified because this person was also scourged. Seems highly unlikely there was another Jew who was scourged, given a crown of thorns, crucified the same month as Jesus and buried in the same caves.

Also the blood is quite interesting, it is not simply human blood (again seemingly unlikely for a forgery) but the blood exhibits that same phenomenon described of it being like "blood and water".

 

[Caliban]

What precipitated the crisis?

Can I answer that by linking to the mini-spiritual bio I wrote on my member page? I get asked this a lot and I wrote a piece to explain it--the link is here under information. It was basically intellectual. I was afraid however of telling my wife for fear she would not understand--she did though--she's great.

 

[hedrick]

A former pastor said he grew up as an atheist and was convinced by the ontological argument. I found that surprising, since I could never make any sense of out that argument.

 

[Caliban]

A former pastor said he grew up as an atheist and was convinced by the ontological argument. I found that surprising, since I could never make any sense of out that argument.

People are often convinced by bad arguments.

 

[hedrick]

People are often convinced by bad arguments.

Sure. But the ontological argument is particularly weird. I once had an atheist friend who had looked at it carefully and thought it was probably valid.

 

[Caliban]

Sure. But the ontological argument is particularly weird. I once had an atheist friend who had looked at it carefully and thought it was probably valid.

Was he an Anselm guy or more of a Plantinga?

 

[St_Worm2]

Hello @Caliban, does apologetics work? I suppose it depends on what you believe it's supposed to accomplish, yes?

I think of apologetics as a loving way of explaining why I believe what I do about various aspects of Christianity, as well why I decided to put all of my faith, trust and hope, for my life and for my future, into His hands. Questions like "how can there be one God when you seem to be saying that there are Three", "why/how is Jesus the Savior", 'why is He the one and only Savior/the one and only way to the Father", "what's the big deal about Jesus' blood", etc., etc. It's like an advanced form of witnessing, I suppose, but it has more to do with sharing knowledge than it does with sharing a personal experience (like "witnessing" really is).

So for me and my belief about what apologetics is, yes, it works.

My principle interest (with apologetics) is to pass on the knowledge and understanding that I have come to possess about God/the Bible/the Christian faith to help the inquisitive understand why I believe what I do. Apologetics is not the same thing as evangelism because it is normally concerned with 2nd level Christianity (IOW, with something other than the basic Gospel message), so my 'principle' goal is not the same as it is in evangelism and witnessing (though it is always my hope that it might be helpful in that regard .. at least someday .. when the Gospel 'is' the main topic of discussion in that same person's life).

Discussing some of the deeper aspects of the faith (apologetics) with some people has resulted in them wanting to hear more about God and the Christian faith, including the Gospel, so there is that as well

--David
p.s. - I also believe that apologetics is one of the ways that we solidify our personal faith, so there is a blessing in that regard for the apologist as well (just like there is for the evangelist and witness .. cf Isaiah 43:10).

 

[Caliban]

Hello @Caliban, does apologetics work? I suppose it depends on what you believe it's supposed to accomplish, yes?

I think of apologetics as a loving way of explaining why I believe what I do about various aspects of Christianity, as well why I decided to put all of my faith, trust and hope, for my life and for my future, into His hands. Questions like "how can there be one God when you seem to be saying that there are Three", "why/how is Jesus the Savior", 'why is He the one and only Savior/the one and only way to the Father", "what's the big deal about Jesus' blood", etc., etc. It's like an advanced form of witnessing, I suppose, but it has more to do with sharing knowledge than it does with sharing a personal experience (like "witnessing" really is).

So for me and my belief about what apologetics is, yes, it works.

My principle interest (with apologetics) is to pass on the knowledge and understanding that I have come to possess about God/the Bible/the Christian faith to help the inquisitive understand why I believe what I do. Apologetics is not the same thing as evangelism because it is normally concerned with 2nd level Christianity (IOW, with something other than the basic Gospel message), so my 'principle' goal is not the same as it is in evangelism and witnessing (though it is always my hope that it might be helpful in that regard .. at least someday .. when the Gospel 'is' the main topic of discussion in that same person's life).

Discussing some of the deeper aspects of the faith (apologetics) with some people has resulted in them wanting to hear more about God and the Christian faith, including the Gospel, so there is that as well

--David
p.s. - I also believe that apologetics is one of the ways that we solidify our personal faith, so there is a blessing in that regard for the apologist as well (just like there is for the evangelist and witness .. cf Isaiah 43:10).

