Should Christians Abandon Apologetics?

muichimotsu · Dec 13, 2019

FireDragon76 said:
I pointed this out recently in fact that it was a toxic aspect of Christianity that needed to be repudiated. It's one reason I finally parted ways with Evangelicalism. Mixing love and violence can only lead to very limited forms of psychic healing and personal growth.

Arguably, it's tricky to have anything of a healthy relationship with a deity, especially if they're generally such an entity that their experience and capacity for human emotions is limited (can you really say you get love from an entity that doesn't understand it in a human sense?)

FireDragon76 · Dec 13, 2019

public hermit said:
Sorry about the "laughing" emoji. I was trying to "agree" but my fat fingers + a phone.

I don't necessarily disagree. I would argue the seed of individual autonomy that was so emphasized in the Enlightenment was planted in the Reformation. The Reformers (Luther would be a prime example) said the primary authority of the individual conscience is the Lord. This was the basic argument against the established Church. The Enlightenment took it a step further and said the primary authority of the individual conscience is the individual. The Reformers made their shift based in scripture. The Enlightenment made their shift based in human reason. So, I would say (historically speaking) the Reformation paved the way in terms of individual autonomy. That's not to say it couldn't have happen another way. But, I am inclined to think that is how it happened.

Well, the real connection was that Luther focused on the subjective, owing to the medieval German mystical tradition he was steeped in. So Protestantism marked a shift towards subjectivity.

FireDragon76 · Dec 13, 2019

muichimotsu said:
Arguably, it's tricky to have anything of a healthy relationship with a deity, especially if they're generally such an entity that their experience and capacity for human emotions is limited (can you really say you get love from an entity that doesn't understand it in a human sense?)

I think one possible Christian response is that there is an ontological gulf between humanity and God, making communication difficult. But this has problems for Evangelicals since it would also mean the possibility that large parts of the Bible are based on what amounts to misunderstanding or are potentially unclear in their meaning.

muichimotsu · Dec 13, 2019

FireDragon76 said:
I think one possible Christian response is that there is an ontological gulf between humanity and God, making communication difficult. But this has problems for Evangelicals since it would also mean the possibility that large parts of the Bible are based on what amounts to misunderstanding or are potentially unclear in their meaning.

Basically a problem of divine hiddenness, sounds like. Once you start to wonder whether you can reliably access the divine at all, it starts to make you wonder if it's even a coherent concept in the first place.

FireDragon76 · Dec 13, 2019

muichimotsu said:
Basically a problem of divine hiddenness, sounds like. Once you start to wonder whether you can reliably access the divine at all, it starts to make you wonder if it's even a coherent concept in the first place.

That's why I tended to take a perspective like William James, pragmatic rather than metaphysical. A minority of Christians probably do take that perspective as well, almost always in liberal denominations.

Most Evangelicals, however, believe God is absolutely real and he speaks clearly in the Bible. It's axiomatic and taken on faith, seemingly, with all the pitfalls of that approach.

Abraxos · Dec 13, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
I've just finished reading Myron Bradley Penner's book, The End of Apologetics, and I've been thinking about the state of the negative and positive inter-personal and other social "flows" that so often manifest among many modern Christian Apologists and various skeptical inquirers...

Penner offers an alternative assessment on what Apologetics "is" or "should do" to that of someone like William Lane Craig, and in the following podcast (45 minutes), we find they've sat down together to discuss and mildly debate the nuances of their respective points of view on how they think Christian Apologetics should be done and what its purpose is. If you want to listen in, I've provided the podcast for your convenience:

[Side note: The discussion moderator in the podcast is Julie Roys, and a taste of her own evangelical thinking can be found here (Enjoy!!) ]

Also, a quick but all too brief summation by Julie Roys of the podcast above can be found [here].

********************************************************************************

In my hermeneutical (i.e. cultural, ideological, interpretive) reflection upon Penner's more Kierkegaardian-esque approach to Christian Apologetics and the Influence (or lack thereof) that Evangelical Apologetics has had, on the whole, in today's world, I thought about the following, "simple" question, one which all here can ponder over since everyone here, I'm assuming, has equal access to the Bible:

As a Christian who undertakes Apologetical tasks, is it my job to A) tell non-believers how they should think and/or believe and/or live, OR B) offer an account of why "I" personally believe?

