Does apologetics "work"?

[2PhiloVoid]

I am always asking theists to provide any testable evidence for their many claims. I have never once received any--never once.

... tell me if I'm wrong about what I'm saying here, but it almost sounds like you're working with the assumption that Evidentialism, Foundationalism, and the Correspondence Theory of Truth can all somehow be fully reconciled with Methodological Naturalism, especially where the 'God' question is concerned. Is this far off the mark or am I misconceiving your epistemic position?

I am not sure this is the place to discuss 300 page books. People here generally want to take one claim at a time and address whether it leads to truth.

....well, talk about a conversation stopper. I'm not sure how avoiding discussion about the expansive ideas and theoretical outlays provided by larger minds than ours is overly beneficial to the search after Truth, especially if the whole concept of Truth is still up for grabs.

If I wanted to engage with a philosophers ideas--I'd read their book. But here, we should probably just engage with one another. I don't want to be given a book assignment--I'd prefer to know what you think and talk about that.

And what if just about ALL of the ideas I have in my head have come by having read ... books. Big books, and I'm not talking about the Bible. I do this because I tend not to make up my own .... [bless and do not curse] ... {I wrote that 'bless and do not curse' myself---mainly because I didn't want to have to hassle the censuring measures to do it for me.}

Street Epistemology is an effective tool that works for any belief. You could use it to discover whether someone who advocates for gun rights or global warming has arrived at their conclusion for good reasons.

Maybe. But the Street Epistemology that is being proffered lately mainly runs on the epistemic assumptions of Foundationalism, assumptions which I don't share nor do I feel have to share, knowing what I know about "knowing."

That might be a good thread to start and discuss. What I mean by atheists generally not appreciating a philosophical approach to supernatural claims is that, although philosophy is interesting and has provided humanity with some excellent critical thinking tools, it does not seem to actually support theistic claims well. Theists however often rely on philosophical arguments for God.

...I hate to disappoint some atheists, but when they 'do' street epistemology, they're 'doing' philosophy, whether they realize it or not.

Also, when we're talking about evidences and the praxis by which we can and will identify and measure those evidences, we're 'doing' Philosophy of Science as well as skipping across the big yellowed fields of Epistemology. So again, when we do these discussions, with books or no books in tow ..............................we're 'doing' Philosophy. You just can't escape it.

What can be escaped from is the 'doing' of Good Philosophy.

 

[Caliban]

... tell me if I'm wrong about what I'm saying here, but it almost sounds like you're working with the assumption that Evidentialism, Foundationalism, and the Correspondence Theory of Truth can all somehow be fully reconciled with Methodological Naturalism, especially where the 'God' question is concerned. Is this far off the mark or am I misconceiving your epistemic position?

Why not simply give me any reason you believe. I don't care to get your thinking right--just tell me what it is and why.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why not simply give me any reason you believe. I don't care to get your thinking right--just tell me what it is and why.

Essentially, I think the 'world' as we know it looks, acts and talks politically and spiritually the way that the authors of the Bible have indicated that it would (and does). And that's about it...............other than all of the various reasons I've already given over the last few years in thread after thread which I've created here on CF.

 

[Amittai]

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.

I Jn 2:19 isn't about you, and they can't know about your state of repentance which would be your own business solely (if relevant).

I think the time element around religion gets neglected by careless insiders. Bad religious people wanted to hurry us up (or trap us in their own false time warp), now we are free to take our time our way.

 

[FireDragon76]

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 actually think traditional apologetics is anti-theology. It literally poisons faith. Dietrich Bonhoeffer implied something similar in some of his later works. It's the wrong move for a humanity come of age, to treat us as children that can be bamboozled by a hodge-podge of spurious logic and nihilism hid behind bad faith.

It's one of the reasons I've become dissatisfied, alot of the discourse of Christians isn't good enough to address deeply held concerns I, and many other people have.

 

[FireDragon76]

Essentially, I think the 'world' as we know it looks, acts and talks politically and spiritually the way that the authors of the Bible have indicated that it would (and does). And that's about it...............other than all of the various reasons I've already given over the last few years in thread after thread which I've created here on CF.

