Does apologetics "work"?

[Caliban]

[URL='https://www.etymonline.com/word/faith#etymonline_v_1088']faith (n.)

mid-13c., faith, feith, fei, fai "faithfulness to a trust or promise; loyalty to a person; honesty, truthfulness," from Anglo-French and Old French feid, foi "faith, belief, trust, confidence; pledge" (11c.), from Latin fides "trust, faith, confidence, reliance, credence, belief," from root of fidere "to trust,"from PIE root *bheidh- "to trust, confide, persuade." For sense evolution, see belief. Accommodated to other English abstract nouns in -th (truth, health, etc.).

From early 14c. as "assent of the mind to the truth of a statement for which there is incomplete evidence," especially "belief in religious matters" (matched with hope and charity). Since mid-14c. in reference to the Christian church or religion; from late 14c. in reference to any religious persuasion.

And faith is neither the submission of the reason, nor is it the acceptance, simply and absolutely upon testimony, of what reason cannot reach. Faith is: the being able to cleave to a power of goodness appealing to our higher and real self, not to our lower and apparent self. [Matthew Arnold, "Literature & Dogma," 1873]
From late 14c. as "confidence in a person or thing with reference to truthfulness or reliability," also "fidelity of one spouse to another." Also in Middle English "a sworn oath," hence its frequent use in Middle English oaths and asseverations (par ma fay, mid-13c.; bi my fay, c. 1300).

[/URL]

 

[Kaon]

My longer form question is: given all the above, should Christians engage non-believers on this forum by engaging in apologetics and by attempting to make compelling arguments for their claims as a way to convince them those claims are true?

No.

You cannot teach or tell anyone how to have a relationship - especially with a human, let alone a "Most High". Like demons, UFOs and other alleged imaginary entities, one needs to see/experience it for one's self before one can be convinced of anything. This is because the non-religious do not have to subscribe to faith.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Why do you always articulate your responses in the most grossly over-assured language possible? It just.......it just......oh, I don't know! It just feels inflammatory somehow. And you're not the only one who does this.

I mean, I'm trying to keep my cool here with you guys. But you keeping saying things to me and my various Christian buddies in such a way that it's like....... you're constantly jabbing folks rather than actually wanting to have a sincere, bona-fide, academic, expansively exploratory discussion.

But back to your assertion about Merriam's choices in presenting their reports about the present usage of the term "evidence," colloquially considered. You said what you said above, but I'm finding this:

Definition of EVIDENCE (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, online)

I also stand by my view on the term 'Christian Faith.' And it ain't your grandma's choice of definition.

The thing is, there are some questions which just don't lend themselves to sincere, academic and expansively explorative discussion; and any such discussion applied to them would simply be fogging the issue.

Having said that, I apologise if the way I phrased this was less than tactful.

 

[Caliban]

You cannot teach or tell anyone how to have a relationship

What do you mean a relationship? Are you making a religious assumption about God or something else?

 

[Kaon]

What do you mean a relationship? Are you making a religious assumption about God or something else?

Religion is the red herring.

Spirituality - namely Christianity - is about a relationship with the Most High. The Most High has chose an election of entities that He has, by Providence, made sons. Therefore, in order to relate to the Most High, you must behave as a son - which means trust, love, obedience, patience and gratitude need to be primary expressions of that son-ship. You cannot teach or tell someone how to have a relationship with another; it has to be learned and experienced with respect to the unique individual. Humans telling other humans how to relate to the Most High is tantamount to blind leading the blind.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Religion is the red herring.

Spirituality - namely Christianity - is about a relationship with the Most High. The Most High has chose an election of entities that He has, by Providence, made sons. Therefore, in order to relate to the Most High, you must behave as a son - which means trust, love, obedience, patience and gratitude need to be primary expressions of that son-ship. You cannot teach or tell someone how to have a relationship with another; it has to be learned and experienced with respect to the unique individual. Humans telling other humans how to relate to the Most High is tantamount to blind leading the blind.

Let me have some evidence that this Most High exists, and then I can decide whether I want to behave as His son or not. It doesn't make sense to say "believe in God and then you will know that He exists." Don't put the cart before the horse.

 

[Caliban]

Religion is the red herring.

Spirituality - namely Christianity - is about a relationship with the Most High. The Most High has chose an election of entities that He has, by Providence, made sons. Therefore, in order to relate to the Most High, you must behave as a son - which means trust, love, obedience, patience and gratitude need to be primary expressions of that son-ship. You cannot teach or tell someone how to have a relationship with another; it has to be learned and experienced with respect to the unique individual. Humans telling other humans how to relate to the Most High is tantamount to blind leading the blind.

