Does apologetics "work"?

[InterestedAtheist]

As I told you it is not the job of a Christian or layperson to convince another adult of something: everyone is responsible for their own spiritual trajectory.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Each person is of course responsible for choosing how to react, but it is your responsibility to present the best case you can for Christianity's claims being true. And, in this place, it is ours to point out our errors.

MUST READ: Christian Apologetics Statement of Purpose
"The purpose of the Christian Apologetics forum is to give non-Christians the opportunity to start threads to challenge Christian theology, beliefs and practices, and Christians the opportunity to rationally defend their beliefs. Christians may start threads to present an argument in support of the Christian faith."

 

[Kaon]

The two are not mutually exclusive. Each person is of course responsible for choosing how to react, but it is your responsibility to present the best case you can for Christianity's claims being true. And, in this place, it is ours to point out our errors.

It is not our responsibility to convert someone, or even present a "best case" - since the "best case" is different for each individual.

Some Christians may choose to engage in fruitless arguments apologetics on here, but it is by no means a requirement.

MUST READ: Christian Apologetics Statement of Purpose

"The purpose of the Christian Apologetics forum is to give non-Christians the opportunity to start threads to challenge Christian theology, beliefs and practices, and Christians the opportunity to rationally defend their beliefs. Christians may start threads to present an argument in support of the Christian faith."

Nowhere in this statement of purpose does it explicitly or implicitly state that "it is the responsibility of the Christian to present the best case you can for Christianity's claims being true." The idea that Christians must evangelize to non-believers is an institutional and cultural issue: the Redeemer specifically told us not to cast our pearls before swine, be wise as serpents and gentle as doves, and He showed us explicitly how to handle extreme cases of blasphemy (like He dealt with the Pharisees).


Nowhere in the canonical texts, apocrypha or gnostics does the Most High or the Redeemer say it is the responsibility of the believer to vindicate Christianity to a nonbeliever (quite the contrary in the apocrypha and gnostics). You are an adult; you are responsible for your own spiritual nourishment. No one owes you (or anyone) an apology about the Most High - especially since He calls His own. As I said, religion is distracting many from actual spirituality. The etymology of religion is "to bind", after all (a verb; technically and infinitive...) You cannot teach someone how to have a relationship with another human, or god, or the Most High, or the Redeemer.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Some Christians may choose to engage in fruitless arguments apologetics on here, but it is by no means a requirement.Nowhere in this statement of purpose does it explicitly or implicitly state that "it is the responsibility of the Christian to present the best case you can for Christianity's claims being true."

Oh, sure. You don't have to spend your time attempting to prove Christianity to be true - even though the Bible tells you that you should. But the purpose of this forum is for you to do so. You don't have to, even so. You can come here and chat about whatever happens to be on your mind if you wish. but never the less, nonbelievers attacking Christianity and Christians defending it is the purpose of this forum.

Still, this particular thread is a bit different. It's asking if you think apologetics is a worthwhile pursuit. You don't. Okay. Bye for now, then.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Oh, sure. You don't have to spend your time attempting to prove Christianity to be true - even though the Bible tells you that you should.

Actually it tells us to have a defence, which is not the same as trying to prove it is true. After all we don't need to 'prove' it is true, we already think that.

 

[Tom 1]

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.

Recently I have engaged several believing members of this forum, across multiple treads, and I have notices a recurring theme. Often believers are claiming that God cannot be proven. I know most of you would agree with that statement as it stands, but in your opinion, can evidence for God be reasonable shown to point that direction. If so, do you think evidentiary apologetics it is a fruitful thing to engage in?

When I was a believer, I believed in God's sovereignty in Election, whereby God saved some and passed over others. However, I still thought evangelism and apologetics where implied because 1 Pete 3:15.

Given that I left the church and no longer believe, you might think I am attacking or insincere. I am sincere--I am just not convinced. Many discussion on this thread include claims by believers who tend to not provide evidence or a rational for theistic claims when asked for them by unbelievers. This is frustrating for advancing dialogue. Why do you think this often happens?--pease don't take that personal.

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?

I suppose it depends how a person thinks. Based on threads here on CF, it does seem that many people do feel that a logical argument is a sound basis for belief, whatever that belief may be. So I think apologetics can be useful for framing ideas in a logical manner. I don't think you can necessarily prove anything to the nth degree through an argument, a logical argument about anything non-obvious doesn't actually make something true, it just frames an idea (true or not) in a way it can be clearly understood, which may be convincing but not 'absolute', so it doesn't 'work' in that sense.

 

[Tom 1]

And I've never seen a Christian reference the Fermi paradox, which is a grim reality for atheists.