But is that evidence of the infallibility of the Bible, or simply that the Bible has some authors or figures (like Jesus) who display a relative degree of wisdom and insight into the human condition which can be, at times, useful? After all, I still quote from the Bible from time to time in my own life, but that doesn't follow from that that I subscribe to a Christian creed.

 

[Caliban]

I actually think traditional apologetics is anti-theology. It literally poisons faith. Dietrich Bonhoeffer implied something similar in some of his later works. It's the wrong move for a humanity come of age, to treat us as children that can be bamboozled by a hodge-podge of spurious logic and nihilism hid behind bad faith.

It's one of the reasons I've become dissatisfied, alot of the discourse of Christians isn't good enough to address deeply held concerns I, and many other people have.

Luther was also hostel to reasoned arguments when discussing matters of religion and faith.

 

[FireDragon76]

Luther was also hostel to reasoned arguments when discussing matters of religion and faith.

To some extent, that's true. It would be more correct to say he was rejecting the analytical philosophy that was common in Catholicism at the time that masqueraded as theology.

Bonhoeffer was saying something deeper about the whole project of Christendom itself, however.

 

[Caliban]

To some extent, that's true. It would be more correct to say he was rejecting the analytical philosophy that was common in Catholicism at the time that masqueraded as theology.

Bonhoeffer was saying something deeper about the whole project of Christendom itself, however.

To some extent, that's true. It would be more correct to say he was rejecting the analytical philosophy that was common in Catholicism at the time that masqueraded as theology.

Bonhoeffer was saying something deeper about the whole project of Christendom itself, however.

What you say modern apologetics is anti theology--what do you mean? That sounds interesting?

 

[Caliban]

Essentially, I think the 'world' as we know it looks, acts and talks politically and spiritually the way that the authors of the Bible have indicated that it would (and does). And that's about it...............other than all of the various reasons I've already given over the last few years in thread after thread which I've created here on CF.

I think that could be said for most religious texts. Biblical authors are merely identifying basic human traits. They also often disagree with one another.

 

[Caliban]

I actually think traditional apologetics is anti-theology. It literally poisons faith. Dietrich Bonhoeffer implied something similar in some of his later works. It's the wrong move for a humanity come of age, to treat us as children that can be bamboozled by a hodge-podge of spurious logic and nihilism hid behind bad faith.

It's one of the reasons I've become dissatisfied, alot of the discourse of Christians isn't good enough to address deeply held concerns I, and many other people have.

As a person who thinks faith is a negative thing, I agree that reason poisons faith. Logic never leads to theological conclusions--faith is required for that.

 

[FireDragon76]

What you say modern apologetics is anti theology--what do you mean? That sounds interesting?

It would be difficult to explain it succinctly, especially if a person is unfamiliar with modern Protestant theology. It comes mainly from my familiarity with Bonhoeffer's theology/philosophy, as well as post-WWII theology and philosophy in general.

In fairness, I will throw out some references. Just be warned that it is not light reading.

Experimental Theology: Letters from Cell 92: Part 1, A New Theology

Bonhoeffer is the linchpin of my understanding of the best of Christianity. Nothing else makes much sense as a foundation in a post-Auschwitz world. A true Christian must be a person for others, not a crusader out to convince people they are idiotic, uninformed, or mistaken, as many apologists do. Even if that means forfeiting the project of traditional apologetics altogether.

 

[muichimotsu]

It would be difficult to explain it succinctly, especially if a person is unfamiliar with modern Protestant theology. It comes mainly from my familiarity with Bonhoeffer's theology/philosophy, as well as post-WWII theology and philosophy in general.

In fairness, I will throw out some references. Just be warned that it is not light reading.

Experimental Theology: Letters from Cell 92: Part 1, A New Theology

Bonhoeffer is the linchpin of my understanding of the best of Christianity. Nothing else makes much sense as a foundation in a post-Auschwitz world. A true Christian must be a person for others, not a crusader out to convince people they are idiotic, uninformed, or mistaken, as many apologists do. Even if that means forfeiting the project of traditional apologetics altogether.

So sort of more convincing in a passive manner: they will know we are Christians by our fruits, our love? Change by example? Honey rather than vinegar?