The word religion is not a red herring--knock it off. I'm not going to quibble over your your little preferred definitions. Everyone knows what a religion is and Christianity is one. This thread is about apologetics, not your own personal interpretation of theism.

 

[Kaon]

The word religion is not a red herring--knock it off. I'm not going to quibble over your your little preferred definitions. Everyone knows what a religion is and Christianity is one. This thread is about apologetics, not your own personal interpretation of theism.

This is exactly why I said apologetics don't matter. The person has to experience for self - or the knee-jerk reaction based on (allegedly) unatisfactory answers will exponentiate the disappointment and waste of time for all parties involved.

You asked a question; I answered it.

 

[Kaon]

Let me have some evidence that this Most High exists, and then I can decide whether I want to behave as His son or not. It doesn't make sense to say "believe in God and then you will know that He exists." Don't put the cart before the horse.

I definitely did not say, "believe in God and then you will know that He exists." The Most High has reserved for Himself an election of entities that [will] know Him, and are His sons. Religion has painted an unrealistic, incomplete picture of the Most High - based on dogma, politics and overall ignorance.

Apologetics won't matter, because (for example) you would need specific evidence bounded by your interpretation of what is possible, accessible and logical. I am not saying this is necessarily wrong; I am saying that if one actually wants to be with/know the Most High, it likely won't happen through apologies. You would need a foundation to base your trust on - and humans telling you how to have a relationship with a "God" you don't believe in won't cut it.

I 100% agree you should get evidence that the Most High exists in order to ascertain the truth yourself. That is what should happen; the Most High isn't an entity that masquerades and veils the truth. If you are looking to men to vindicate the existence of the Most High, you will be disappointed. Humans barely know where they are in this plane of existence.

 

[Caliban]

This is exactly why I said apologetics don't matter. The person has to experience for self - or the knee-jerk reaction based on (allegedly) unatisfactory answers will exponentiate the disappointment and waste of time for all parties involved.

You asked a question; I answered it.

This is why Christianity and other religions are losing members and influence. Secular answers can be fact checked and corroborated without ambiguity.

 

[Kaon]

This is why Christianity and other religions are losing members and influence. Secular answers can be fact checked and corroborated without ambiguity.

Why do you think I said religion is the red herring?

 

[Caliban]

Why do you think I said religion is the red herring?

I know why you said it, but I think it's an attempted dodge to avoid the natural conclusion.

 

[Kaon]

I know why you said it, but I think it's an attempted dodge to avoid the natural conclusion.

I wasn't trying to dodge; what do you think the natural conclusion was/is?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I definitely did not say, "believe in God and then you will know that He exists." The Most High has reserved for Himself an election of entities that [will] know Him, and are His sons. Religion has painted an unrealistic, incomplete picture of the Most High - based on dogma, politics and overall ignorance.

Apologetics won't matter, because (for example) you would need specific evidence bounded by your interpretation of what is possible, accessible and logical. I am not saying this is necessarily wrong; I am saying that if one actually wants to be with/know the Most High, it likely won't happen through apologies. You would need a foundation to base your trust on - and humans telling you how to have a relationship with a "God" you don't believe in won't cut it.

I 100% agree you should get evidence that the Most High exists in order to ascertain the truth yourself. That is what should happen; the Most High isn't an entity that masquerades and veils the truth. If you are looking to men to vindicate the existence of the Most High, you will be disappointed. Humans barely know where they are in this plane of existence.

Hmmm. An amusing variation on the common Christian take on things. So God has already decided who will believe in Him?

 

[Caliban]

I wasn't trying to dodge; what do you think the natural conclusion was/is?

It is what I stated in post 210. The majority of Christians on this thread have suggested that apologetics is rather ineffective for convincing non believers that the rather large claims of the Bible are true. There is apparently little desire to engage nonbelievers on evidence for the many truth claims central to Christian theology and history. Because of this inability to defend these beliefs, few are converted.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

It is what I stated in post 210. The majority of Christians on this thread have suggested that apologetics is rather ineffective for convincing non believers that the rather large claims of the Bible are true. There is apparently little desire to engage nonbelievers on evidence for the many truth claims central to Christian theology and history. Because of this inability to defend these beliefs, few are converted.

A far cry from "The Case for Christ," "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" and "I don't have enough Faith to be an Atheist"!