That seems a bit of an amorphous idea, there could be all kinds of reasons people have or haven't thought of to explain lack of contact. However you pursued that argument it would always have the impossibility of any certainty underlying it.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Actually it tells us to have a defence, which is not the same as trying to prove it is true. After all we don't need to 'prove' it is true, we already think that.

But this isn't two people meeting on the street, it's the Apologetics Forum. People here are constantly challenging your faith, and Saint Peter told you to be ready to answer us.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

But this isn't two people meeting on the street, it's the Apologetics Forum. People here are constantly challenging your faith, and Saint Peter told you to be ready to answer us.

People are challenging our faith and we should be rising to the occasion, but that doesn't change the fact that the Bible doesn't tell us to spend time proving Christianity is true (if we even could). It tells us to have an answer for what we believe. In essence it is reactive not proactive (though I know a few Christians who are of the opinion that the best defence is a good offence).

For example, I will spend time on a question if it interests me or I think it worthwhile defending, but I don't sit down for a Bible Study or prayer meeting with the intent of proving Christianity... I don't really need to, because if I did, I probably wouldn't be studying or praying in the first place.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

People are challenging our faith and we should be rising to the occasion, but that doesn't change the fact that the Bible doesn't tell us to spend time proving Christianity is true (if we even could). It tells us to have an answer for what we believe. In essence it is reactive not proactive (though I know a few Christians who are of the opinion that the best defence is a good offence).

For example, I will spend time on a question if it interests me or I think it worthwhile defending, but I don't sit down for a Bible Study or prayer meeting with the intent of proving Christianity... I don't really need to, because if I did, I probably wouldn't be studying or praying in the first place.

So...do you agree that a Christian should always be willing and ready to justify their faith if asked why they are a Christian?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

So...do you agree that a Christian should always be willing and ready to justify their faith if asked why they are a Christian?

Yes

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Yes

Great. Well, that's what this forum is for. That, and recognising that some unbelievers wish to expose what they see as flaws in Christian thinking.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Great. Well, that's what this forum is for. That, and recognising that some unbelievers wish to expose what they see as flaws in Christian thinking.

Agreed, but I was pointing out the flaw in your thinking, not trying to debate what this forum is for.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

When Peter said "be ready to explain why you believe" I assumed that meant "why you think Christianity is true". Surely you don't believe something unless you think it's true?

 

[Kaon]

Oh, sure. You don't have to spend your time attempting to prove Christianity to be true - even though the Bible tells you that you should. But the purpose of this forum is for you to do so. You don't have to, even so. You can come here and chat about whatever happens to be on your mind if you wish. but never the less, nonbelievers attacking Christianity and Christians defending it is the purpose of this forum.

Still, this particular thread is a bit different. It's asking if you think apologetics is a worthwhile pursuit. You don't. Okay. Bye for now, then.

That's still not how it works - especially if an answer has been given several times (and ignored because it is unsatisfactory to an individual).

Nonbelievers attacking Christianity and believers defending it is not what this forum is about: is this what Atheists have in their psychology when they join? If so, it would explain the frustration and lashing out when an answer is unsatisfactory. This forums is supposed to be a place of communion FIRST, then a place to cater to non believers if one wants to waste the energy participate: this is why Christians can access every forum, and non-believers even by faith-status cannot.

As I said, in the Apocrypha and Gnostics it is quite foolish to even dispel the "gospel" to people you can discern won't listen or entertain (because it would be casting pearls before swine). This is even true in the canon. Nothing I have said on this thread would count as anything beyond spiritual superficiality, precisely because (as you said) most people come on here to argue or defend Christianity, even though there are scores of other threads devoted only to the faith, recreation and healing/support.

Nowhere in the canonical texts, apocrypha or gnostics does the Most High or the Redeemer say it is the responsibility of the believer to vindicate Christianity to a nonbeliever (quite the contrary in the apocrypha and gnostics). You are an adult; you are responsible for your own spiritual nourishment. No one owes you (or anyone) an apology about the Most High - especially since He calls His own.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Nonbelievers attacking Christianity and believers defending it is not what this forum is about

Actually, it is. See the "Must Read Apologetics Statement of Purpose"?
MUST READ: Christian Apologetics Statement of Purpose
Christian Apologetics is a branch of theology that concerns itself with the rational defense of the Christian faith against arguments and opposing viewpoints. The purpose of the Christian Apologetics forum is to give non-Christians the opportunity to start threads to challenge Christian theology, beliefs and practices, and Christians the opportunity to rationally defend their beliefs. Christians may start threads to present an argument in support of the Christian faith.
This section of the website - not the whole website, but this part of it - is made so that we can attack your beliefs (with reason and logic and politeness, of course) and so you can defend them.