I mean, that works better than the idea of trying to emphasize how your particular worldview is better and tearing down someone else's versus finding common ground, basically apologetics by polemics (ironic how they tie together better than one can realize in a way)

 

[muichimotsu]

But is that evidence of the infallibility of the Bible, or simply that the Bible has some authors or figures (like Jesus) who display a relative degree of wisdom and insight into the human condition which can be, at times, useful? After all, I still quote from the Bible from time to time in my own life, but that doesn't follow from that that I subscribe to a Christian creed.

Regarding the whole message as of such importance is what makes a Christian, arguably, not just acknowledging some parts to have validity, even if the execution within the narrative is arguably contradictory or problematic in the morality it espouses. I can find ideas of pacifism admirable even if the motivation for Christians to do so is emblematic of obedience to God rather than valuing humanity's flourishing by not immediately resolving conflicts with war and violence.

 

[Caliban]

It would be difficult to explain it succinctly, especially if a person is unfamiliar with modern Protestant theology. It comes mainly from my familiarity with Bonhoeffer's theology/philosophy, as well as post-WWII theology and philosophy in general.

In fairness, I will throw out some references. Just be warned that it is not light reading.

Experimental Theology: Letters from Cell 92: Part 1, A New Theology

Bonhoeffer is the linchpin of my understanding of the best of Christianity. Nothing else makes much sense as a foundation in a post-Auschwitz world. A true Christian must be a person for others, not a crusader out to convince people they are idiotic, uninformed, or mistaken, as many apologists do. Even if that means forfeiting the project of traditional apologetics altogether.

I am passingly familiar with C theology; as a one-time Reformed Christian, I have often read his work when considering the moral principals of redemption. However, was Bonhoeffer not interested in persuading people, of what he considered, the truth of Christianity? Was Bonhoeffer not a modern thinker? He was not A-apologetic. How did Bonhoeffer's apologetic differ from contemporary approaches?

 

[FireDragon76]

So sort of more convincing in a passive manner: they will know we are Christians by our fruits, our love? Change by example? Honey rather than vinegar?

I mean, that works better than the idea of trying to emphasize how your particular worldview is better and tearing down someone else's versus finding common ground, basically apologetics by polemics (ironic how they tie together better than one can realize in a way)

Bonhoeffer was seemingly against the notion of manipulating anyone into belief. He was against that sort of "love".

But yes, Christians actually living out a life of love would go a long way towards what philosophers of religion call "credibility enhancing displays", or "CREDS", which is an important concept that most people seem to use to decide whether a particular religion is worth following.

 

[FireDragon76]

I am passingly familiar with C theology; as a one-time Reformed Christian, I have often read his work when considering the moral principals of redemption. However, was Bonhoeffer not interested in persuading people, of what he considered, the truth of Christianity? Was Bonhoeffer not a modern thinker? He was not A-apologetic. How did Bonhoeffer's apologetic differ from contemporary approaches?

Bonhoeffer did not believe in apologetics, at least not in the usual sense. His theology was not a form of apologetics, it was a way to articulate Christian theory and praxis in a modern world to Christians themselves.

 

[FireDragon76]

Regarding the whole message as of such importance is what makes a Christian, arguably, not just acknowledging some parts to have validity, even if the execution within the narrative is arguably contradictory or problematic in the morality it espouses. I can find ideas of pacifism admirable even if the motivation for Christians to do so is emblematic of obedience to God rather than valuing humanity's flourishing by not immediately resolving conflicts with war and violence.

For some Christians, this is really viewing their theory through a false dichotomy. Many Christian ethicists are not so shallow as to reduce morality to simple a matter of obedience to an omnipotent authority figure, there needs to be theological reflection on what the image of God means, and so on.

 

[AV1611VET]

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?

Yes.

See 1 Peter 3:15.

 

[muichimotsu]

Bonhoeffer was seemingly against the notion of manipulating anyone into belief. He was against that sort of "love".

But yes, Christians actually living out a life of love would go a long way towards what philosophers of religion call "credibility enhancing displays", or "CREDS", which is an important concept that most people seem to use to decide whether a particular religion is worth following.

The problem remains that someone being good and consistent with their worldview doesn't make the worldview true in the claims it makes, only that it can be internally consistent and help someone be a better person.

It's the inverse of a similar problem in saying something is wrong merely because there are hypocrites within a worldview in the first place, neither of these extremes undermines or adds credibility to a position if we're talking about its truth rather than practical pragmatic benefits that can be found outside of it.