Should Christians Abandon Apologetics?

[2PhiloVoid]

Apparently atheists prefer option 1 and the eristic art.

Perhaps it is now worth noting that Penner's position presupposes a general level of goodwill on the part of those who oppose Christianity. In reality that simply isn't always true.

... sometimes it does seem that there is a new Kylo Ren Fan Club in the works, doesn't it?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

If you've actually studied Epistemology, along with human Psychological Motivation and Social Psychology, as well as Philosophical Hermeneutics (not to mention Biblical Hemeneutics), then you'd have a better understanding as to 'why' ANY ONE PERSON whether Christian or Skeptic or Sheer Anarchist can differ with any other person, even if and when they supposedly reside in the same country, share the same group think and/or even have the same level of education.

I am not disputing that Christians have different opinions on their faith. My objection is that they have different thoughts on the truth of Christianity and the gospel. There is no one way to salvation in Christendom. Why should anyone believe Christians know what they are talking about.

So, go figure it out, and when you realize that Jimmy Carter was also educated in Nuclear Physics (since he worked on an earlier atomic sub decades before you were born, I'm sure), then maybe you'll begin to see that I'm not nuts!

What does Jimmy Carter have to do with anything? I worked on a nuclear sub as well. What does this have to do with anything?

Best Wishes!

Whatever, you have the same formula for dismissing questions about your faith. Bloviate about your credentials, deny the other person has studied anything and never answer any questions.

What is the sufficient evidence that god exists? If you think for a person to know god exists takes years of study then your god is not accessible to most of the people he created.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am not disputing that Christians have different opinions on their faith. My objection is that they have different thoughts on the truth of Christianity and the gospel. There is no one way to salvation in Christendom. Why should anyone believe Christians know what they are talking about.

What does Jimmy Carter have to do with anything? I worked on a nuclear sub as well. What does this have to do with anything?

Whatever, you have the same formula for dismissing questions about your faith. Bloviate about your credentials, deny the other person has studied anything and never answer any questions.

What is the sufficient evidence that god exists? If you think for a person to know god exists takes years of study then your god is not accessible to most of the people he created.

Maybe take a look at the very first OP thread I ever created here on CF ..........................................

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Maybe take a look at the very first OP thread I ever created here on CF ..........................................

Maybe you just straightforwardly answer any question.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Maybe you just straightforwardly answer any question.

What questions? Do you mean every loaded question you guys offer? For instance, some questions are pretty much conversation stoppers, questions like, "Why should anyone believe Christians know what they are talking about?"

What do you honestly think a Christian should say in reply to that kind of "inquiry"?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

What questions? Do you mean every loaded question you guys offer? For instance, some questions are pretty much conversation stoppers, questions like, "Why should anyone believe Christians know what they are talking about?"

What do you honestly think a Christian should say in reply to that kind of "inquiry"?

That was not my question. Here is one which I have already asked:

What is the sufficient evidence that a god exists?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That was not my question. Here is one which I have already asked:

What is the sufficient evidence that a god exists?

The answer is: it (i.e. the level of so-called sufficiency that any one of us thinks we require) varies, depending upon the individual person. The unfortunate problem in all of this is that the epistemological indices within the Bible pretty much bump up against human evidential preferences and they are precluded by the fact that the writers of the Bible say that God doesn't care all that much about kow-towing to our evidential preferences, let alone our autonomous "requirements."

So, what can any of us do but gripe to God about it?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The answer is: it (i.e. the level of so-called sufficiency that any one of us thinks we require) varies, depending upon the individual person. The unfortunate problem in all of this is that the epistemological indices within the Bible pretty much bump up against human evidential preferences and they are precluded by the fact that the writers of the Bible say that God doesn't care all that much about kow-towing to our evidential preferences, let alone our autonomous "requirements."

So you don't have any then. Thanks.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Apparently, you haven't studied much more than Argument Technic/Rhetoric, with epistemology being your weak suite, dear sir.

Since I've won all our arguments, I don't see it as much of a problem.

Let me know if you're ready to answer a question.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Remember Athens (in the NT) ?
A city full of idols and idolatry (much like this forum, and the United States, and most countries if not all).
The truth reached A FEW. The great majority eventually ran the true believers out of town or silenced them.
Same in most places today. (regardless of strong or weak)

But it's not the same at all. Here I am asking Paul to explain himself, justify his position and give evidence for his beliefs, and he can't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So you don't have any then. Thanks.

You can't say I don't have "any" of something you haven't clearly defined. You don't just get to show up on a public forum and cry havoc by demanding Christians show some THING called sufficient and then gripe that we don't produce it when, all along, you never defined it nor its exacting epistemological application.

And this is where the communication breakdown is occurring.

If you think you have access to some privileged definition regarding the essence of what makes some evidence "sufficient," then by all means share your epistemological source of definition rather than holing up with it in your atheistic foxhole.

 

[public hermit]

We’re not all the Fathers of the Church merciless in their dealings with heretics, why should we shy away from doing so.

For the most part they were merciless. But, we can't begin with the assumption that everything they did they got right. If we work under that assumption we will certainly repeat the errors of the past. The irony, that should humble all Christians, is that it really took the Enlightenment for Christians in the west to stop killing each other. I would argue that same Enlightenment had roots in the Reformation; nonetheless, it's a humbling thought.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You can't say I don't have "any" of something you haven't clearly defined. You don't just get to show up on a public forum and cry havoc by demanding Christians show some THING called sufficient and then gripe that we don't produce it when, all along, you never defined it nor its exacting epistemological application.

And this is where the communication breakdown is occurring.

If you think you have access to some privileged definition regarding the essence of what makes some evidence "sufficient," then by all means share your epistemological source of definition rather than holing up with it in your atheistic foxhole.

