Does apologetics "work"?

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Thanks for your thoughtful response. There are many atheist who are uninformed about the faith. But I am an unbeliever of many faiths I don not understand. I am not sure that if I knew more about them I would change my mind on their truth claims. In this sense, I don't think it is relevant that Dawkins is unfamiliar with the inter-working of theology.

What do you mean by a "sincere seeker?" I am not sure I would qualify. Since I used to teach apologetics at my church, I am aware of the bad arguments I used to make. I am not exactly expecting someone to provide a good argument for the faith--but you never know.

sincere seeker: someone who genuinely wants to know what makes people tick.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I think you misread my post. I am not sure what your concern is. But I can tell you why I am here. I was a Christian my entire life until a few years ago, I enjoy staying engaged in topics I studied for years, and I enjoy engaging with others I disagree with. I don't like living in an idea vacuum where everyone thinks like me.

I'm intrigued, given you taught apologetics, what turned you to the dark side of the force

 

[Caliban]

Yes in the long run. Apologetics works or at least has value. It often does not work when it comes to its intended target aka unbelievers, even though it occasionally does.

But here is a list of ideas.


1) I think Apologetics is important because of the mental life of Christianity etc. There was a book put out called "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" put out by an Evangelical Academic, the scandal of the book is that their was not much of an Evangelical mind as the author put it. But that sort of thing, I think is important to the Faith at large.


2) Their can be a reverse side of #1 among Atheists and other skeptics as far as stereotypes etc. In the past, talking to atheists I've been surprised how many assume some obsolete ideas/ tropes like "The Conflict Thesis".
Conflict thesis - Wikipedia


3) When it comes to my own Faith, I have been positively influenced by certain Christian Apologists like Hugh Ross. I learned that Science and Faith are not necessarily in conflict, but if your an old Earth Creationist that really is the sweet spot!


4) I also think this sort of thing is worth it, for kids going to college etc. People like to use words like "indoctrination" in terms of religion etc. but I think this sort of thing fits other people like atheistic professors who believe their mission in life is to deconvert Christian students etc.

When I was a Christian getting a degree in Religious studies and Literature, I had do dig deep in the library to find anything like evidence to support my faith claims. In the end, the evidence just wasn't there. I am familiar with most, if not all, major apologetic arguments--I even used to make them--but I think I was wrong.

It seems apologetics exists to comfort believers and not to effectively convince non-believers.

 

[Caliban]

sincere seeker: someone who genuinely wants to know what makes people tick.

Oh--that's me. I'm insanely curious about people and their ideas.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Agreed! Also reminds me of Clarks Law concerning technology being indistinguishable from a god.

It was magic, though some atheists insist they are the same thing

 

[Caliban]

It was magic, though some atheists insist they are the same thing

I don't know about some atheists. An atheist is only a person who is not a theist. That's it. Plenty of atheists hav absurd ideas--just like many Christians. I don't think the term atheist is very helpful for understanding what they do believe. It just means when they are asked if they believe in a theistic god, they say no. The term involves no more than that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you okay?

Am I ........ 'OK'? Heck no! Is anyone 'ok'? Of course I'm not okay. Not any more 'ok' than John the Baptist was on his way to Herod's dungeon.

 

[Caliban]

Am I ........ 'OK'? Heck no! Is anyone 'ok'? Of course I'm not okay. Not any more 'ok' than John the Baptist was on his way to Herod's dungeon.

I am not attacking you. I apologize if I am coming across that way. I just give as good as I get.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I don't know about some atheists. An atheist is only a person who is not a theist. That's it. Plenty of atheists hav absurd ideas--just like many Christians. I don't think the term atheist is very helpful for understanding what they do believe. It just means when they are asked if they believe in a theistic god, they say no. The term involves no more than that.

But some atheists go one step further than simply saying they don't believe in a god or are not a theist, they start to denigrate theists or misrepresent them (e.g. Hitchens' God poisons everything). That is why apologetics becomes a useful tool.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

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?

5) The nature of Truth / Logos etc.

If you are interested in Truth. It matters. And I say this as in terms of metaphysics, philosophy, empiricism etc.

I've actually been very interested in that general topic and have thought about talking about it a lot.

But the nature of Truth is very interesting

From the Biblical perspective it exists

1) Altheia Greek objective truth

2) Hebrew, Emeth it exists from a structural standpoint the truth is something that should make you whole etc.

Anyway this does lead to some interesting things. In general, I believe some Apologetics. Philosophy etc. is good from a long term stand point. Good for the individual, society etc. that people should be "open systems" when it comes to learning new things etc.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

When I was a Christian getting a degree in Religious studies and Literature, I had do dig deep in the library to find anything like evidence to support my faith claims. In the end, the evidence just wasn't there. I am familiar with most, if not all, major apologetic arguments--I even used to make them--but I think I was wrong.

It seems apologetics exists to comfort believers and not to effectively convince non-believers.

Well Ross has done a good job dealing with Atheists who highly value science.


