Is the Whole of Apologetics Merely a Facade?

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

What about the various Christians who became Christians as a result of apologetics arguments?

I don't think you can really become a Christian through arguments. I think what happened was they already were a Christian but needed whatever rational block out of the way so they could have peace in their walk with God.

 

[JSRG]

Second of all, you might want to now read "The Case Against the Case for Christ" by Robert Price.

... and then The Case Against The Case Against the Case for Christ.

 

[cvanwey]

... and then The Case Against The Case Against the Case for Christ.

Sure, and as I stated immediately there-after, it might not matter regardless. "Apologetics" is not what leads most to Christ. He already admitted it was personal experience.

 

[cvanwey]

What about the various Christians who became Christians as a result of apologetics arguments?

Like whom, and what argument(s) were so compelling? Furthermore, if such an argument was later debunked, even to their satisfaction, would they then become an atheist/non-believer/other?

 

[cvanwey]

I was well aware that God existed from a very young age.

Why exactly?

I did not read the Bible until after I was born again. My concept of God was false, but I had no doubt that He was real. I did not need apologetics or intellectual persuasion. I knew something about Jesus from Sunday school, but I had no idea about salvation. Apologetics may persuade some people. The danger is that an intellectual presentation of truth will produce an equally mental appreciation of Christianity. The devil knows the truth and he trembles. We need a change of heart as well as a change of mind. The simple gospel was enough to convict me and cause me to say, "What must I do?" Yes, I was scared into the kingdom of God. That was only the starting point.

The gospel is the power of God to bring about salvation. Preparing a person to hear the gospel is God's business. Praying for the lost is a must. Living in a way that testifies to the reality of Christ is vital. People should see Jesus in us, even though they do not know what they are seeing.

This sounds suspiciously close to indoctrination? How were you able to effectively rule out all competing religious claims? Or did you even explore them all?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I don't think you can really become a Christian through arguments. I think what happened was they already were a Christian but needed whatever rational block out of the way so they could have peace in their walk with God.

But what if you are a Muslim..... One of my favorite Apologists is the late Nabeel Qureshi, whose journey to the Faith started when he tried to convince his college friend David Wood that the Bible is unreliable.

 

[cvanwey]

But what if you are a Muslim..... One of my favorite Apologists is the late Nabeel Qureshi, whose journey to the Faith started when he tried to convince his college friend David Wood that the Bible is unreliable.

This is a fair point. The OP does not address everyone's 'journey to faith'. But I suspect it still does cover many.

Addressing the provided video, however, one has to ask....

Was this apologist's exploration really THAT critical? Or, did he merely adjust his already pre-indoctrinated a priori from one version to another?

And furthermore, is there a way to validate a one time claimed miraculous event from 2K+ years ago? I'd venture to say the [only] way one can go about validating a 'resurrection claim', would be corroborated eye witnesses. Do we have that? And furthermore, just because later people write of the same events, over and over again, lend no merit to it's source credibility.

I gather this fella believes, because of his predisposition for belief in a god?

 

[URA]

I feel this is an extremely important topic.

Certainly! And I believe it's an under-discussed topic, so thank you for starting this thread.

I'm coming to the conclusion, more and more so, that apologetics is nothing more than a 'front.' Most did not come to their belief by arguments and 'evidence'. Most came to belief by personal experience and/or emotion. Thus, if the believer did not come to belief by arguments and 'evidence', then what would lead the believer to surmise this would work for the atheist/doubter/skeptic/etc?

I still don't think that apologetics would only be a front. While I don't think apologetics alone will bring someone to faith, it can be a stepping stone in that direction. My non-religious friend, who seems to be becoming increasingly interested in religion, would likely have never started down the path of curious interest in religion if he didn't believe that there had to be a divine creator. I can see it as a real possibility that he (and you!) may become more & more interested in this whole God thing, eventually getting a personal contact with God that will lead him to faith. Even if personal experience is the catalyst for faith, apologetics paved the way for him to find that personal experience!

A priest was discussing a study done by the Jesuits, a religious order within the Catholic Church, on when & why people who are raised in the Church leave the faith. The overwhelming amount of people lost their faith around 5th grade, and it was overwhelmingly because they could not reconcile faith with science. Faith seems to be all these stories from thousands of years ago, that we believe because we're told they're real; science is verifiable, tested every day, following the evidence to the conclusion, instead of starting with a conclusion already in mind. The priest said that if he saw disparities between faith & science, with science being factual & faith being belief because you're told to believe, than the priest said that he would probably leave the faith, too. I am inclined to agree with him; after all, I picked Albert the Great as my confirmation saint, because he was the patron saint of scientists!