 

[Kaon]

When Peter said "be ready to explain why you believe" I assumed that meant "why you think Christianity is true". Surely you don't believe something unless you think it's true?

Peter didn't mean tell every single human you see - defending your faith to entities you can discern do not want it, or cannot handle it. As stewards of the Redeemer, disciples have a responsibility to tell someone about the Most High and Redeemer if they genuinely ask. But, the Redeemer Himself also said, "don't cast pearls before swine." In other words, you have to have a full context of what these Hebrews were talking about to understand why selectivity is important.

Remember when the Christ said it is not right for Him to give what is lawful to the DOGS (those who were not Hebrews):

Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. Matthew 15:25-26
​

Also,

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. Matthew 7:6
​

We aren't even required to converse with nonbelievers who don't actually want to entertain the faith (but are looking for holes/argument instead.) Many proverbs point to the "fool" and the "fool by comparison" to highlight the futility of simply debating/arguing for the same of it.

Don’t answer the foolish arguments of fools, or you will become as foolish as they are.

Be sure to answer the foolish arguments of fools, or they will become wise in their own estimation.

Trusting a fool to convey a message is like cutting off one’s feet or drinking poison!

A proverb in the mouth of a fool is as useless as a paralyzed leg.

Honoring a fool is as foolish as tying a stone to a slingshot.​

For many of us, this is not simply a game of what is acceptable in our own minds. We don't like to argue for the same of it, especially when it can be discerned it will go nowhere, because it was energy and human resources from some, and distracts one from growing.

 

[Caliban]

I don't think you can necessarily prove anything to the nth degree through an argument, a logical argument about anything non-obvious doesn't actually make something true, it just frames an idea (true or not) in a way it can be clearly understood, which may be convincing but not 'absolute', so it doesn't 'work' in that sense.

I think many people often think philosophy performs a bigger lift in their ideas than it actually does. If anything, philosophy's value is simply its ability to articulate logical syllogisms and the epistemic path to justified knowledge. It doesn't do what many theists think it does, it cannot point to a god and it cannot ever be evidence for supernatural claims.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No I get where you're coming from. However, I'm a vestige from the 'Erwin' days, when I used to be a Christian, and I'm truly interested in genuine conversation. I just find you to be a bit of a sophist, that's all. It's no skin off my nose if you don't respond or put me on ignore.

.....*sigh*. I'm not going to put you on ignore.

See above.



Back at ya'.



Likewise.

I guarantee you that hermeneutics is 'legit' and has been going on since at least the time of Plato (and Ezra). If it's not recognized as a proper part of Christian Apologetics, then that's not my fault. I place that blame elsewhere.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

When Peter said "be ready to explain why you believe" I assumed that meant "why you think Christianity is true". Surely you don't believe something unless you think it's true?

You said:

You don't have to spend your time attempting to prove Christianity to be true - even though the Bible tells you that you should.

And I was attempting to point out that the directive in 1 Peter does not indicate that we should be spending time attempting to prove Christianity to be true, that is something we do as reactively, not proactively. Christians should be spending time with God and their brethren, not wasting it on frivolous arguments. Titus 3 tells us to spend time on good works and avoid foolish debates, etc.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't approach any conversation by looking for weak spots in a persona armor. I am legitimately asking questions to have a dialogue. I think there is a lot of anxiety on this forum about feeling like people need to protect themselves from the attack of others. When I ask a question, I may be exploring the persons ideas in order to understand and strongman them. Or, I might be asking questions socratically to follow the logic of their idea to its natural conclusion. Either way, no one should avoid discussion on a discussion forum. But it is actually difficult to get a real conversation going with anybody here. Everyone is so scared of ideas. That is my personal experience and I hold my opinion conditionally.

I think Loftus is right about the Outsider Test.

I don't know who's scared of discussion, 'cuz I ain't one of them. I'm also not 'scared' to be given someone else's [skeptical] framework, ignore the Bible, and plow into that person's understanding of the world, epistemology, axiologically, and maybe metaphysically. That's what I did with another atheist who used to come around these parts. Interestingly enough, we discussed in a PM together Loftus' OTF, and by the time we were halfway through, he gave up because he could see at least half my points about the weakness of Loftus' argument.

Personally, I really would like to have an honest and peaceable discussion WITHOUT all of the imputations and insinuations about how stupid or esoteric or illogical or irrelevant or needless my own approach to the Christian Faith is. On my part, one reason I get a bit peeved is NOT because I think most of you skeptics are ignorant or uneducated, but because you are educated and you refuse, sometimes utterly refuse to deeply and fully engage another angle on things that is also educated. And frankly, I don't get that.