Oh my word. Sufficient is whatever an individual thinks it is. It is not the same for everyone. What is your evidence so I can see if it is convincing to me?

 

[muichimotsu]

I hate to be the one who breaks this to you, what with the fact that you're a religious studies person and all, but every paragraph who just wrote above, and almost every sentence, essentially demonstrates the overall point of my position, not only on hermeneutics but also where epistemology is concerned.

The saddest thing for me in all of this is that you're somewhat of a new participant to this section of the forums and you probably haven't seen all of what I've written over the past few years here. Again, I say this it's sad for me because I'm not going to repeat it all here, especially when the main problem for most of you skeptical males who are here (and who often single or not married but living at large with a rebellious, ex-christian attitude) is that you refuse to engage my position in any depth. No, you just dismiss it out of hand since you all seem to think this forum is some kind of online competitive game.

Well, if this is all apologetics is to you all --- a game, and likely a highly political one at that --- then I have nothing else left to offer any one of you skeptics, nothing much else to say other than more academic jargon, and I'll just go back to playing the online games I've found on my new smart phone ( the 1st I've gotten, actually! )

So, good day, good luck, and have a nice life!

You realize you can't judge how long I've been here based on my number of posts, right? Pretty sure I've been a member for around 10 years, I just haven't been that active

I don't engage with apologetics as if the conclusion is true, I consider the arguments and they've generally been fallacious in nature. Having more intellectual rigor in something you're still showing cognitive bias in thinking it's true is a pretense of intellectual honesty, to say nothing of seemingly taking personal sense as indicative of anything resembling objectivity or rationality.

One can understand a position and still criticize it as having flawed logic without it being dismissive, your reaction is a bit too defensive for talking about apologetics in a sense of being about discussion rather than feeling attacked because someone points out flaws in argumentation

I don't dismiss it out of hand, I understand that it offers meaning and purpose to your life, but that's still insufficient in terms of the argumentation offered, because it's magical thinking and otherwise indicative of not really engaging in critical thinking except in a pretense of investigating your faith in depth rather than considering that faith may not be a reliable path to truth in the first place

 

[muichimotsu]

Apparently atheists prefer option 1 and the eristic art.

Perhaps it is now worth noting that Penner's position presupposes a general level of goodwill on the part of those who oppose Christianity. In reality that simply isn't always true.

Goodwill assumes that beliefs must be respected in some sense rather than people: I can respect a person, I don't have to give their beliefs any respect, especially when I see major problems in the logic and the effects on behavior and society at large.

 

[muichimotsu]

What questions? Do you mean every loaded question you guys offer? For instance, some questions are pretty much conversation stoppers, questions like, "Why should anyone believe Christians know what they are talking about?"

What do you honestly think a Christian should say in reply to that kind of "inquiry"?

Because you might actually have some intellectual humility and honesty in considering even the possibility that your basis for concluding the bible is true is mistaken?

 

[muichimotsu]

You can't say I don't have "any" of something you haven't clearly defined. You don't just get to show up on a public forum and cry havoc by demanding Christians show some THING called sufficient and then gripe that we don't produce it when, all along, you never defined it nor its exacting epistemological application.

And this is where the communication breakdown is occurring.

If you think you have access to some privileged definition regarding the essence of what makes some evidence "sufficient," then by all means share your epistemological source of definition rather than holing up with it in your atheistic foxhole.

Sufficiency is a quality of the argument and evidences you put forward for your claims

Is that helpful? The problem is that sufficiency in itself is still not enough, because it can still rely on fallacious thinking to feel that it is sufficient to believe in something, even if the reasoning is flawed.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't dismiss it out of hand, I understand that it offers meaning and purpose to your life, but that's still insufficient in terms of the argumentation offered, because it's magical thinking and otherwise indicative of not really engaging in critical thinking except in a pretense of investigating your faith in depth rather than considering that faith may not be a reliable path to truth in the first place

Shouldn't this be obvious even to Christians? If faith were a guide to truth, why are there thousands of Christian denominations, some of them with contradictory doctrinal or moral teachings?

And the most shocking example of faith in action are scenes like these:

(the body of abortion-provider George Tiller, being taken out of his own church, killed by a man who was a self-identified "Messianic" who believed he was in a holy war).

 

[FireDragon76]

For the most part they were merciless. But, we can't begin with the assumption that everything they did they got right. If we work under that assumption we will certainly repeat the errors of the past. The irony, that should humble all Christians, is that it really took the Enlightenment for Christians in the west to stop killing each other. I would argue that same Enlightenment had roots in the Reformation; nonetheless, it's a humbling thought.

The Reformation definitely set the political and social ground for the Enlightenment to take place, but more as a consequence than a direct cause. Appeal to the Bible had failed to unite the continent in peace. Ironically, it seems the Bible inspired terrible wars that killed the most people in history prior to WWI.

 

[public hermit]

The Reformation definitely set the political and social ground for the Enlightenment to take place, but more as a consequence than a direct cause. Appeal to the Bible had failed to unite the continent in peace. Ironically, it seems the Bible inspired terrible wars that killed the most people in history prior to WWI.

Sorry about the "laughing" emoji. I was trying to "agree" but my fat fingers + a phone.

I don't necessarily disagree. I would argue the seed of individual autonomy that was so emphasized in the Enlightenment was planted in the Reformation. The Reformers (Luther would be a prime example) said the primary authority of the individual conscience is the Lord. This was the basic argument against the established Church. The Enlightenment took it a step further and said the primary authority of the individual conscience is the individual. The Reformers made their shift based in scripture. The Enlightenment made their shift based in human reason. So, I would say (historically speaking) the Reformation paved the way in terms of individual autonomy. That's not to say it couldn't have happen another way. But, I am inclined to think that is how it happened.