I bring this up because it points to the importance of apolgetics, maybe not as a reason to believe initially, but as a reason to not lose belief in the midst of challenges. Suppose these 5th graders had been educated on St. Thomas Aquinas, who said that faith & science can never truly contradict, because they come from the same source. Suppose they were educated on the poetic nature of Genesis 1-11, making the 7-day creation simply an artistic way to describe the stages of God's design, instead of something that was meant to be taken literally. This kind of apologetics can show that there is a logic to faith, and correct misconceptions about faith.

To summarize & move on: I believe apologetics has its place. It can be useful, it can serve as a pathway towards the personal experience that brings about faith in God. However, let us work with the idea that God is infinite. Most religions will agree with some notion of a God that always was & always will be, and Christianity is no exception.

If God is infinite, that means he can't be narrowed down to one thing. Agreed? As such, God can't be understood by only one path. God is not simply intellectual (as overly zealous apologetics would presume); God is not simply emotional (as pure personal experience may presume). The best faith in God lines up with His infinite nature; bringing together the intellectual, the emotional, the intuitive natures that we all have, should all culminate into faith in God! Suppose Jesus could prove to the people around 33 AD that He rose from the dead. There was no one in the tomb, someone rolled the stone back from the opening, the guards are dead with no apparent injuries, and the prophesies all say that the Messiah would suffer greatly & be raised from the dead on the third day. This would all form intellectual reason to believe. Yet Jesus wasn't satisfied to leave it at that; there are several instances of Jesus appearing to people, giving them personal experience that led to great faith in Him! Furthermore, intuition is praised, when doubting Thomas is lovingly rebuked; "Blessed are those who have not seen & have believed!" Reading the last section of the Gospels shows the different avenues that Jesus proves His divinity to people, and it's partly intellectual, but to narrow faith down to a purely intellectual virtue is to constrain faith to something smaller than its nature.

 

[cvanwey]

Certainly! And I believe it's an under-discussed topic, so thank you for starting this thread.

You are quite welcome!

I still don't think that apologetics would only be a front.

For one of the foremost leading apologists (WLC), it certainly looks to be.

While I don't think apologetics alone will bring someone to faith, it can be a stepping stone in that direction.

I'd gather to say that point 6 alone would lead someone to faith. If points 1-5 were debunked, the believer would likely not waver in their attested faith.

My non-religious friend, who seems to be becoming increasingly interested in religion, would likely have never started down the path of curious interest in religion if he didn't believe that there had to be a divine creator.

I read a poll somewhere, way-back-when, that 90+% of humans believe in some sort of a 'higher power(s)'. Thus, your friend looks to fit with majority. It might be best if we 'table' the 'psychology of belief in god' and applying 'intentional agency' for now?

I can see it as a real possibility that he (and you!) may become more & more interested in this whole God thing,

I was indoctrinated early, as a Catholic. I later became non-denominational, in line with my wife. Once I decided to finally read the Bible, I could no longer believe. Pair this with lack in continued perceived contact, even after countless prayer requests, and you can fill in the blanks...

eventually getting a personal contact with God that will lead him to faith. Even if personal experience is the catalyst for faith, apologetics paved the way for him to find that personal experience!

I feel personal contact would be, by far, the biggest catalyst to becoming a believer. The rest is likely and often times, just 'parsley' on the presented dinner plate. Take the parsley away and nothing really changes.

A priest was discussing a study done by the Jesuits, a religious order within the Catholic Church, on when & why people who are raised in the Church leave the faith. The overwhelming amount of people lost their faith around 5th grade, and it was overwhelmingly because they could not reconcile faith with science. Faith seems to be all these stories from thousands of years ago, that we believe because we're told they're real; science is verifiable, tested every day, following the evidence to the conclusion, instead of starting with a conclusion already in mind. The priest said that if he saw disparities between faith & science, with science being factual & faith being belief because you're told to believe, than the priest said that he would probably leave the faith, too. I am inclined to agree with him; after all, I picked Albert the Great as my confirmation saint, because he was the patron saint of scientists!

I reckon these people left because they never felt direct contact. If they had, they likely would have instead stayed, and then asked questions as to why science does not align with their 'known' God's pronouncements.

