Does apologetics "work"?

2PhiloVoid · Jul 23, 2020

Caliban said:
What is your understanding of the biblical text, it the cannon divinely inspired? Are some books inspired? I know inspiration is a theologically complicated word. How do you see it?

Personally, I think the canon (by which I mean the overall praxis that has determined the selection of biblical texts) ISN'T something of which we can say it is "divinely inspired," nor do we have to be too concerned that the later process of choice by which various Christians in history have worked was decidedly divine in nature (or not). The biblical works are what they are regardless of whether we think they're special all by their little selves. This isn't to say that the letters and books we have collected in the Bible (i.e. the Sacred Library) weren't written by men (maybe a woman, even?) who were divinely entangled with God and His Messiah, Jesus Christ.

See, I come at all of this a little differently. I don't care what any certain denomination presently "says" about the bible---no, I'm more focused on 'who' the writers of the text were and why we might surmise they've said something we should existentially decide to adopt or accommodate into our mental matrix (preferably and educated mental matrix).

Caliban · Jul 23, 2020

2PhiloVoid said:
No, the canon (by which I mean the overall praxis that has determined the selection of biblical texts) ISN'T something of which we can say it is "divinely inspired." This isn't to say that the letters and books we have collected in the Bible (i.e. the Sacred Library) weren't written by men (maybe a woman, even?) who were divinely entangled with God and His Messiah, Jesus Christ.

See, I come at all of this a little differently. I don't care what any certain denomination presently "says" about the bible---no, I'm more focused on 'who' the writers of the text were and why we might surmise they've said something we should existentially decide to adopt or accommodate into our mental matrix (preferably and educated mental matrix).

I still don't know what you mean by inspired.
What about books with unknown authors like the Synoptic Gospels and about half of the letters attributed to Paul; are they in any way inspired?

2PhiloVoid · Jul 23, 2020

BigV said:
Pascal had a wager that he is famous for, right? Which is also a reason for modern Christians to tread lightly when it comes to challenges to their faith.

Since the existence of an eternal Hell cannot be disproven, it's better to believe in a religion that gives you a path out of Hell than to be an Atheist, since you don't lose anything if Atheism is true and you believe in a religion, where as you lose an eternity in Hell if you pick Atheism but religion turns out to be true.

Of course, one flaw in that thinking is you can't follow every religion that teaches about eternal Hell. And, no matter what religion you pick, there is always another religion's Hell awaiting you after you die.

We've had this discussion before. Stop with the obfuscation and repetitive denial of everything I've already said on this forum. I'm not going to stomach that kind of response very long. To hell with all of that! If you think that all the name Pascal refers to, and is thereby associated with, is a 'Wager,' then you've got another thing com'n ... !

WAKE UP!

DamianWarS · Jul 23, 2020

Caliban said:
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?

Apologetics is useful the intellectual community but it's not an effect evangelizing strategy for the masses as typically it just evokes debate not understanding.

But your right, God is unprovable because science doesn't have the ability to look outside itself. Science is based on the laws of the natural world, the space time continuum, and is unable to peak outside this.

If there is such a thing as God he is the author of these laws and creator of the continuum so God would exist not inside his own creation but outside. Science can only observe from the inside and whatever it sees will be explained based on the vacuum it's in. So it may go back to a single point of origin but it has no capacity to go further. Or it may see phenomenon it can't fully explain but it's goal is never to say "God did it" which would be counter-science but instead it's goal is to keep going deeper until it can be explained but the depth has a limit.

Science and God can co-exist it's just a matter of placing God outside of the reach of science because if science could explain God then it's not really God it's only a naturally phenomenon inside the realm of science which theologically speaking would be God's creation not God. It sounds like a cheap answer but logically speaking if God is God it's the only way he could exist otherwise he's just a thing with limits in the natural world.

Caliban · Jul 23, 2020

DamianWarS said:
Apologetics is useful the intellectual community but it's not an effect evangelizing strategy for the masses as typically it just evokes debate not understanding.

What might a person like me not understand?

DamianWarS said:
...God is unprovable because science doesn't have the ability to look outside itself. Science is based on the laws of the natural world, the space time continuum, and is unable to peak outside this.

Why should I believe there is something outside of the natural world?

DamianWarS said:
Science and God can co-exist it's just a matter of placing God outside of the reach of science because if science could explain God then it's not really God it's only a naturally phenomenon inside the realm of science which theologically speaking would be God's creation not God. It sounds like a cheap answer but logically speaking if God is God it's the only way he could exist otherwise he's just a thing with limits in the natural world.

