Are apologists necessary?

[nicknack28]

I have watched many debate videos between theists and atheists because I find that their discussions often rev up my brain, making me consider things in different lights and ask questions I hadn't before. I find the debate format usually unpreferred but I guess it suffices for its purposes.

Faith is often used to mean trust. Not just any trust of course but absolute, confident, and convinced trust. Coming to belief via evidence is often proposed as beside the entire point for faith's argued virtue is that it is trust despite what evidence may or may not tell us. Faith is what one needs, not evidence.

This leads me to wonder how Christians view apologists. Whether with an ethical, philosophical, scientific, or any other kind of argument, Christian apologetics is dedicated to offering a rational argument for Christianity. Shouldn't this, if someone's faith is critical in Christianity and not their rationale, but an unnecessary endeavor?

To give an example of the sort of arguments I mean I'm including a quote from Wikipedia that summarizes many philosophical ones I've seen used. They definitely aren't limited to these but these seem to be the most common.

Philosophical apologetics concerns itself primarily with arguments for the existence of God, although they do not exclusively dwell on this area. As such, they do not argue for the veracity of Christianity over other religions but merely for the existence of a 'god'.

These arguments can be grouped into several categories:

1. Cosmological argument - Argues that the existence of the universe demonstrates that God exists. Various primary arguments from science are often offered to support the cosmological argument.
2. Teleological argument (argument from design) - Argues that there is a purposeful design in the world around us, and a design requires a designer. Cicero, William Paley, and Michael Behe employed this argument as well as others.
3. Ontological argument - Argues that the very concept of God demands that there is an actual existent God.
4. Moral Argument - Argues that if there are any real morals, then there must be an absolute from which they are derived.
5. Transcendental Argument - Argues that all our abilities to think and reason require the existence of God.
6. Presuppositional Arguments - Arguments that show basic beliefs of theists and nontheists require God as a necessary precondition.

What do you guys think on the matter? I would like to open this up for discussions of apologetics in general too (not limited to only my question).

 

[Dragons87]

My brain would literally explode trying to wrap my head around those arguments. To this day I still don't know what "teleological" is. Why can't English people use English, not Greek, to explain themselves?

Anyway, I try not to think so much about it, though it is extremely attractive to be a Christian in mind rather than a Christian in hand--it's so much easier.

I regard it as an interesting intellectual exercise. Nothing more. If anyone was to be convinced of Christianity by me (not me, obviously), I would hope it would be because of the example I lead in the life of Christ, rather than the words I say.

That being said, I am told to have helped a couple of people along the way with my knowledge, not necessarily apologetic knowledge, but knowledge--kudos to God who gave me that knowledge, of course.

 

[Supreme]

I think apologists are needed to apologise.

 

[JasperJackson]

nicknack,

I used to be an atheist and became a Christian through apologetics. I came to believe in God through cosmological and teleological arguments. Then, I came to believe in Jesus through historical arguments. Now, I think those historical arguments are much more important, because there may be a scientific breakthrough just around the corner that explains what caused the big bang, or how life came from non-life, etc. Saying the universe is just too amazing for there not to be a God is classic "God of the gaps" thinking (why does the sun rise each morning? God. why do things fall to the ground? God)...
The other reason why historical arguments about Jesus are more important than those listed in the Wikipedia article is to do with significance. Without Jesus, what do these arguments imply? Just that God exists and he makes stuff. So what? Those arguments don't help us understand anything about his character. However from reading and being convinced about historical arguments for Jesus we know the Bible to be true (so we know a lot about God's character) and we know that God humbled himself to come to earth to live among us, relate to us, and ultimately suffer for us to take the punishment for our sins and thus reconcile us to God himself.

Perhaps I've gone off track a bit though. Ah apologetics. Well, when I became a Christian and started going to church and people asked me about how I became a Christian many of them were surprised it was through apologetics reasoning. So, some Christians do find apologetics useful and necessary and some don't.

 

[Van]

Nicknack28 wrote: "Coming to belief via evidence is often proposed as beside the entire point for faith's argued virtue is that it is trust despite what evidence may or may not tell us. Faith is what one needs, not evidence." The only people I know who propose this are atheists and other false teachers. Atheists claim the right to redefine words so others must accept their definitions, and be silent about the actually meaning of words.