“It was the evidence from science and history that prompted me to abandon my atheism and become a Christian.”
-- Lee Strobel

“In short, I didn't become a Christian because God promised I would have an even happier life than I had as an atheist. He never promised any such thing. Indeed, following him would inevitably bring divine demotions in the eyes of the world. Rather, I became a Christian because the evidence was so compelling that Jesus really is the one-and-only Son of God who proved his divinity by rising from the dead. That meant following him was the most rational and logical step I could possibly take.”
-- Lee Strobel

“Science itself is steadily nailing the lid on atheism's coffin.”
-- Lee Strobel

“For me, apologetics proved to be the turning point of my life and eternity. I'm thankful for the scholars who so passionately and effectively defend the truth of Christianity - and today my life's goal is to do my part in helping others get answers to the questions that are blocking them in their spiritual journey toward Christ.”
-- Lee Strobel

“All Christians should be able to articulate reasons why they believe what they believe - not just for the sake of our spiritually confused friends, but also so that we ourselves will have a deeper and more confident faith.”
-- Lee Strobel

 

[Kaon]

It is what I stated in post 210. The majority of Christians on this thread have suggested that apologetics is rather ineffective for convincing non believers that the rather large claims of the Bible are true. There is apparently little desire to engage nonbelievers on evidence for the many truth claims central to Christian theology and history. Because of this inability to defend these beliefs, few are converted.

It isn't a Christian's job to convince or convert a nonbeliever; again, the Most High has already set aside an election to be His sons. These are the ones who will come/ have come to Him by Providence. Especially for adults, one must decide what one wants spiritually.

This is why religion is a red herring: it has the world believing humans are supposed to be able to alter one's spiritual trajectory when it has already been decided.

 

[Kaon]

A far cry from "The Case for Christ," "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" and "I don't have enough Faith to be an Atheist"!

“It was the evidence from science and history that prompted me to abandon my atheism and become a Christian.”
-- Lee Strobel

“In short, I didn't become a Christian because God promised I would have an even happier life than I had as an atheist. He never promised any such thing. Indeed, following him would inevitably bring divine demotions in the eyes of the world. Rather, I became a Christian because the evidence was so compelling that Jesus really is the one-and-only Son of God who proved his divinity by rising from the dead. That meant following him was the most rational and logical step I could possibly take.”
-- Lee Strobel

“Science itself is steadily nailing the lid on atheism's coffin.”
-- Lee Strobel

“For me, apologetics proved to be the turning point of my life and eternity. I'm thankful for the scholars who so passionately and effectively defend the truth of Christianity - and today my life's goal is to do my part in helping others get answers to the questions that are blocking them in their spiritual journey toward Christ.”
-- Lee Strobel

“All Christians should be able to articulate reasons why they believe what they believe - not just for the sake of our spiritually confused friends, but also so that we ourselves will have a deeper and more confident faith.”
-- Lee Strobel

The bible says that a learned person arguing with a fool is indistinguishable from the fool himself. It also says not nearly everyone will be saved. It also says don't cast pearls before swine. Be wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove. Apologetics are self-serving, and often misinformation. Why so much trust in human handicaps (logic, reason and apology) when you can (and are required to) literally skip the middle man? Christ didn't make His sacrifice so that people continue to follow the same institutions He reviled.

Humans always want to be told but never want to be told... This forum enjoys debate for debate's sake, but that type of discourse is spiritually draining - which is why discernment and the object for which you cast your treasures is important.

No human has the authority to dictate another human's spiritual trajectory.

 

[Hawkins]

If people are saved by it, either converted or kept from being converted from Christianity. Do please tell us how many are converted to Christianity and how many are prevented from being converted back from Christianity.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

The bible says that a learned person arguing with a fool is indistinguishable from the fool himself. It also says not nearly everyone will be saved. It also says don't cast pearls before swine. Be wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove. Apologetics are self-serving, and often misinformation. Why so much trust in human handicaps (logic, reason and apology) when you can (and are required to) literally skip the middle man? Christ didn't make His sacrifice so that people continue to follow the same institutions He reviled.

Humans always want to be told but never want to be told... This forum enjoys debate for debate's sake, but that type of discourse is spiritually draining - which is why discernment and the object for which you cast your treasures is important.

No human has the authority to dictate another human's spiritual trajectory.

Okay. Thank you for that. So I take it you think apologetics is of little use, rather like I do, though for different reasons to me. Fair enough.