Does apologetics "work"?

[Tinker Grey]

We can be charming...when we want to. But the point of that scripture, that so many misunderstand, is that we shouldn't get so frustrated when faced with rejection by the skeptic. The point isn't that you, as a skeptic, are "swine". Rather, that it is foolish to be frustrated because the skeptic doesn't value scripture the same way they do. Which is understandable, in my opinion, if the skeptic is not yet convinced that Scripture is credible. In this case, proving God through scripture is like reading a nursery rhyme to prove that cows can jump over the moon. One must convince the skeptic that scripture is authoritative and credible first before scripture can be used to sway them.

And quoting that verse in a thread such as this is to appear to call your interlocutors swine. Quoting Psalm 14:1 is to them fools.

It's far from charming.

 

[Carl Emerson]

You are quite wrong. Sorry if I got a bit snappy, but the folks on this forum jump to the moon with assumptions and conclusions. When I say I lost my faith, I don't mean that as a negative thing. My life drastically improved. I appreciate my wife and kids more because I want to love them well in the only life we have together. I cherish every day now because I know there is no such thing as eternity.

When you jump to the conclusion that something bad must have happened, you infer incorrectly. The only negative thing has been the other religious people in my life who try to make me feel like trash because they have some theological idea in their head about a reality that contrasts completely with experience. Please make fewer assumptions.

No problem - thanks for answering what was a reasonable question.

 

[BigV]

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

IF you are relying on faith to arrive at truth, you are using the wrong methodology, because by faith you can accept anything as truth.

 

[BigV]

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 ... !

Pascal's Wager is ONE of the things Pascal is known for.

 

[Caliban]

No problem - thanks for answering what was a reasonable question.

I understand your question, I apologize for answering so sharply.

 

[Carl Emerson]

IF you are relying on faith to arrive at truth, you are using the wrong methodology, because by faith you can accept anything as truth.

That depends on how you define faith...

 

[Carl Emerson]

I understand your question, I apologize for answering so sharply.

The issue I have then is that it seems that you were 'Christianised' but had no personal encounter with the 'Holy Other'

When I was about 8 Jesus appeared to me face to face.

I have had several sovereign encounters and although I drifted away for 11 years I could never deny Him.

The fear of Him was in me as described in Jer 32:40.

If you can have a read of my testimonial thread my life was a total shipwreck before I returned to my Christian roots.

Now my walk with Jesus is a dream come true - He works with me to see folks healed - and I am an undeserving nobody.

 

[Caliban]

The issue I have then is that it seems that you were 'Christianised' but had no personal encounter with the 'Holy Other'

I agree with this--however, I would have said I did three years ago. I have not "encountered Christ, the Holy Spirit, or God. But then, I don't think anyone has. I know people claim they have seen God or the Spirit--they claim to have spiritual encounters; I don't believe these claims. I have spoken in tongues and had the same type of experiences other have and I interpreted those as Holy encounters. I now know those experiences are simply normal human experiences easily identified as elevated emotional states. Every religion in human history has the same experiences and claims.

 

[Caliban]

That depends on how you define faith...

Fatih is what you use when you don't have evidence.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Pascal's Wager is ONE of the things Pascal is known for.

Exactly. So, why don't you elucidate the rest of us on just what those OTHER things are that Pascal averred beyond his Wager since you seem to be so informed .......

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Fatih is what you use when you don't have evidence.

If I had a dime for every time I hear that definition, I could move to Beverly Hills ..........

I think to anyone who has half a brain, which of course isn't half of the population half the time, the denotation of 'faith' that is presented in the New Testament ISN'T something you have when you don't have evidence.

So, we need to get over all of that, and if need be, I'm going to be the one, lone individual who will take fellow Christian AND atheist skeptics to task in regard to this fallacy about the supposed nature of Christian 'faith.' I've about had enough of hearing it, especially from those like, say, atheist Peter Bogghosian. ****cough******

And no, we don't know that I'm 'wrong' by quoting Hebrews 11:1. To do so would be a hermeneutical fallacy on the part of skeptics.

 

[Caliban]

If I had a dime for every time I hear that definition, I could move to Beverly Hills ..........

I think to anyone who has half a brain, which of course isn't half of the population half the time, the denotation of 'faith' that is presented in the New Testament ISN'T something you have when you don't have evidence.

So, we need to get over all of that, and if need be, I'm going to be the one, lone individual who will take fellow Christian AND atheist skeptics to task in regard to this fallacy about the supposed nature of Christian 'faith.' I've about had enough of hearing it, especially from those like, say, atheist Peter Bogghosian. ****cough******

And no, we don't know that I'm 'wrong' by quoting Hebrews 11:1. To do so would be a hermeneutical fallacy on the part of skeptics.

The reason this definition is used by some non-believers is simply because it is used to highlight the difference between evidence and faith. Also, it is a paraphrase of Hebrews 11:11, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Besides, when asked why do you believe the Andromeda Galaxy is real, people never reply with, "you just have to have faith. When you have evidence, you give that.

 

[Jok]

If I had a dime for every time I hear that definition, I could move to Beverly Hills ..........

I think to anyone who has half a brain, which of course isn't half of the population half the time, the denotation of 'faith' that is presented in the New Testament ISN'T something you have when you don't have evidence.