In other words: what do you think Christian Apologetics is supposed to do?

Or even, if you prefer: Should Christians today abandon the attempt to do 'apologetics'?

Of course, everyone is welcome to weigh-in here, both Christians and Skeptical Atheists alike.

While I certainly believe that Christians can really excel at providing reasons for the Christian faith compared to other worldviews, apologetics is a branch of Christianity that tends to be more of an issue of intellectual pride. Nothing wrong with intellectual growth, but to those that do dabble in apologetics, it's good to remind themselves in a saying I once heard: Apologetics didn't save my faith, it saved my pride.

muichimotsu · Dec 13, 2019

FireDragon76 said:
That's why I tended to take a perspective like William James, pragmatic rather than metaphysical. A minority of Christians probably do take that perspective as well, almost always in liberal denominations.

Most Evangelicals, however, believe God is absolutely real and he speaks clearly in the Bible. It's axiomatic and taken on faith, seemingly, with all the pitfalls of that approach.

Still creates its own issue because if it's about the usefulness, can you really say it's anything more than a relationship of convenience and not anything resembling love anymore? I appreciate my friends in helping me with things I have difficulty with (carpooling, etc) but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate their company themselves.

One of my best friends is coming out as trans, that's something I have to come to terms with in regards to my prior understanding of them as a woman, but now identifying as a man. They don't become less useful to me because they express themselves differently now

I have at least 2 of William James' texts: sadly never read it in any of my college courses, though I may have just not taken those with them in the syllabus and such. Then again, I'm a bad book hoarder as it is (still have 3 full volumes and 1 volume I'm about halfway through of a manga version of the bible, pretty good adaptation far as I can tell)

muichimotsu · Dec 13, 2019

Abraxos said:
While I certainly believe that Christians can really excel at providing reasons for the Christian faith compared to other worldviews, apologetics is a branch of Christianity that tends to be more of an issue of intellectual pride. Nothing wrong with intellectual growth, but to those that do dabble in apologetics, it's good to remind themselves in a saying I once heard: Apologetics didn't save my faith, it saved my pride.

As in the distinction is between winning a debate in a sense and actually winning souls through witnessing? I'm no expert, but this thread has helped me nuance between these approaches more and thus understand motivations. The pride aspect is actually probably more accurate than I would think, though that brings up a question of street preachers: where do they fall on the spectrum? Is there a polemical angle in there as well with the proclamation of people's sinfulness and such as I've seen commonly?

FireDragon76 · Dec 13, 2019

muichimotsu said:
Still creates its own issue because if it's about the usefulness, can you really say it's anything more than a relationship of convenience and not anything resembling love anymore? I appreciate my friends in helping me with things I have difficulty with (carpooling, etc) but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate their company themselves.

William James was speaking as a pragmatist in terms of metaphysics. He believed in studying religion and appreciating the aspects that contributed to human flourishing, aside from the ability to verify the truth claims of its doctrines, where he was more or less an agnostic. He was also interested in what later would become parapsychology.

muichimotsu · Dec 13, 2019

But does religion in itself really contribute to human flourishing? And if it's found wanting in regards to that, wherefore would apologetics have any real benefit if you're defending what can be found apart from the supposed revealed truth?

He does seem more overlapped with psychology (which had overlap with philosophy back in the old days, as I understand it before it became more properly a science)

2PhiloVoid · Dec 14, 2019

Clizby WampusCat said:
Oh my word. Sufficient is whatever an individual thinks it is. It is not the same for everyone. What is your evidence so I can see if it is convincing to me?

What kinds of things 'count' as evidence for you? For me, the main evidence is both the Sacred Library and the fact that I see the patterns of sin and evil widely spread out in the world just as it seems Jesus and His prophets and apostles said it would be. For me, that's where the evidence is.

2PhiloVoid · Dec 14, 2019

muichimotsu said:
Because you might actually have some intellectual humility and honesty in considering even the possibility that your basis for concluding the bible is true is mistaken?

