Should Christians Abandon Apologetics?

[Silmarien]

The function of an argument is to demonstrate a truth and thereby persuade the listener/reader as to the reality of that truth. If that argument is found wanting by anyone it would be illogical for the author of the argument to find that nay-saying irrelevant, since it would mean their goal of persuasion had failed. One might also reasonably expect that others who have accepted the argument should at least pause and review their thinking.

The only way I can understand your statement is if you do not think the function of an argument is to persuade and that, currently, strikes me as bizarre.

The problem is that there was never any argument. I had commented that I accepted theism on metaphysical grounds, and that apologetics was still important because theism is no longer the default position and does need to be defended. The fact that I think there are arguments that work isn't automatically an invitation to debate.

Seeing as how there was no actual argument under discussion, it isn't particularly relevant that someone else doesn't find certain arguments compelling. I might agree with the assessment of the arguments in question, or I might think that the objections are simplistic or that the whole argument has been misunderstood. Either way, the discussion isn't going to show me anything that I might have to review, since the argument is not mine. Unless an atheist actually wants to take the bull by the horns and actually try to demonstrate that theism is false and that belief is irrational, there's nothing that I have an obligation to respond to at the risk of being declared irrational. I rarely see anything concrete, however, though when I do, I generally respond to it.

The underlying problem is that many of the atheists around here treat this section as their personal playground. They operate under the assumption that theirs is the default position, that they don't have to put any effort into defending themselves whatsoever, and that anyone who doesn't agree with them (even when they're not making arguments) is merely not thinking critically, or afraid to ask difficult questions, or engaging in wishful thinking. This isn't rational discourse--it's emotional manipulation, and whenever I see it, I know that things are headed straight towards psychological warfare and that it's better not to take the bait.

 

[Ophiolite]

The problem is that there was never any argument. I had commented that I accepted theism on metaphysical grounds, and that apologetics was still important because theism is no longer the default position and does need to be defended. The fact that I think there are arguments that work isn't automatically an invitation to debate.

Seeing as how there was no actual argument under discussion, it isn't particularly relevant that someone else doesn't find certain arguments compelling. I might agree with the assessment of the arguments in question, or I might think that the objections are simplistic or that the whole argument has been misunderstood. Either way, the discussion isn't going to show me anything that I might have to review, since the argument is not mine. Unless an atheist actually wants to take the bull by the horns and actually try to demonstrate that theism is false and that belief is irrational, there's nothing that I have an obligation to respond to at the risk of being declared irrational. I rarely see anything concrete, however, though when I do, I generally respond to it.

The underlying problem is that many of the atheists around here treat this section as their personal playground. They operate under the assumption that theirs is the default position, that they don't have to put any effort into defending themselves whatsoever, and that anyone who doesn't agree with them (even when they're not making arguments) is merely not thinking critically, or afraid to ask difficult questions, or engaging in wishful thinking. This isn't rational discourse--it's emotional manipulation, and whenever I see it, I know that things are headed straight towards psychological warfare and that it's better not to take the bait.

Thank you for your reply. I was unable to map your points here onto anything I had said, or that related in any meaningful way to the thread. I note that two of the members, awarding a "Like" and a "Winner" to your post, are familiar to me as generally making cogent posts. I therefore conclude that the lack of comprehension is a failure on my part and not a symptom of poor writing skills on your part. It seems best, then, for me to depart the discussion with a puzzled shrug of my shoulders.

 

[Silmarien]

Thank you for your reply. I was unable to map your points here onto anything I had said, or that related in any meaningful way to the thread. I note that two of the members, awarding a "Like" and a "Winner" to your post, are familiar to me as generally making cogent posts. I therefore conclude that the lack of comprehension is a failure on my part and not a symptom of poor writing skills on your part. It seems best, then, for me to depart the discussion with a puzzled shrug of my shoulders.

Did you happen to read through the previous exchange? Muichimotsu had been insinuating at length that if someone was not willing to engage with him at the drop of a hat and actually present and defend arguments to him, then they were afraid or deflecting or so forth and so on. This is not uncommon--many atheists around here operate under the assumption that because they personally think all arguments fail, it is impossible for anyone to be rational and yet think that any argument succeeds. It's as poisonous as the "you believe in God but are just repressing it" line of argumentation.

I didn't take issue with anything you said, but you seemed to be under the mistaken assumption that there was a concrete argument that was being discussed here, and that I didn't care whether or not it was found wanting. The problem with this is that if there was ever an argument, it was basically: "All the arguments for theism fail because I say so." Seeing as how that's a statement of personal opinion rather than an argument, it's not relevant to anyone but the person making it.

People are frustrated because this sort of thing happens a lot. Arguments are nice in theory, but how do you have one with someone whose method appears to be manipulation and abuse? The last time I actually got drawn into an argument on theism, it ended with the atheist saying that we were too skilled at debate to defeat, but that he was going to declare victory anyway because theism was obviously false and nothing we said needed to be taken seriously. If that is the current state of rational discourse around here, why bother?

 

[FireDragon76]

Metaphysics is barking up the wrong tree.

