Does apologetics "work"?

[redleghunter]

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.

Bolded above. Please define what you mean by “my faith.”

 

[redleghunter]

The religion will adapt or die, and it seems slow to adapt since it was an apex predator for so long.

It’s actually the churches who attempt to adapt to the world which fall apart.

 

[redleghunter]

Maybe, but reasons for disbelief usually originate from bad arguments or bad apologetics. Often believers think arguments sound much better that they are because of confirmation bias.

Interesting. The Apostle Paul I think explained disbelief very well in 1 Corinthians 1.

1 Corinthians 1: NASB


18For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

19For it is written,
“I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,
AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.”

20Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29so that no man may boast before God. 30But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”​

The discussion continues into chapter 2.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I think that is true. I have a lot of regrets about things I used to advocate as a Christian. I think many of my old ideas are in fact bad for the world.

Were they YOUR old ideas? I've come across Christians over the years with peculiar beliefs and dogmatic about them. I've even held some ideas (particularly early on) that I don't agree with now. That was one of the benefits of an enquiring mind - I started to see how many of the things being taught in parts of the church were just wrong and a lot more were right, but weren't applied in a loving way.

I've certainly changed my beliefs over the years without leaving the central core of my faith: that Jesus lived and died to provide a better way for me.

I'm not saying this of you, but many atheists I have come across are lazy and certainly wouldn't qualify as thinking freely. Most became atheists in their teens and most say that they either just grew out of it or that they objected to some theology that was taught. In the former case there is clearly no intellectual reason for being atheist and in the latter they never attempted to find a better theology.

 

[redleghunter]

I’ve read in here much more than I’ve posted. As far as I have seen eye gouging, hair pulling, and biting are all quite common in here, just ask @2PhiloVoid lol

I think @Caliban and @St_Worm2 meant an atheist or skeptic “witness” would be seen as proselytizing or recruiting unbelief. That is not allowed here.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Often believers are claiming that God cannot be proven.

Not to those in denial. Just look around, and you explain how what you see got here.

 

[BigV]

We are called to present the truth whether it is accepted or not.

From my experience, Christians cannot distinguish between truth and fiction, because Christians rely on faith. But by faith, one can accept fiction as truth.

 

[BigV]

I am interested in what you think about the role of apologetics when discussing the faith with non-believers on this forum.

Based on my experience, apologetics are really designed for the fellow Christians, to allow them to think that their belief is rational.

Here is an example of how their apologetics can work.

Can you prove there is no God? If not, then Christians are justified in their belief in a God since his non-existence cannot be proven to be true.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

From my experience, Christians cannot distinguish between truth and fiction, because Christians rely on faith. But by faith, one can accept fiction as truth.

What excuse do atheists have for accepting fiction as truth then?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Based on my experience, apologetics are really designed for the fellow Christians, to allow them to think that their belief is rational.

Here is an example of how their apologetics can work.

Can you prove there is no God? If not, then Christians are justified in their belief in a God since his non-existence cannot be proven to be true.

A very simplistic response. I've seen the argument used, but nearly always in response to some daft claim that since God's existence cannot be proven, he doesn't exist.

If we could 'prove' either side almost everyone would be in the group that was proven. Since we can't prove either side it is rational to look at the evidence, including ones personal experiences and draw appropriate conclusions. What is irrational is to draw conclusions without all the evidence.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Based on my experience, apologetics are really designed for the fellow Christians, to allow them to think that their belief is rational.

Here is an example of how their apologetics can work.

Can you prove there is no God? If not, then Christians are justified in their belief in a God since his non-existence cannot be proven to be true.

Does this include the likes of Pascal and Kierkegaard, among others like them?

 

[Caliban]

For some reasons I’ve noticed skeptics seem to dance in the margins avoiding a direct discussion of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Speaking for myself and not other skeptics, I see no need to "dance" around the issue of the resurrection. I think 1 Corinthians 15:14 is correct when he said, "...if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." I apply the tools of skepticism when reading texts which make huge claims for themselves. If the claim was that an itinerant preacher named Yeshua challenged the Pharasaical expectations of his day, I would have no problem with that. However the claim is much larger. It involves supernatural events which, according to everything we know, impossible. But, "...with God all things are possible." Great--now demonstrate that!

I am aware of the arguments believers make surrounding the resurrection narrative--they didn't die for a lie, women at the tomb etc. C.S Lewis popular Trilemma is an attempt to show the resurrection is the most reasonable outcome; but what lewis failed to include or consider it the most reasonable solution is actually the development of legend. Legends develop quickly--there are countless example from history to confirm this and there was plenty of time for this to occur. Most New Testament scholars agree that the NT itself shows many signs of legendization between Mark and Paul. Christian fundamentalists and inerrantists may call this progressive revelation--but thats another miracle. At every point where a skeptic raises a valid critique, the answer from believers is often a miracle. For me, the credulity required to believe this without evidence is too much.