I bring this up because it points to the importance of apolgetics, maybe not as a reason to believe initially, but as a reason to not lose belief in the midst of challenges. Suppose these 5th graders had been educated on St. Thomas Aquinas, who said that faith & science can never truly contradict, because they come from the same source. Suppose they were educated on the poetic nature of Genesis 1-11, making the 7-day creation simply an artistic way to describe the stages of God's design, instead of something that was meant to be taken literally. This kind of apologetics can show that there is a logic to faith, and correct misconceptions about faith.

Again the catalyst seems to be contact. If someone feels they receive repeated moments of direct interaction with this creator, then they will not leave. They would instead ask questions, and hope they get logical answers. And if they did not, just chalk it up to, "welp, I guess God knows best." Or, "God's ways are beyond human understanding." Or, "we are not meant to know everything." Or some other ad hoc / post hoc rationalization.

To summarize & move on: I believe apologetics has its place. It can be useful, it can serve as a pathway towards the personal experience that brings about faith in God. However, let us work with the idea that God is infinite. Most religions will agree with some notion of a God that always was & always will be, and Christianity is no exception.

Everything has 'it's place'. But what place is that? See above

If God is infinite, that means he can't be narrowed down to one thing. Agreed?

Okay

As such, God can't be understood by only one path. God is not simply intellectual (as overly zealous apologetics would presume); God is not simply emotional (as pure personal experience may presume). The best faith in God lines up with His infinite nature; bringing together the intellectual, the emotional, the intuitive natures that we all have, should all culminate into faith in God!

If I ever felt direct contact from Him, with no doubt, I might be saying the same things as you right now

Suppose Jesus could prove to the people around 33 AD that He rose from the dead.

Are you admitting that He did not provide sufficient evidence for this claim? Seems as though it is a rather tall order to expect to believe He rose from the dead without sufficient cause to do so? Wouldn't you agree?

There was no one in the tomb, someone rolled the stone back from the opening, the guards are dead with no apparent injuries, and the prophesies all say that the Messiah would suffer greatly & be raised from the dead on the third day. This would all form intellectual reason to believe. Yet Jesus wasn't satisfied to leave it at that; there are several instances of Jesus appearing to people, giving them personal experience that led to great faith in Him! Furthermore, intuition is praised, when doubting Thomas is lovingly rebuked; "Blessed are those who have not seen & have believed!" Reading the last section of the Gospels shows the different avenues that Jesus proves His divinity to people, and it's partly intellectual, but to narrow faith down to a purely intellectual virtue is to constrain faith to something smaller than its nature.

I trust you are aware of the basic and general definitions of the terms 'corroborated' and 'eyewitness'?

And speaking of 'doubting Thomas', what made him a believer again?

 

[SPF]

The first 5 arguments for God that Craig references don't necessarily lead anyone to Christianity, they lead to Theism.

I believe that God exists because I find arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological argument to be sound and I think the most rational position at this point is to believe that God created the universe. But that doesn't prove Christianity.

Point 6 can, and is used by many people to justify their belief in God. The Christian, the Muslim, and the Hindu will all point to 6 to justify their belief.

 

[cvanwey]

The first 5 arguments for God that Craig references don't necessarily lead anyone to Christianity, they lead to Theism.

I believe that God exists because I find arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological argument to be sound and I think the most rational position at this point is to believe that God created the universe. But that doesn't prove Christianity.

Let's give this assertion a quick shake-down. If the Kalam was to be thoroughly debunked, to your personal satisfaction, would you still believe in God? I gather you might? The reason I make this assessment, is because of point #6 alone. You cannot discount the existence of God, in any capacity logically, if #6 is experienced.

Point 6 can, and is used by many people to justify their belief in God. The Christian, the Muslim, and the Hindu will all point to 6 to justify their belief.

As demonstrated, this looks to really be the only reason Dr. Craig truly believes. And I have a suspicion this is true for many; maybe even you?

To address your response, I have to ask... Is belief justified, when a Hindu and a Christian use the exact same 'verification process' for their god(s)?

 

[Caliban]

I think apologetics can create a plausible case for God, and thus clear the way for faith, especially among those who have been subjected to the world's anti-apologetics all their lives

Which argument does this? I have not encountered such an argument that makes the supernatural plausible.

 

[Caliban]

I believe that God exists because I find arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological argument to be sound and I think the most rational position at this point is to believe that God created the universe. But that doesn't prove Christianity.

Kalam was debunked ages ago.

 

[SPF]

As demonstrated, this looks to really be the only reason Dr. Craig truly believes.

That of course is non-sense.