Thats a good answer. I was a Calvinist as well--RCUS (Reformed Church in the United States. Thanks for your reply.

 

[St_Worm2]

Thats a good answer. I was a Calvinist as well--RCUS (Reformed Church in the United States. Thanks for your reply.

You're welcome

Epistemology is a fairly large field of study. I'd like to hear a little more about the particulars that led you away from the faith (or perhaps about the straw that broke the camels back, so to speak), but I don't believe that you can do that on the public boards (house rules and all).

So, if you ever have the time to explain your decision a little more thoroughly on your profile page, please let me know that you've done so as I'd like to check it out. Thanks (even there, on your profile page, you'll need to be careful about what you say/how much you say in regard to this, or perhaps how you say it, just FYI)

--David

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I know this is a clickbait type of question--bear with me for a second. I am interested in what you think about the role of apologetics when discussing the faith with non-believers on this forum.

The origins of Apologetics can be traced back to the second century church at a time when it was illegal to be a Christian. Therefore, apologetics (defense of the faith) was useful when a Christian stood trial and tried to save their own life by legally defending their faith. However, modern apologetics is a product of medieval Scholasticism in which Anselm of Canterbury "desired to apply reason to questions of faith. What he sought in doing this was not to prove something that he did not believe without such proof, but rather to understand more deeply what he already believed. This may be seen in his prayer in the first chapter of his Proslogion:
"I do not seek, Lord, to reach your heights, for my intellect is as nothing compared to them. But I seek in some way to understand
your truth, which my heart believes and loves. For I do not seek to understand in order to believe, but rather believe in order to understand."

Gonzalez, Justo L.. The Story of Christianity: Volume 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (p. 369). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

So the bottom line is this. You asked about the role of apologetics to an unbeliever. My answer is simply, NOTHING. Apologetics isn't intended to convert or convince an unbeliever. Nor is it intended to have any beneficial use in outreach. It is specifically intended to help the believer understand the faith they already have.

 

[Caliban]

You're welcome

Epistemology is a fairly large field of study. I'd like to hear a little more about the particulars that led you away from the faith (or perhaps about the straw that broke the camels back, so to speak), but I don't believe that you can do that on the public boards (house rules and all).

So, if you ever have the time to explain your decision a little more thoroughly on your profile page, please let me know that you've done so as I'd like to check it out. Thanks (even there, on your profile page, you'll need to be careful about what you say/how much you say in regard to this, or perhaps how you say it, just FYI)

--David

Thanks for your interest. I would like to write a bit more on my epistemological concerns and the ideas/tool that caused a shift in my thinking, but like you mentioned, I don't want to be perceived as doing counter apologetics or of driving too hard against the basic premise of this forum. I will consider how to do it tactfully. I'll let you know if I put it up--thanks again.

 

[Caliban]

The origins of Apologetics can be traced back to the second century church at a time when it was illegal to be a Christian. Therefore, apologetics (defense of the faith) was useful when a Christian stood trial and tried to save their own life by legally defending their faith. However, modern apologetics is a product of medieval Scholasticism in which Anselm of Canterbury "desired to apply reason to questions of faith. What he sought in doing this was not to prove something that he did not believe without such proof, but rather to understand more deeply what he already believed. This may be seen in his prayer in the first chapter of his Proslogion:
"I do not seek, Lord, to reach your heights, for my intellect is as nothing compared to them. But I seek in some way to understand
your truth, which my heart believes and loves. For I do not seek to understand in order to believe, but rather believe in order to understand."

Gonzalez, Justo L.. The Story of Christianity: Volume 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (p. 369). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

So the bottom line is this. You asked about the role of apologetics to an unbeliever. My answer is simply, NOTHING. Apologetics isn't intended to convert or convince an unbeliever. Nor is it intended to have any beneficial use in outreach. It is specifically intended to help the believer understand the faith they already have.

The Protestant tradition I come from would disagree that apologetics are not for the unbeliever according to 1 Peter 3:15.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The Protestant tradition I come from would disagree that apologetics are not for the unbeliever according to 1 Peter 3:15.

According to your protestant tradition, is one saved by faith? Or are they saved by grace through faith?

Remember, "Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit." -1 Corinthians 12:3