And well there is my fifth point, concerning the nature of Truth, as Logos etc. I am very concerned on that especially if you consider areas of epistemology. The Joehari window is something I am concerned of when it comes to Christians wanting to go to a cultural ghetto. The more you do that, the larger your blind area will be.....


johari window - Google Search

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am not attacking you. I apologize if I am coming across that way. I just give as good as I get.

And I apologize for not being able to tone down my rhetoric.

 

[Jok]

I was a Christian my entire life until a few years ago, I enjoy staying engaged in topics I studied for years, and I enjoy engaging with others I disagree with. I don't like living in an idea vacuum where everyone thinks like me.

Apologetics can have mixed results depending on several factors that involve how it is used, and what state the person receiving it is coming from. A lot of times apologetics can be presented in a way that gives a false sense of academic perfection, presented in a way that looks like every single I is dotted and every single T is crossed, and then the person might become convinced, but then later on they are totally rocked out of belief because they later find out that things are not at all wrapped up in a pretty perfect package with no hard difficulties. The reality of ancient history is more messy. It can actually get very messy, and a lot of times you are left with possibilities but not certainties. My head is still spinning a little from just recently having a member in here point me to a thread they had created about ancient literary practices, and how much the accusation of cultures plagiarizing off of each other is poorly understood (through modern eyes).

I already had the attitude that things in reality are a lot sloppier then they are usually presented, yet still this thread had my head spinning. Afterwards I am even more concerned with how sometimes apologetics can give people a false sense of perfection, unless it’s understood that it’s only a starting point and they need to take things deeper. This was the thread;


The Missing Page

 

[Caliban]

But some atheists go one step further than simply saying they don't believe in a god or are not a theist, they start to denigrate theists or misrepresent them (e.g. Hitchens' God poisons everything). That is why apologetics becomes a useful tool.

I think that is true. I have a lot of regrets about things I used to advocate as a Christian. I think many of my old ideas are in fact bad for the world. Anyone who has a major swing of opinion with have similar thoughts. A person who changes their mind about their political affiliations might have a similar experience. My politic have changed over the years. I look back at some of those ideas as being harmful. However, I think there is a difference between saying a religious idea is bad and a religious person is bad.

 

[Caliban]

And I apologize for not being able to tone down my rhetoric.

No sweat--we are just passionate about our convictions and ideas.

 

[Caliban]

Apologetics can have mixed results depending on several factors that involve how it is used, and what state the person receiving it is coming from. A lot of times apologetics can be presented in a way that gives a false sense of academic perfection, presented in a way that looks like every single I is dotted and every single T is crossed, and then the person might become convinced, but then later on they are totally rocked out of belief because they later find out that things are not at all wrapped up in a pretty perfect package with no hard difficulties. The reality of ancient history is more messy. It can actually get very messy, and a lot of times you are left with possibilities but not certainties. My head is still spinning a little from just recently having a member in here point me to a thread they had created about ancient literary practices, and how much the accusation of cultures plagiarizing off of each other is poorly understood (through modern eyes).

I already had the attitude that things in reality are a lot sloppier then they are usually presented, yet still this thread had my head spinning. Afterwards I am even more concerned with how sometimes apologetics can give people a false sense of perfection, unless it’s understood that it’s only a starting point and they need to take things deeper. This was the thread;


The Missing Page

I will definitely check out that thread when I have a sec. A a teacher of literature, I'm interested.

 

[Caliban]

Well Ross has done a good job dealing with Atheists who highly value science.


And well there is my fifth point, concerning the nature of Truth, as Logos etc. I am very concerned on that especially if you consider areas of epistemology. The Joehari window is something I am concerned of when it comes to Christians wanting to go to a cultural ghetto. The more you do that, the larger your blind area will be.....


johari window - Google Search

Epistemology was the death knell to my faith. I am familiar with the interiority of The Johari Window, but how does it relate to what you mentioned. That sounds interesting.

 

[ZNP]

I am unaware of what you mean by the 12 gates into new Jerusalem. I am failure with Rome--the city on 12 hills and that there were 12 gates on the temple in Jerusalem--the Jaffa Gate, Herod's gate etc...

The church becomes the New Jerusalem, so the New Jerusalem symbolically represents the church. There are 12 gates, 3 on each side, signifying that people come into the church from every direction. There are many different paths that a person can take that will lead them to the church.

 

[Jok]

I will definitely check out that thread when I have a sec. A a teacher of literature, I'm interested.

I was trying to be more thorough and give you the link that led up to that member pointing me towards that thread, it unfortunately took me much longer to find because the search option is currently down in the forum, but I finally found it! It started in a thread about miracles. I started the conversation with him at post #52, it started with me telling him that I’ve always felt foolish when I read the story of Samson, so just for thoroughness here was that thread;

Miracles

 

[Caliban]

The church becomes the New Jerusalem, so the New Jerusalem symbolically represents the church. There are 12 gates, 3 on each side, signifying that people come into the church from every direction. There are many different paths that a person can take that will lead them to the church.

Thanks for the info.