It does not matter how many times the fallacy is posted, it remains a fallacy. Christians do not have faith in the absence of evidence, we have faith in the evidence, accepting the certainty of a certain possibility. Apologists present the evidence upon which we can place our trust, or not. God possibly exists, and Christians trust that that possibility is true. No one can believe in Jesus unless they believe in the One who sent Him. One cannot escape the obvious, it takes every bit as much faith to believe God does not exist as it does to believe He does exist. Since about 1979, Atheists have tried to avoid this fact by claiming they do not believe God does not exist, only that they do not believe He exists. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

 

[nicknack28]

It does not matter how many times the fallacy is posted, it remains a fallacy. Christians do not have faith in the absence of evidence, we have faith in the evidence, accepting the certainty of a certain possibility. Apologists present the evidence upon which we can place our trust, or not. God possibly exists, and Christians trust that that possibility is true. No one can believe in Jesus unless they believe in the One who sent Him. One cannot escape the obvious, it takes every bit as much faith to believe God does not exist as it does to believe He does exist. Since about 1979, Atheists have tried to avoid this fact by claiming they do not believe God does not exist, only that they do not believe He exists. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

I respectfully request that comments about the beliefs or non-belief of atheism remain absent from this thread. This subject has been discussed quite heavily in a good number of other threads. If you wish to discuss it then I must refer you to one of those instead. I only address this topic specifically because I have have seen it raised without relevance in other instances and other threads similarly.

I appreciate your remaining comments however.

 

[ebia]

This leads me to wonder how Christians view apologists. Whether with an ethical, philosophical, scientific, or any other kind of argument, Christian apologetics is dedicated to offering a rational argument for Christianity. Shouldn't this, if someone's faith is critical in Christianity and not their rationale, but an unnecessary endeavor?

Unnecessary for what?

Different things will bring different people to faith. For many people it will be a mix of things. Apologetics might bring a few to faith; for many more it might dispel some misconceptions that were previously acting as stumbling blocks.

Done in a civil way it also serves other functions - articulating one's understanding clearly forces one to think that understanding through and refine it. One might even learn something from the people one is talking to. And if Christianity is to engage with society for more than purely evangelistic reasons it is important that Christians be able to articulate reasons for faith and (more imporantly) address reasons given against.

 

[nicknack28]

Unnecessary for what?

Unnecessary for belief.

I have seen it proposed many times that if someone is trying to come to believe in God through evidence then they are doing it wrong. It is suggested that they need faith instead, unconditional trust. When I use evidence here I don't mean a personal revelation, a transformative experience, or hearing God's voice in your head. I mean the stuff one gets from cold impersonal reasoning or the stuff one gets empirically through the senses that can be observed and measured.

If one needs faith (not evidence) for belief, then what is apologetics for? I can understand it as coming to understand the world through the lenses of one's belief (articulating one's understanding, as was said) or even just as intellectual exercise, but if apologetics is meant to make people believe in a god then it seems to be using the wrong tool according to Christianity. It's using reason and evidence instead of faith.

Perhaps it doesn't mean to persuade people to belief at all. I guess I make this assumption simply from those I've seen. Forgive me for possible redundancy. And if a good amount of people take issue with how I'm using the word faith here then I'd rather drop the topic instead of pursuing it.

 

[ebia]

Unnecessary for belief.

I have seen it proposed many times that if someone is trying to come to believe in God through evidence then they are doing it wrong.
It is suggested that they need faith instead, unconditional trust.

Eh?

Trust doesn't mean believing in something without reason. It means having confidence in the reliability of the thing. That might be without reason it it might be with very good reason.

When I use evidence here I don't mean a personal revelation, a transformative experience, or hearing God's voice in your head. I mean the stuff one gets from cold impersonal reasoning or the stuff one gets empirically through the senses that can be observed and measured.

Well, cold, impersonal, reasoning doesn't really exist in a pure form except in the imagination of naive rationists; that's not the reality of how people actually think outside mathematics in a pure form or the physical sciences in a less pure form. You certainly can't prove God on by the methodology terms because those terms are finely honed to investigate the created order without consideration of the divine.

Good apologetics connects with those terms really in two ways:
1, to dispel misconceptions and false objections
2, in terms of the historical method, which (unlike the scientific method) is applicable to investigating a central and
But if one takes a broader view of rational that extends to philosophy and the way people generally make sense of the world then yes,

If one needs faith (not evidence) for belief, then what is apologetics for?

Faith is not opposed to evidence. Different people come to faith by different means and different sorts of evidence will play different roles in that for different people.

Let's be quite clear - faith does not mean 'belief without evidence'.

I

can understand it as coming to understand the world through the lenses of one's belief (articulating one's understanding, as was said) or even just as intellectual exercise, but if apologetics is meant to make people believe in a god then it seems to be using the wrong tool according to Christianity. It's using reason and evidence instead of faith.

I say again, reason and evidence are not opposed to faith. One can have faith with reason or faith without reason.

Perhaps it doesn't mean to persuade people to belief at all

.
Well, a lot of apologetics is not about persuading people to believe, but about challenging misconceptions, defending the faith and giving people cause to think.