This sounds like Gould's idea of NOMA (Non Overlapping Magisteria). The problem though, is this. A completely undetectable God could theoretically exist; but, the Bible presents an active and a personal God which does act in the natural world. Shouldn't we be able to observe the effects of those actions? From a window we know the wind blows because the tree moves. I didn't have to personally feel the wind, but I have evidence of it. If God acts in the world, his activity will leave a trace, an imprint--something detectable and observable.

2PhiloVoid · Jul 23, 2020

Caliban said:
What might a person like me not understand?

Why should I believe there is something outside of the natural world?

This sounds like Gould's idea of NOMA (Non Overlapping Magisteria). The problem though, is this. A completely undetectable God could theoretically exist; but, the Bible presents an active and a personal God which does act in the natural world. Shouldn't we be able to observe the effects of those actions? From a window we know the wind blows because the tree moves. I didn't have to personally feel the wind, but I have evidence of it. If God acts in the world, his activity will leave a trace, an imprint--something detectable and observable.

Not exactly. Gould's idea of NOMA, which I studied during my Master's thesis work, is in line with Methodological Naturalism. Moreover, the Bible itself presents a God who CHOOSES to limit the extent of His obviousness to the world, even to His own people. Hence, it's not a surprise that we find all of the various reports in the New Testament where there are people ... just ..... not......understanding.....clearly.....that Jesus is the expected Messiah.

So no. God isn't going to be "obvious," especially if biblical epistemology has anything to say about it, and even more so if Modern scientific praxis requires more than just 'bits and pieces' of past remnants by which to deduce the presence of some kind of "evidence."

No, you're expectation is more in line with Philosophical Naturalism, like that of Dawkins.

Caliban · Jul 23, 2020

2PhiloVoid said:
God isn't going to be "obvious," especially if biblical epistemology...

Of course it's not obvious.

2PhiloVoid said:
No, you're expectation is more in line with Philosophical Naturalism, like that of Dawkins.

I love Dawkins, but I'm not a philosophical Naturalist--I'm Methodological Naturalist. How am I wrong to expect evidence of a god's actions in the real world. Isn't the entire premise of miracles and the resurrection based on this?

2PhiloVoid · Jul 23, 2020

Caliban said:
Of course it's not obvious.

I love Dawkins, but I'm not a philosophical Naturalist--I'm Methodological Naturalist. How am I wrong to expect evidence of a god's actions in the real world. Isn't the entire premise of miracles and the resurrection based on this?

Uh, no. Who ever said God was subscribing to Foundationalism and Evidentialism?

Caliban · Jul 23, 2020

2PhiloVoid said:
Uh, no. Who ever said God was subscribing to Foundationalism and Evidentialism?

I don't understand how this response addresses what I wrote. Can you clarify it?

2PhiloVoid · Jul 23, 2020

Caliban said:
I don't understand how this response addresses what I wrote. Can you clarify it?

To simplify: Your epistemic expectation seems to infer the presence of notions regarding justification that require a more Foundationalist and Evidentialist expectation, kind of like those of W.K. Clifford.

And I'm saying those epistemic notions aren't what we find in the bible, on the whole.

As I've said before in other threads here on C.F. during the past few years, our attempts to reach out and touch the face of God won't be parallel to reaching out and landing on the surface of the Moon. God doesn't pander to our attempts to apply either systematic Epistêmê or Technê, yet for some reason, everyone talks as if He does, has and will constantly do so. (Probably partly due to the over-hype that comes from some Fundamentalist and Charismatic circles of Christians ...)

Carl Emerson · Jul 23, 2020

BigV said:
From my experience, Christians cannot distinguish between truth and fiction, because Christians rely on faith. But by faith, one can accept fiction as truth.

So 'your experience' is a reference for truth?

Don't all humans suffer from accepting fiction as truth if they rely on their own experience?

Caliban · Jul 23, 2020

2PhiloVoid said:
To simplify: Your epistemic expectation seems to infer the presence of notions regarding justification that require a more Foundationalist and Evidentialist expectation, kind of like those of W.K. Clifford.

And I'm saying those epistemic notions aren't what we find in the bible, on the whole.

As I've said before in other threads here on C.F. during the past few years, our attempts to reach out and touch the face of God won't be parallel to reaching out and landing on the surface of the Moon. God doesn't pander to our attempts to apply either systematic Epistêmê or Technê, yet for some reason, everyone talks as if He does, has and will constantly do so. (Probably partly due to the over-hype that comes from some Fundamentalist and Charismatic circles of Christians ...)

The fact that we cannot detect a god or the supernatural is not evidence there is no god; but it is a reason to withhold believe.