It does me no good to have a theoretical belief in such a God, in my estimation, if the religious community that shapes that belief is so toxic or ethically compromised.

 

[public hermit]

There is a regrettable lack of charity in much of the discourse on (some of) these threads. I understand that is occurs on both sides, so I'm not referring to just one side of the atheist/theist division. I have seen it coming from both sides. But there is a way to go forward in discussion that is both productive and (surprisingly, maybe) enjoyable. But, in order for that to happen, both sides of the discussion have to be generous in what they are willing to grant is reasonable in regards to the position of the other side.

"The principle of charity is a philosophical principle that denotes that, when interpreting someone’s statement, you should assume that the best possible interpretation of that statement is the one that the speaker meant to convey. Accordingly, to implement the principle of charity, you should not attribute falsehoods, logical fallacies, or irrationality to people’s argument, when there is a plausible, rational alternative available" (source below).

I will stand by most of my history on these threads. I am willing to give the most charitable account of another's position in order to go forward in discussion. But, the moment my own position is not given a charitable hearing, then I am going to find a way to absent myself from the discussion.

In reference to the OP, I personally am not interested in convincing anyone of my position. I am interested in a back and forth in which seemingly disparate positions can find common ground, differences can be explored, and two people can have an enriching discussion from which we both walk away knowing more than we did before engaging. I have experienced it here on these threads, but it has been so infrequent that I generally hesitate to engage.

While I'm at it, I'll put in a plug. They need to open up the philosophy forum. We need a neutral ground to discuss metaphysical and epistemological interests in which it is understood that apologetics on one side or the other will not be tolerated. Without some kind of neutral ground, the tacit assumption will always be "Oh, they're trying to find a sneaky way to promote their position." I have tried to create strictly philosophical threads and it always has a tendency to degenerate into an us vs. them. People look at my status as a Christian and go with it. At any rate...

“All great historical and philosophical arguments have probably been fallacious in some respect. But it is unlikely that any extended argument has ever actually been fallacious in all respects. Complex theses are great chains of reasoning. The fact that one link in the chain is imperfect does not mean that other links are necessarily faulty, too. If the argument is a single chain, and one link fails, then the chain itself fails with it...They are rather like a kind of chain mail which can fail in some part and still retain its shape and function. If the chain mail fails at a vital point, woe unto the man who is inside it. But not all points are vital points.”

— From “Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought” (By David Hackett Fischer, 1970)

The Principle of Charity: Assume the Best Interpretation of People’s Arguments – Effectiviology
Principle of charity - Wikipedia

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There is a regrettable lack of charity in much of discourse on (some of) these threads. I understand that is occurs on both sides, so I'm not referring to just one side of the atheist/theist division. I have seen it coming from both sides. But there is a way to go forward in discussion that is both productive and (surprisingly, maybe) enjoyable. But, in order for that to happen, both sides of the discussion have to be generous in what they are willing to grant is reasonable in regards to the position of the other side.

"The principle of charity is a philosophical principle that denotes that, when interpreting someone’s statement, you should assume that the best possible interpretation of that statement is the one that the speaker meant to convey. Accordingly, to implement the principle of charity, you should not attribute falsehoods, logical fallacies, or irrationality to people’s argument, when there is a plausible, rational alternative available" (source below).

I will stand by most of my history on these threads. I am willing to give the most charitable account of another's position in order to go forward in discussion. But, the moment my own position is not given a charitable hearing, then I am going to find a way to absent myself from the discussion.

In reference to the OP, I personally am not interested in convincing anyone of my position. I am interested in a back and forth in which seemingly disparate positions can find common ground, differences can be explored, and two people can have an enriching discussion from which we both walk away knowing more than we did before engaging. I have experienced it here on these threads, but it has been so infrequent that I generally hesitate to engage.

While I'm at it, I'll put in a plug. They need to open up the philosophy forum. We need a neutral ground to discuss metaphysical and epistemological interests in which it is understood that apologetics on one side or the other will not be tolerated. Without some kind of neutral ground, the tacit assumption will always be "Oh, they're trying to find a sneaky way to promote their position." I have tried to create strictly philosophical threads and it always has a tendency to degenerate into an us vs. them. People look at my status as a Christian and go with it. At any rate...

“All great historical and philosophical arguments have probably been fallacious in some respect. But it is unlikely that any extended argument has ever actually been fallacious in all respects. Complex theses are great chains of reasoning. The fact that one link in the chain is imperfect does not mean that other links are necessarily faulty, too. If the argument is a single chain, and one link fails, then the chain itself fails with it...They are rather like a kind of chain mail which can fail in some part and still retain its shape and function. If the chain mail fails at a vital point, woe unto the man who is inside it. But not all points are vital points.”

— From “Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought” (By David Hackett Fischer, 1970)

The Principle of Charity: Assume the Best Interpretation of People’s Arguments – Effectiviology
Principle of charity - Wikipedia

............................. tell that to Smaug!

[Just kidding, PH! Actually, I very much appreciate this post of yours. Well said! ]