(And a lot of apologetics is, IMO, utter drivel that preaches to the choir, but taht's a tangential issue.)

 

[nicknack28]

Ebia, I apologize for I'm realizing that I've had this conversation before but in another thread. I failed to give proper attention to my words in this one and would like to clarify my position. I stated that faith and reason/evidence are two different ways of coming to belief. This could be seen suggest that faith is without any reason at all, and you would be right in taking issue with that. I do not think I implied this but I would like to refine my use of faith for better understanding.

Can we agree that faith is trust that does not depend on reason or evidence? I do not wish to suggest in my posts that faith is opposed to reason or evidence or that you cannot have faith as well as reason or evidence. Any amount of solid reasoning or evidence -- infinite, none, or anything in-between -- could accompany one's faith. I wish to suggest that faith is trust regardless of this amount.

I don't believe I stated anywhere that faith and evidence can only exist separately or that they are in direct opposition; I have stated that faith doesn't need evidence. If I have then I have overlooked it then I encourage pointing it out to me. I wish to be aware of any statements that I have made previously that do not represent my position as I intended.

I don't mean to change my story on what faith is but to clarify the meaning I gave it. If we still cannot agree then I am again happy to consider your views. What I cannot do is agree that faith is simply trust -- it is more than that. I'm not accusing anyone of such a simplification but I just wanted that noted.

 

[ebia]

Ebia, I apologize for I'm realizing that I've had this conversation before but in another thread. I failed to give proper attention to my words in this one and would like to clarify my position. I stated that faith and reason/evidence are two different ways of coming to belief. This could be seen suggest that faith is without any reason at all, and you would be right in taking issue with that. I do not think I implied this but I would like to refine my use of faith for better understanding.

Okay.

Can we agree that faith is trust that does not depend on reason or evidence? I do not wish to suggest in my posts that faith is opposed to reason or evidence or that you cannot have faith as well as reason or evidence. Any amount of solid reasoning or evidence -- infinite, none, or anything in-between -- could accompany one's faith. I wish to suggest that faith is trust regardless of this amount.

I don't think I am clear what you mean.

Faith is "belief + trust". No mention of reason one way or the other. Different people's faiths will depend upon reason to different degrees (and also depending upon what one includes in 'reason').

I don't believe I stated anywhere that faith and evidence can only exist separately or that they are in direct opposition;

Your post seemed to be implying that, or at least implying that faith is trust without reason.

I have stated that faith doesn't need evidence.

I'm not sure what one would mean by that statement: some people come to faith through evidence, some don't. Some people needed that apologetic argument to get them to faith. In reality everybody's path involves some element of reason and some elements of other things but the proportions and natures of those varies enormously.

I don't mean to change my story on what faith is but to clarify the meaning I gave it. If we still cannot agree then I am again happy to consider your views. What I cannot do is agree that faith is simply trust -- it is more than that.

I would say, no - faith is pretty much synomous with trust.

 

[nicknack28]

Sorry for the length.

Faith is believing when common sense tells you not to.

This is how I hear the word faith used colloquially on nearly a daily basis and so this how I must treat it online as well. Believing something when common sense tells me not to (at least to me) would look like believing something when there is not persuasive evidence for it (whether there's no evidence at all or just not enough). It would be belief that does not depend on evidence. Despite how individuals may choose to define faith on here I see no practicality in such definitions if they do line up with the word's conversational usage. I realize that others may hear the word used differently often enough but I guess I'm limited to my experiences.

I cannot agree that faith is synonymous with trust simply because I've never heard the word faith used in a religious context except in a way the quote does above. This obviously isn't just trust. Furthermore I've never heard the word "faith" used when discussing something for which there is persuasive evidence, even though "trust" is used for such things all the time. I trust this chair will hold me... because I've sat in it for 365 days in a row and it has never given out. I trust that I'm not going to die tomorrow... because the probability of it is very very very low. I don't have faith in my chair though and I don't have faith that I won't die tomorrow. The word faith (in a religious context) is just never used that way.

For further example, few people go around saying that they have faith that Jesus is the son of God because they've looked at the irrefutable historical evidence for it. Few people go around saying that they have faith that believers go to Heaven when they die because they've witnessed it firsthand on countless occasions and can therefore predict it. Faith just isn't used for evidence-based claims. Trust is quite often.

Now, all of that is probably inconsequential to this thread. I just wanted to explain my views fully as to not leave the conversation unfinished. I welcome a response as always.

Because others do not share the view that I included in my first post my original question is nonsensical to many and therefore this thread needn't continue. Feel free anyone to post some more but I am already aware that the question may seem problematic depending on posters' views. Oh and the quote is from Miracle on 34th Street by the way. I love both versions of that movie!

Again, thank you Ebia for the exchange.