Let's give this assertion a quick shake-down. If the Kalam was to be thoroughly debunked, to your personal satisfaction, would you still believe in God? I gather you might?

it would need to be more than "debunked", depending on what you mean by that. If it was undeniably demonstrated that the universe came into existence "out of nothing" by nothing, then yea, that would give me serious pause. I can't tell you whether or not I would still believe in God because it has to actually happen for me to find out.

I might need one or two other things explained as well. but it would be a good start.

Kalam was debunked ages ago.

Watch, I can make an empty assertion to - "no it wasn't".

 

[cvanwey]

That of course is non-sense.

You apparently need to be filled in a bit No worries. Please look at post #11. Dr. Craig admits that even if all other discoveries were to be false, it still would not 'controvert' his faith. Hence, for him anyways, perceived contact is the only true reason he believes. For him, apologetics is like parsley on the dinner plate. Take it away and nothing really changes.

Is this the same for you? Let's see below?

it would need to be more than "debunked", depending on what you mean by that. If it was undeniably demonstrated that the universe came into existence "out of nothing" by nothing, then yea, that would give me serious pause.

Have you even pondered the plausibility and/or notion that the universe always was? If not, why not?

In regards to the 'universe', you must admit premise 2 of the Kalam is a blank assertion, at this point.... Right?

I can't tell you whether or not I would still believe in God because it has to actually happen for me to find out.

I think it would depend on the answer to this follow-up question... Has God ever contacted you? If so, then the rest is likely fluff anyways?

I might need one or two other things explained as well. but it would be a good start.

Such as?

*************

And a point you did not address:

Is belief justified, when a Hindu and a Christian use the exact same 'verification process' for their god(s)?

 

[Caliban]

That of course is non-sense.

it would need to be more than "debunked", depending on what you mean by that. If it was undeniably demonstrated that the universe came into existence "out of nothing" by nothing, then yea, that would give me serious pause. I can't tell you whether or not I would still believe in God because it has to actually happen for me to find out.

I might need one or two other things explained as well. but it would be a good start.

Watch, I can make an empty assertion to - "no it wasn't".

You are correct, I did make an assertion. If you want the evidence, I am more than happy to supply it. Which version of the Kalam are you using?

 

[SPF]

Have you even pondered the plausibility and/or notion that the universe always was? If not, why not?

Yes.

In regards to the 'universe', you must admit premise 2 of the Kalam is a blank assertion, at this point.... Right?

Nope.

Has God ever contacted you? If so, then the rest is likely fluff anyways?

I think He has, certainly. That's one of those "other things" that would need to be sufficiently demonstrated to me as not God and just my imagination. How that would be accomplished, I'm not sure.

Such as?

Other things such as morality, and supernatural experiences.

Is belief justified, when a Hindu and a Christian use the exact same 'verification process' for their god(s)?

Can you outline what exact same verification process the Hindu and the Christian are using? Then we can look at the verification process and determine if belief is justified.

You are correct, I did make an assertion. If you want the evidence, I am more than happy to supply it. Which version of the Kalam are you using?

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

 

[Caliban]

• Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

• The universe began to exist.

• Therefore, the universe has a cause.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

a. The energy of the universe could be eternal. So premise one may not apply.

1. The universe began to exist.

a. The current incarnation of the universe started at The Big Bang, but there is no reason to suggest that all material and energy was “created” then.

1. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

a. The conclusion does not follow from the faulty premises.


Here is another problem with the Kalam. Even if I were to grant the entire thing—premises and conclusion. It still does not get us to a god. It only would get us to a first cause. There is no reason to conclude such a cause is outside nature.

 

[cvanwey]

Yes.

nope.

Okay. How did [you] conclude it is NOT even plausible? And please bare in mind, relevant scientists, whom work on this problem, almost exclusively, are not even sure.

I think He has, certainly. That's one of those "other things" that would need to be sufficiently demonstrated to me as not God and just my imagination. How that would be accomplished, I'm not sure.

If you are unsure how to verify accordingly, then why do you feel it was YHWH that contacted you, and not instead a multitude of other plausibilities? Why is YHWH the default position?

Other things such as morality, and supernatural experiences.

What about 'morality' and 'experiences' leads to YHWH?

Can you outline what exact same verification process the Hindu and the Christian are using? Then we can look at the verification process and determine if belief is justified.

A Hindu and a Christian both state they receive contact from God. How might one verify or distinguish reality from a false positive?

 

[NBB]

I think this time you are right @cvanwey the bible says this is not about words and reasoning but the gospel is power from God. Still, there is arguments and reasons to believe for sure, but i don't know if they convert too much people really.