So, we need to get over all of that, and if need be, I'm going to be the one, lone individual who will take fellow Christian AND atheist skeptics to task in regard to this fallacy about the supposed nature of Christian 'faith.' I've about had enough of hearing it, especially from those like, say, atheist Peter Bogghosian. ****cough******

And no, we don't know that I'm 'wrong' by quoting Hebrews 11:1. To do so would be a hermeneutical fallacy on the part of skeptics.

Can you elaborate on the etymology of the word faith? I wish that I had a better understanding of it, but something really doesn’t add up with the current usage of the word considering how certain characters were attributed to having a tremendous amount of faith when they in fact had a tremendous amount of proof. Abraham, “A man of faith” had way more proof than anyone in this forum, he literally communicated with God. Paul, Peter, certain prophets; they all make the contemporary usage of the word faith meaning lack of proof as being very unsatisfactory! Because Biblically some of the characters that are attributed to having the most faith also had the most proof. So something doesn’t add up with how people are using the word.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The reason this definition is used by some non-believers is simply because it is used to highlight the difference between evidence and faith. Also, it is a paraphrase of Hebrews 11:11, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Besides, when asked why do you believe the Andromeda Galaxy is real, people never reply with, "you just have to have faith. When you have evidence, you give that.

I'm so glad I don't read Hebrews 11:1 that way.............................good gravy people!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Can you elaborate on the etymology of the word faith? I wish that I had a better understanding of it, but something really doesn’t add up with the current usage of the word considering how certain characters were attributed to having a tremendous amount of faith when they in fact had a tremendous amount of proof. Abraham, “A man of faith” had way more proof than anyone in this forum, he literally communicated with God. Paul, Peter, certain prophets; they all make the contemporary usage of the word faith meaning lack of proof as being very unsatisfactory! Because Biblically some of the characters that are attributed to having the most faith also had the most proof. So something doesn’t add up with how people are using the word.

Jok,

Without writing an extensive essay and thereby repeating what I've said elsewhere here on CF (some of which isn't searchable at the moment because CF seems to be having tech issues), I'll just say I think that if we take the Biblical texts on the whole as historically laced accounts, all together, we'll find that 'faith' is a:

"Personal response and trust in what God has revealed..."​

Faith isn't some sheer, ethereal 'force' by which Christians believe in Christ, evidence or no evidence; it's also not some utter epistemological replacement for the hard (even cyclic) work of human thinking and analysis. Sure, God's Spirit is at play in our minds/hearts, but our faith doesn't come by the Spirit alone.

Also, I think we need to better vet out just what the concept of "no evidence" really is.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Faith isn't some sheer, ethereal 'force' by which Christians believe in Christ, evidence or no evidence; it's also not some utter epistemological replacement for the hard (even cyclic) work of human thinking and analysis.

Really? That's exactly what "Personal response and trust in what God has revealed..." sounds like. You believe the claims of Christianity based on a personal response, trusting that it's true.

You say it's not some baseless, irrational response, but in fact, it seems that it is. One of the definitions of faith, from the Merriam-Webster dictionary Definition of FAITH is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof," and another is "without question".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Really? That's exactly what "Personal response and trust in what God has revealed..." sounds like. You believe the claims of Christianity based on a personal response, trusting that it's true.

You say it's not some baseless, irrational response, but in fact, it seems that it is. One of the definitions of faith, from the Merriam-Webster dictionary Definition of FAITH is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof," and another is "without question".

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.

 

[Caliban]

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.

We all know what evidence is; it is just that the majority of non-believers often have a different threshold for what we consider good or compelling evidence for supernatural claims. When we ask for evidence, we are simply wanting to have a discussion about what a believer considers strong evidence and why they think it is strong. Honestly, we rarely get a straight answer. People get snarky when they don't get a straight answer. Why not just have the conversation without second-guessing motives and the cards on the table?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

We all know what evidence is; it is just that the majority of non-believers often have a different threshold for what we consider good or compelling evidence for supernatural claims. When we ask for evidence, we are simply wanting to have a discussion about what a believer considers strong evidence and why they think it is strong. Honestly, we rarely get a straight answer. People get snarky when they don't get a straight answer. Why not just have the conversation without second-guessing motives and the cards on the table?

On my [philosophical] part, I don't assume that any of us is on the same page when we're talking about either EVIDENCE or KNOWLEDGE or....... a whole lot of anything for that matter.

Also on my part, when I think of "evidence" for Christianity, I mainly---although not exclusively---think of 'historical evidences,' all of which leads me into fields like the 1) Philosophy of History, 2) Historiography, 3) Archaeology AND 4) Hermeneutics [among others, none of which are 'esoteric' in nature] in order to vet out what evidences there may be for Christianity AND how I might interpret those evidences, maybe even come to see them as 'facts' that are still open in an ongoing, cyclic way to my Subjective evaluations, and some Objective ones as well.

 

[Caliban]

On my [philosophical] part, I don't assume that any of us is on the same page when we're talking about either EVIDENCE or KNOWLEDGE or....... a whole lot of anything for that matter.

Also on my part, when I think of "evidence" for Christianity, I mainly---although not exclusively---think of 'historical evidences,' all of which leads me into fields like the 1) Philosophy of History, 2) Historiography, 3) Archaeology AND 4) Hermeneutics [among others, none of which are 'esoteric' in nature] in order to vet out what evidences there may be for Christianity AND how I might interpret those evidences, maybe even come to see them as 'facts' that are still open in an ongoing, cyclic way to my Subjective evaluations, and some Objective ones as well.

But why can we never get to specifics?