 

[Dragons87]

This exchange shows exactly why apologetics is important.

 

[nicknack28]

This exchange shows exactly why apologetics is important.

Yes, though perhaps for a different reason then I originally meant to discuss. That's probably because the reason of apologetics I originally meant to discuss was only one slice of a whole pie of reasons for apologetics. I believe I should have replaced "apologetics" with a more specific word, and I would have if I had known better.

 

[ebia]

Sorry for the length.

"Faith is believing when common sense tells you not to"

This is how I hear the word faith used colloquially on nearly a daily basis and so this how I must treat it online as well.

That's a definition very much out of deist and enlightenment thinking - to some extent designed to separate faith from reality. It's not the historic sense of faith in the New Testament, nor is it the primary sense of the word in British and Australian English to the extent it seems to have become in American English.

I cannot agree that faith is synonymous with trust simply because I've never heard the word faith used in a religious context except in a way the quote does above.

Although some Christians use it the way you describe, particularly in America, that's certainly not how most half-decent theologians would use the word. But because it's become the overriding cultural meaning in your culture particularly you hear that meaning even when its not what the hearer intends unless they are explicit about it. Just look at how many posts it's taken to clarify that that is not what I mean by the word!

Believing something when common sense tells me not to (at least to me) would look like believing something when there is not persuasive evidence for it (whether there's no evidence at all or just not enough). It would be belief that does not depend on evidence. Despite how individuals may choose to define faith on here I see no practicality in such definitions if they do line up with the word's conversational usage.

Your particular conversational usage is modern American. When an Anglo-Australian uses it in a New Testament sense it may not fit well against that. Which is why I and at least one other have tried to say "that's the wrong sense of the word for this purpose". Think of faith (in the New Testament sense) as a technical word, more in line with British English common usage than American.

Your definition of the word simply does not fit the New Testament. The disciples had walked with Jesus, spent 3 years working with him, seen him executed, seen him resurrected and walked, talked and ate with him until he ascended. They had experienced the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. They had as much reason as it is possible to have, yet they still had to have faith - to trust him.



Of course people get sloppy with their language, what they should say is:

• that they have faith in God/Jesus
• that they know that the resurrection is true because they have looked into it
• and that they have the hope of the life to come
  (hope not implying doubt, but meaning looking to it in the future with faith/trust in God).

'trust', then, is an acceptable alternative for 'faith in' in the first, but the syntax of the words works differently: you "trust God" or you "have faith in God"

The phase "I have faith that I am going to heaven" is sloppy shorthand (and sloppy theology) for "I have faith in/trust God that I will inherit the life to come".

 

[JasperJackson]

nicknack,

Perhaps it might be worth seeing how the Bible itself uses the word "faith", since there seems to be some disagreement over its definition.

 

[Hammster]

First Peter 3:15 states, "... always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect". This is apologetics as far as I am concerned. It is giving reasons for our beliefs to those who are seeking answers, but it must be from a biblical viewpoint. My words and my arguments are just that...mine. But if I can give answers from scripture, then I am using something more powerful than my words. I am using the very words of God. So I guess you would say that I am presuppositional in my view of apologetics rather than evidential. There is a debate among Christians as to what is the proper view, however.

With that said, the evidentialist view is good for Christians because it give us other sources to bolster our faith. Although all propositions must be compared to scripture (scripture being the highest authority (sola scriptura)), scripture isn't the only source of truth. It is just the ultimate.

According to Romans, God has made Himself plain to all, but the non-believers suppress the truth. So any 'evidence' I can give, no matter how convincing to a believer it might be, will be suppressed. But if the Holy Spirit is working in someone, then the truth of Scripture will be enough to convince. And then the other evidence can come along side and give support. However, no matter what kind of evidence can be presented, without God's word and the working of the Holy Spirit, none of it will be believed.

 

[nicknack28]

Thank you Ebia. What to me looked like making a word impractically flexible looked to you as using the word as it is by the majority and the Bible. Thanks for bringing to attention the cultural difference for I was not aware there was one. I was resistant to those saying it was the wrong sense of the word simply because it was not the case for how it always seems to be used. Given your explanation though I need not be resistant any longer.

Ugh, the word of faith is exhausting... It's like the word love. It can mean a dozen different things in a dozen different contexts and therefore be argued about in a dozen different ways. Thanks for raising my awareness though.

Also thank you Hammster for your most recent post. Perhaps others have already offered similar comments but something about your wording very clearly communicated the concept of apologetics and the Christian view on it.

 

[ebia]

Ugh, the word of faith is exhausting... It's like the word love. It can mean a dozen different things in a dozen different contexts and therefore be argued about in a dozen different ways.

Yep.

Thanks for raising my awareness though.

No worries. Thanks for the conversation.