Why would I believe in the supernatural when there has never beed a case of it confirmed anywhere? And why would I believe this narrative, given the fact that most Christians would dismiss the miracle claims of other religions?

 

[Caliban]

Bolded above. Please define what you mean by “my faith.”

Now I mean my belief. If you asked me three years ago I might have said something like, my standing before God based on the atoning work of Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

 

[BigV]

Does this include the likes of Pascal and Kierkegaard, among others like them?

Pascal had a wager that he is famous for, right? Which is also a reason for modern Christians to tread lightly when it comes to challenges to their faith.

Since the existence of an eternal Hell cannot be disproven, it's better to believe in a religion that gives you a path out of Hell than to be an Atheist, since you don't lose anything if Atheism is true and you believe in a religion, where as you lose an eternity in Hell if you pick Atheism but religion turns out to be true.

Of course, one flaw in that thinking is you can't follow every religion that teaches about eternal Hell. And, no matter what religion you pick, there is always another religion's Hell awaiting you after you die.

 

[Caliban]

Were they YOUR old ideas?

That's a tough question to answer. So much of what we think is informed by culture, upbringing, and "the givenness of things"--to use a Marilynne Robinson quote. As a christian I made great effort to be text centered and to organize my thoughts and theology on scripture. Of course, traditions differ over certain texts--baptists and paedobaptists for example; but few denominations dispute whether homosexuality is biblical or not. I think the scripture is rather clear on that point--the Bible does not support a homosexual lifestyle). This wasn't my idea--I got it from the Bible. That is an example of one thing I regret believing. I see no reason to conclude that it is wrong if the Bible is merely a human document.

 

[Caliban]

Not to those in denial. Just look around, and you explain how what you see got here.

I got here when my parents did the grown-up.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

That's a tough question to answer. So much of what we think is informed by culture, upbringing, and "the givenness of things"--to use a Marilynne Robinson quote. As a christian I made great effort to be text centered and to organize my thoughts and theology on scripture. Of course, traditions differ over certain texts--baptists and paedobaptists for example; but few denominations dispute whether homosexuality is biblical or not. I think the scripture is rather clear on that point--the Bible does not support a homosexual lifestyle). This wasn't my idea--I got it from the Bible. That is an example of one thing I regret believing. I see no reason to conclude that it is wrong if the Bible is merely a human document.

That was my point about applying the Bible. Some think that all Christians are like Fred Phelps at Westbro Baptist Church. Hopefully you are not of that opinion. One can be opposed to a homosexual lifestyle without being opposed to homosexuals, even those that engage in such a lifestyle.

So while I might not like the approach that God has taken on the issue, I am happy to conclude that it IS a sin (one of many) and that it is not acceptable to God.

And I agree that if the Bible is merely a human document there is no reason to believe it, but I do hope that is not the reason why you don't believe the Bible is divinely inspired, since that means that your belief is based on your personal feelings not on whether there is a God or not.

 

[Caliban]

Some think that all Christians are like Fred Phelps at Westbro Baptist Church. Hopefully you are not of that opinion.

Definitely not--he was an outlier in contemporary Christianity. But, a couple generations ago, he would not have been as rare.

I agree that if the Bible is merely a human document there is no reason to believe it, but I do hope that is not the reason why you don't believe the Bible is divinely inspired, since that means that your belief is based on your personal feelings not on whether there is a God or not.

I just see not evidence that the Bible is anything other than a human text. My opinion is based on a combination of personal feeling (moral intuition), textual analysis, and a lack of evidence favoring a divine proposition.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Definitely not--he was an outlier in contemporary Christianity. But, a couple generations ago, he would not have been as rare.

I just see not evidence that the Bible is anything other than a human text. My opinion is based on a combination of personal feeling (moral intuition), textual analysis, and a lack of evidence favoring a divine proposition.

And my opinion emerges out of considerations involving the confluence of spiritual intuition, textual and philosophical and historical analysis, and a few evidences favoring a diabolical proposition.

 

[Caliban]

And my opinion emerges out of considerations involving the confluence of spiritual intuition, textual and philosophical and historical analysis, and a few evidences favoring a diabolical proposition.

What is your understanding of the biblical text, it the cannon divinely inspired? Are some books inspired? I know inspiration is a theologically complicated word. How do you see it?