Sure, I most definitely do. Despite the verbal backlash I'm likely to give folks who unduly criticize me, I really don't have either a big ego or an agenda, especially not a political agenda. Then on the practical side of things, having the Hermeneutical Circle as a given part of my method of interpretation means that I'm forced to revisit and reconsider my previous moments of understanding. With the being the case for me on a daily and weekly basis, I hold my faith by way of provisional confidence.

[Edit : As of 2020, I will now say that I do have an "agenda," a spiritual one that is, even if not of the political variety that many folks (of various political stripes) would prefer I have, one that has vast significance to me. Yes, that agenda is to confront in the World, starting with my own, and remain resolute without much faltering in my faith of Jesus Christ as the Lord and Savior of our shared world ... :cool1:

]

yeshuaslavejeff · Dec 14, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
What kinds of things 'count' as evidence for you?

I'm pretty sure you remember what evidence Yahuweh gives - and He says that no one has any excuse for rejecting all the evidence , nor for rejecting Him.

yeshuaslavejeff · Dec 14, 2019

muichimotsu said:
But does religion in itself really contribute to human flourishing?

No.

yeshuaslavejeff · Dec 14, 2019

muichimotsu said:
Arguably, it's tricky to have anything of a healthy relationship with a deity, especially if they're generally such an entity that their experience and capacity for human emotions is limited (can you really say you get love from an entity that doesn't understand it in a human sense?)

Jesus was born a man, on purpose, by plan, to be a human, as written.
He remains, and remained, and always is , echad with His Father Sovereign Eternal Creator.

muichimotsu · Dec 14, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
Sure, I most definitely do. Despite the verbal backlash I'm likely to give folks who unduly criticize me, I really don't have either a big ego or an agenda, especially not a political agenda. Then on the practical side of things, having the Hermeneutical Circle as a given part of my method of interpretation means that I'm forced to revisit and reconsider my previous moments of understanding. With the being the case for me on a daily and weekly basis, I hold my faith by way of provisional confidence.

Yet are the standards you claim to have for verifying the reliability, veracity and general justification for this faith actually such that they could self correct away from the faith if it was found wanting or is it more just to serve as an echo chamber for what you already hold to be so? Because the latter is the kind of circle that reinforces deeply held beliefs rather than challenging them even if that would be uncomfortable

muichimotsu · Dec 14, 2019

yeshuaslavejeff said:
Jesus was born a man, on purpose, by plan, to be a human, as written.
He remains, and remained, and always is , echad with His Father Sovereign Eternal Creator.

Except that's not remotely a universal position of Christianity, merely held as orthodoxy because it was the "best" way to make sense of a contradictory and illogical narrative that can just as easily be explained in Adoptionism or the like.

muichimotsu · Dec 14, 2019

yeshuaslavejeff said:
No.

That applies to spiritual beliefs too, religion is not legalism, I'm almost certain that's why you claim it doesn't help, but I'm talking about faith more than dogma, even if they strongly overlap

muichimotsu · Dec 14, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
What kinds of things 'count' as evidence for you? For me, the main evidence is both the Sacred Library and the fact that I see the patterns of sin and evil widely spread out in the world just as it seems Jesus and His prophets and apostles said it would be. For me, that's where the evidence is.

That's circular logic and question begging: if you already begin with the proposition that 1) sin exists (meaning you also assume God exists as the standard which sin violates) and that 2) Jesus and his prophets and apostles are reliable, then of course you're going to conclude that such things are evidence and not confirmation bias that cycles back into assuming certain texts to be reliable axiomatically, which is hardly critical thinking by any stretch.

yeshuaslavejeff · Dec 14, 2019

muichimotsu said:
But does religion in itself really contribute to human flourishing?

The religions of the world contribute to the wide path to destruction, not to flourishing of anyone's life, and also includes the destruction of souls.

Should Christians Abandon Apologetics?

I Spit On Perfection

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I Spit On Perfection

Well-Known Member

Nemo vir est qui mundum non reddat meliorem.

I Spit On Perfection

I Spit On Perfection

Well-Known Member

I Spit On Perfection

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Other scholars got to me before you did!

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

I Spit On Perfection

I Spit On Perfection

I Spit On Perfection

I Spit On Perfection

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Similar threads