Carl Emerson · Jul 23, 2020

Caliban said:
Now I mean my belief. If you asked me three years ago I might have said something like, my standing before God based on the atoning work of Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

I think such a definition is a common mistake - Faith comes from the living Word of Christ and is not something from us - it is not a mindset we manufacture in response to what we think about God. Sadly this is a common misunderstanding among Christians. Faith is a gift.

Caliban · Jul 23, 2020

Carl Emerson said:
I think such a definition is a common mistake - Faith comes from the living Word of Christ and is not something from us - it is not a mindset we manufacture in response to what we think about God. Sadly this is a common misunderstanding among Christians. Faith is a gift.

I don't mean to be rude, but every Christian tells me I am wrong about everything I say about the faith. There are millions of opinions on what is and isn't "correct." In philosophy this is the Scotsman Fallacy. I know you believe it, but I see no reason why you are correct out of billions of people. Your personal interpretation or your preferred theological tradition is more diverse than the literary scholarship of Homer's Iliad. When the religious get their own house in order, I'll take your critique of my understanding of faith and theology under advisement.

Carl Emerson · Jul 23, 2020

Caliban said:
the Bible presents an active and a personal God which does act in the natural world. Shouldn't we be able to observe the effects of those actions?

Yes I agree - and I have opened a thread here
Jesus's Ministry
Where I have documented exactly this.

The problem I have is that many 'Christians' with theological glasses immediately dismiss such evidence. Anyone claiming to actually experience what the bible records as 'normative' is pretty much attacked. In many cases, those who take office in various churches assume the role of being 'curators' of a museum which fondly preserves the remaining threads of a faith that once was...

Caliban · Jul 23, 2020

Carl Emerson said:
Yes I agree - and I have opened a thread here
Jesus's Ministry
Where I have documented exactly this.

The problem I have is that many 'Christians' with theological glasses immediately dismiss such evidence. Anyone claiming to actually experience what the bible records as 'normative' is pretty much attacked. In many cases, those who take office in various churches assume the role of being 'curators' of a museum which fondly preserves the remaining threads of a faith that once was...

Then why is an active God so thoroughly undetectable? Recall the book He is There and He is Not Silent, by Francis Shaffer. If he is not silent, why is he so quiet?

Carl Emerson · Jul 23, 2020

Caliban said:
I don't mean to be rude, but every Christian tells me I am wrong about everything I say about the faith. There are millions of opinions on what is and isn't "correct." In philosophy this is the Scotsman Fallacy. I know you believe it, but I see no reason why you are correct out of billions of people. Your personal interpretation or your preferred theological tradition is more diverse than the literary scholarship of Homer's Iliad. When the religious get their own house in order, I'll take your critique of my understanding of faith and theology under advisement.

No problem - I was simply saying that Christians in general have a sloppy understanding of what faith is - as you don't claim to be one, my comment was not directed at you as you say you no longer believe.

Carl Emerson · Jul 23, 2020

Caliban said:
Then why is an active God so thoroughly undetectable? Recall the book He is There and He is Not Silent, by Francis Shaffer. If he is not silent, why is he so quiet?

This is a good question - It reminds me of the child Samuel and that scripture records that the 'Word of the Lord' was rare on those days.

I think we are currently in a period of social decay which happens not because He is silent but because we refuse to listen.

childeye 2 · Jul 23, 2020

Caliban said:
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?

We need to understand what the term faith actually means when we use it. It is a unique term affecting our psycholinguistics on a fundamental level.

To your first question. If something exists as eternal, it cannot ever be proven nor disproven as such. The acknowledgment of this should inform the mind to the circumstance of why faith is going to be a prerequisite for sound reasoning.

To your second question: If anyone comes to understand why faith is a prerequisite for sound reasoning, then it's a good thing to inspire faith.

Caliban · Jul 23, 2020

Carl Emerson said:
I think we are currently in a period of social decay which happens not because He is silent but because we refuse to listen.

I am sure you are familiar with Occam's Razor; which is the most likely reason humans have no compelling evidence for any god: 1) God is hidden, or 2) god is not real? You may choose to cite Bible passages, but according to Occam's Razor, the answer is 2.

A reasonable inference to your claim is that God is silent because we have ignored his laws. But, we are currently ignoring said laws because there is no evidence he exists. But...he is going to punish non-believers for using the powers of logical reasoning which he gave us. If God is real and has all the powers attributed to him in the scriptures: omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, he could easily solve this equation by less confusing and complicated means. It stretches credulity.

Does apologetics "work"?

Critically Recalculating!

Well-Known Member

Critically Recalculating!

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Well-Known Member

Critically Recalculating!

Well-Known Member

Critically Recalculating!

Well-Known Member

Critically Recalculating!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency