Should Christians Abandon Apologetics?

[2PhiloVoid]

Yet are the standards you claim to have for verifying the reliability, veracity and general justification for this faith actually such that they could self correct away from the faith if it was found wanting or is it more just to serve as an echo chamber for what you already hold to be so? Because the latter is the kind of circle that reinforces deeply held beliefs rather than challenging them even if that would be uncomfortable

Yes, theoretically speaking, it is possible that I could be "convinced away from the faith." You see, Philosophical Hermeneutics is not a "Christian" thing, and only a small number of Christians incorporate it into their overall praxis even though many still use Biblical Hermeneutics in their exegetical practice, but he former is a different field from the latter. I try to use both as a part of my Philosophical (existential) inquiry as I explore the presence of the Christian Faith that has now resided in our world for almost 2,000 years.

Not only this, but being that I do have a degree in Philosophy, the mental conditioning I received from that educational experience makes me prone to remaining receptive and rather open to engaging the work of skeptics and atheists. So, no, I don't talk in an echo chamber; I preferably love to hear various viewpoints on a fairly wide-range of topics/subjects as I make my own analytic conclusions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's circular logic and question begging: if you already begin with the proposition that 1) sin exists (meaning you also assume God exists as the standard which sin violates) and that 2) Jesus and his prophets and apostles are reliable, then of course you're going to conclude that such things are evidence and not confirmation bias that cycles back into assuming certain texts to be reliable axiomatically, which is hardly critical thinking by any stretch.

I never said that I just assume it. No, as I've said to others here before, I start out Existentially when considering the biblical books, like I have with many books and philosophies of other religions. I just take them as yet one more collection of religious artifacts from the ancient past, but in the case of the bible and of the Christian Faith, I think I've come to discern through long, ongoing studies the conceptual structures that are embedded in the cultural and epistemic nuances of the biblical writings. Sure, this is Subjective on my part, but it's Subjective in the sense that Kierkegaard (and in an earlier, similar vain of Pascal and some of the Philosophical Hermeneuticists like Jens Zimmerman) defined the term to be, Existentially.

 

[muichimotsu]

The religions of the world contribute to the wide path to destruction, not to flourishing of anyone's life, and also includes the destruction of souls.

And yet you've failed to demonstrate your religion doesn't cause destruction or damaging of human flourishing, to say nothing of the existence of your soul being unfalsifiable magical thinking to quell fears of death

 

[muichimotsu]

I never said that I just assume it. No, as I've said to others here before, I start out Existentially when considering the biblical books, like I have with many books and philosophies of other religions. I just take them as yet one more collection of religious artifacts from the ancient past, but in the case of the bible and of the Christian Faith, I think I've come to discern through long, ongoing studies the conceptual structures that are embedded in the cultural and epistemic nuances of the biblical writings. Sure, this is Subjective on my part, but it's Subjective in the sense that Kierkegaard (and in an earlier, similar vain of Pascal and some of the Philosophical Hermeneuticists like Jens Zimmerman) defined the term to be, Existentially.

Meaning it's still based on your assessment and nothing that's remotely verifiable or even justified beyond your sentiments. You can say you're not claiming it's absolutely applicable to everyone, but the standard you use is faulty and, frankly, intellectually lazy in actually critically addressing your own beliefs as being subject to change with new considerations.

Pascal's almost worse in the notions of advocating what amounts to fideism, practically, while you're claiming that in some sense, the Christian faith as you've approximated and understood, is sensible, but will not necessarily make sense to others. The problem becomes that this isn't a subjective aspect that necessarily cannot have a complete and conclusive answer. I might like ice cream and you might like sherbet, that doesn't have anything to do with meaning and purpose.

But you finding purpose in something I find generally abhorrent and anti-human in its conclusions about how the world works with a sovereign deity and salvation by atonement and scapegoating is not something we can necessarily agree to disagree on because I would see demonstrable harm, while you may see something similar in my worldview, however one might characterize it and also be accurate about it (which is tough for anyone's, my assessment of yours not necessarily comprehensive by any means)

My point is that you're not addressing a potential cognitive bias in your thought, attaching telos and purpose to things that don't necessarily have it or are meant as explanations by ancient peoples to explain things we have a better understanding of today.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

And yet you've failed to demonstrate your religion doesn't cause destruction or damaging of human flourishing, to say nothing of the existence of your soul being unfalsifiable magical thinking to quell fears of death

So? No, I don't have a religion. There is no "your religion" at all as you either assume or otherwise think. Likewise, the "to say nothing" whatever, might as well say nothing.

 

[muichimotsu]

Yes, it is possible, theoretically, that I could be "convinced away from the faith." You see, Philosophical Hermeneutics is not a "Christian" thing, and only a small number of Christians incorporate it into their overall praxis even though many still use Biblical Hermeneutics in their exegetical practice, but he former is a different field from the latter. I try to use both as a part of my Philosophical (existential) inquiry as I explore the presence of the Christian Faith that has now resided in our world for almost 2,000 years.

Not only this, but being that I do have a degree in Philosophy, the mental conditioning I received from that educational experience makes me prone to remaining receptive and rather open to engaging the work of skeptics and atheists. So, no, don't talk in an echo chamber; I preferably love to hear various viewpoints on a fairly wide-range of topics/subjects as I make my own analytic conclusions.

My alma mater had Christians of various stripes, both in the philosophy and religious studies departments (among other positions, like a Buddhist and Reformed Jew, iirc), I'm not unfamiliar with how one can reconcile these things. But the question becomes what would actually convince you in a hypothetical sense that not only is, say, Christianity mistaken, but the idea of a supernatural reality is not founded on anything beyond human tendency to anthropomorphize and find purpose in things because we're pattern seeking? Obviously there are several steps there, but what about the first in just concluding that Christianity in all its forms is not true: how would that be evidenced to you at all?

That's honestly my general position and I've hardly seen anything that really contradicts that which doesn't smack of indoctrination or wishful thinking from people who don't want to acknowledge the world might not have purpose from outside that they want and they must forge their own meaning.


Part of that is the mischaracterization that a world without God would somehow become nihilistic and without any underlying value, which I find silly, especially in a different thread I've been engaging in, the idea of transience somehow tantamount to metaphysical nihilism in conclusion, which is absurd

 

[muichimotsu]

So? No, I don't have a religion. There is no "your religion" at all as you either assume or otherwise think. Likewise, the "to say nothing" whatever, might as well say nothing.

No, you have a religion, you try to deflect away and say otherwise, but that's special pleading and goalpost shifting, it doesn't help the discussion when you have a triumphalist attitude about your faith system and want to go with prescriptivist semantics to avoid acknowledging that you're like everyone else, you just happen to believe you have the one truth (which other people believe too and disagree with your particular conclusions).

What, you admit there's no proof or evidence for the soul?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

No, you have a religion

Thus, you deny the truth, and use a lot of words instead to deflect from the truth....

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My alma mater had Christians of various stripes, both in the philosophy and religious studies departments (among other positions, like a Buddhist and Reformed Jew, iirc), I'm not unfamiliar with how one can reconcile these things. But the question becomes what would actually convince you in a hypothetical sense that not only is, say, Christianity mistaken, but the idea of a supernatural reality is not founded on anything beyond human tendency to anthropomorphize and find purpose in things because we're pattern seeking? Obviously there are several steps there, but what about the first in just concluding that Christianity in all its forms is not true: how would that be evidenced to you at all?

That's honestly my general position and I've hardly seen anything that really contradicts that which doesn't smack of indoctrination or wishful thinking from people who don't want to acknowledge the world might not have purpose from outside that they want and they must forge their own meaning.


Part of that is the mischaracterization that a world without God would somehow become nihilistic and without any underlying value, which I find silly, especially in a different thread I've been engaging in, the idea of transience somehow tantamount to metaphysical nihilism in conclusion, which is absurd

Why is it that I have a feeling that whatever I may think won't get get a hearing with you? At the end of the day, all this really comes down to in practical terms is that you've read your [SET] of books and I've read mine, and not only do these sets of books contrast with one another, but you and I probably have different feelings and perceptions about the various ideas we each think we've found in our respective collections.

Frankly, I get rather tired of being shut down before I even get a chance to start rolling.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Meaning it's still based on your assessment and nothing that's remotely verifiable or even justified beyond your sentiments. You can say you're not claiming it's absolutely applicable to everyone, but the standard you use is faulty and, frankly, intellectually lazy in actually critically addressing your own beliefs as being subject to change with new considerations.

Pascal's almost worse in the notions of advocating what amounts to fideism, practically, while you're claiming that in some sense, the Christian faith as you've approximated and understood, is sensible, but will not necessarily make sense to others. The problem becomes that this isn't a subjective aspect that necessarily cannot have a complete and conclusive answer. I might like ice cream and you might like sherbet, that doesn't have anything to do with meaning and purpose.

But you finding purpose in something I find generally abhorrent and anti-human in its conclusions about how the world works with a sovereign deity and salvation by atonement and scapegoating is not something we can necessarily agree to disagree on because I would see demonstrable harm, while you may see something similar in my worldview, however one might characterize it and also be accurate about it (which is tough for anyone's, my assessment of yours not necessarily comprehensive by any means)

My point is that you're not addressing a potential cognitive bias in your thought, attaching telos and purpose to things that don't necessarily have it or are meant as explanations by ancient peoples to explain things we have a better understanding of today.

Oh. So are you here because you want to offer an one-way monologue by which to close the curtain on us Christians because ... you think you see "demonstrable harm"? It's funny that you mention this little phrase since it seems so innocuous as it's snugged into the middle of your polemic, but I keep noticing that it has been cropping up more and more often lately through various atheistic media and it's beginning to sound like a secularized form of Inquisition is beginning to snow-ball forth, pushed along by skeptics and atheists who'd like Christianity to meet its demise and for Christians to suffer some political and legal consequences.

Please tell me I'm wrong.

 

[muichimotsu]

Thus, you deny the truth, and use a lot of words instead to deflect from the truth....

And you're ignoring definitions inconvenient to you and generally asserting you're right with no basis beyond your conviction, so who's really in denial here?

 

[muichimotsu]

Why is it that I have a feeling that whatever I may think won't get get a hearing with you? At the end of the day, all this really comes down to in practical terms is that you've read your [SET] of books and I've read mine, and not only do these sets of books contrast with one another, but you and I probably have different feelings and perceptions about the various ideas we each think we've found in our respective collections.

Frankly, I get rather tired of being shut down before I even get a chance to start rolling.

What set of books do you think I've read, first off? That seems a little more like insinuations about what my background is

It's not a matter of shutting down, it's a matter of considering the core issue here, which is seemingly making these conclusions on a existential basis, which I find suspect and unreliable, because, esp. if you're going with Kierkegaard's methodology, it's abandoning any sense of reason for particular things, effectively a special pleading fallacy

 

[muichimotsu]

Oh. So are you here because you want to offer an one-way monologue by which to close the curtain on us Christians because ... you think you see "demonstrable harm"? It's funny that you mention this little phrase since it seems so innocuous as it's snugged into the middle of your polemic, but I keep noticing that it has been cropping up more and more often lately through various atheistic media and it's beginning to sound like a secularized form of Inquisition is beginning to snow-ball forth, pushed along by skeptics and atheists who'd like Christianity to meet its demise and for Christians to suffer some political and legal consequences.

Please tell me I'm wrong.

Close the curtain is creating a needlessly antagonistic image. I find it far better to move gradually, not quit cold turkey like you're insinuating

No, the problem is harm comes in various forms, but more than that, you don't get to pull the persecution card when you're still in a majority group by comparison. Criticism /=/ persecution by any stretch without more qualification on what each entails

Christians suffer political and legal consequences because they're ignorant of the law and act like their convictions are a free pass to get away with anything, but that shouldn't fly in a government that's meant to protect religious freedom, but not give religion a free pass either: freedom necessarily has limits in regards to negative liberty alongside positive liberty

Not sure what you think is going on, but that narrative of Christians being "bullied" or such is blown vastly out of proportion in contrast to what is generally Dominionists and their ilk thinking that church/state separation doesn't exist and they can do what they want because they think 1st amendment rights don't apply in whatever context they may be involved in

 

[Silmarien]

I haven't watched the opening video, and I've been avoiding the thread because I was never going to watch the video, but I'm somewhat critical of the fideistic approach that seems to underly what little I've seen here of Penner's thought. Kierkegaard is lovely, though I think more as a taste of the existential side of faith than as a useful epistemology.

I think some of what @muichimotsu has been saying in the last page here really highlights the intellectual assumptions of the modern period. We're no longer in an environment where theism is seen as self-evidently true, and the only question would be deciding between the various religious (or deism). His comments about the idea of a supernatural reality being nothing more than pattern seeking are particularly important--if someone truly believes this, then it's not fair to tell them that their question is the result of a secular and idolatrous modernist worldview. That would be begging the question and result in all manner of cognitive dissonance if actually applied.

I don't believe naturalism is true. I believe that theism (or at least idealism) is probably true. That's not a matter of faith--it's because a couple of Christian apologists actually managed to do their job (in conjunction with a fair amount of atheistic philosophy and a touch of Hinduism). Those who are not interested in actual evidentiary or logically based defenses of theism or Christianity do not need to engage in them, but trying to sabotage the whole project strikes me as ill-advised.

As a Christian who undertakes Apologetical tasks, is it my job to A) tell non-believers how they should think and/or believe and/or live, OR B) offer an account of why "I" personally believe?
In other words: what do you think Christian Apologetics is supposed to do?

I don't think either A or B is completely appropriate. I have been a skeptic in the past, and it's a mindset that Christians often seem not to understand. I had someone try to convict me of my sin of not thinking his arguments worked before, and it was more than a little bit traumatic. Christian apologetics way too easily cross over into abuse, and that needs to be taken into account.

On the other hand, I don't think the reasons that one person believes, if based entirely on subjective grounds, is necessarily going to be of much interest to a second person. I think it falls into the same trap of "I talk, you listen." That's not a conversation. (Random in person conversations where someone asks you why you believe something are obviously different.)

I think the goal at a personal level should be to just get people thinking, which is probably best served by a Socratic method. Entire worldview shifts take time--you're not going to convince someone of anything in one sitting (or probably at all, since you'll be at most one factor), so the ego and savior complex needs to be checked at the door. Honestly, this probably goes for both sides, since evangelical atheism is a thing too.

Another fun factor is politics. As a leftist, I quickly learned to avoid American apologetic material, since many of the Evangelical writers (and some of the Catholic ones as well) are enmeshed in the culture war and open up their books by attacking the secular left. It was alienating to the point where I'd write someone off without even reading further, and it still annoys me in a sort of "get off my lawn and clean up your own house" manner. If American apologetics is about actually winning people over and not simply the Christian right engaging in some sort of self-congratulatory hate fest, they need to put considerable more thought into presentation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What set of books do you think I've read, first off? That seems a little more like insinuations about what my background is

I don't know or assume I know what books or sources you've engaged or not engaged, that is why I made a simple, comparative statement about the strong possibility that you and I differ in our thinking because we've drawn from different robust sources. I'm not inferring that your [set] of books is inferior; I'm simply saying that you seem to disparage my point of view without also knowing what my [set] is. Maybe remind keep in mind that I'm not here to show you up, show how inadequate you are as a person or as an intellectual. I'm simply here to express and defend my own point of view. My job isn't to convince you, but rather to inform you.

It's not a matter of shutting down, it's a matter of considering the core issue here, which is seemingly making these conclusions on a existential basis, which I find suspect and unreliable, because, esp. if you're going with Kierkegaard's methodology, it's abandoning any sense of reason for particular things, effectively a special pleading fallacy

Likewise, in my response to you here, you might approach me a little more gingerly and assume I've actually read something robust, even if it were to be something you've ultimately disagree with. Don't just dismiss me out of hand, because I'm not doing that to you.

Moreover, I never said I was fully in compliance with Pascal or Kierkegaard, but I do like their general approach, especially when I ADD Philosophical Hermeneutics to the measure of the limited praxis I conceptually and cognitively employee in my effort to follow Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior (which is also to say that where Christian Faith is concerned, it can only and ever be limited by human measure for any other person as well---unfortunately, a number of people, both Christian, Ex-Christian and otherwise Skeptical apparently haven't understood the Kerygmatic Memo).

Axiom #1: Theological conclusions aren't, and can't ever be, comprehensive or systematic.

 

[zippy2006]

In other words: what do you think Christian Apologetics is supposed to do?

Or even, if you prefer: Should Christians today abandon the attempt to do 'apologetics'?

Following Silmarien in prescinding from the video, I would say that for me apologetics is just a basic form of reasoning in which one offers arguments on behalf of their own position or worldview. I think everyone should, or at least can do that. For example, the atheists on this forum are doing the exact same thing.

Being a fan of discourse, dialogue, argument, and even disputation, I have no problem with apologetics. I think it provides a necessary and fruitful cross-fertilization of ideas, and allows ideas and parties to reach one another in a way that would not otherwise be possible. Of course, arguments always carry with them dangers, but I don't think possible dangers should ever lead us to conclude that argument itself is inappropriate. Indeed, it's hard to understand what the alternative to argument is without explicitly moving away from a culture that is subordinate to rationality.

It's also hard to see how Penner's position can remain self-consistent. What happens after the unbeliever sits down and listens to the personal story of the Christian? Or what happens after the minister sits down and listens attentively and sympathetically to the story of the unbeliever? Presumably at some point a conversation will arise in which they actually talk to one another, and since they are different people they will inevitably disagree on things, and some of these things will be held to be important--important enough to question or defend. Then we're right back to a clear form of apologetics. Penner seems to envision the therapist-client relationship without realizing that even in therapy arguments and disagreements are common.

Penner's argument seems to rest on an equivocation of bad apologetics with apologetics generally, and I don't see how you can oppose apologetics itself without also being opposed to rational discourse. I certainly think everyone can see the dangers of bad apologetics, but there might be some baby mixed in with that bathwater.

...Indeed, it almost strikes me as disrespectful towards unbelievers to hold up non-argument as an unimpeachable principle. One way that a person's voice manifests is in argument and reason, and to shut down argument without qualification is to deny that person a voice.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Following Silmarien in prescinding from the video, I would say that for me apologetics is just a basic form of reasoning in which one offers arguments on behalf of their own position or worldview. I think everyone should, or at least can do that. For example, the atheists on this forum are doing the exact same thing.

Being a fan of discourse, dialogue, argument, and even disputation, I have no problem with apologetics. I think it provides a necessary and fruitful cross-fertilization of ideas, and allows ideas and parties to reach one another in a way that would not otherwise be possible. Of course, arguments always carry with them dangers, but I don't think possible dangers should ever lead us to conclude that argument itself is inappropriate. Indeed, it's hard to understand what the alternative to argument is without explicitly moving away from a culture that is subordinate to rationality.

It's also hard to see how Penner's position can remain self-consistent. What happens after the unbeliever sits down and listens to the personal story of the Christian? Or what happens after the minister sits down and listens attentively and sympathetically to the story of the unbeliever? Presumably at some point a conversation will arise in which they actually talk to one another, and since they are different people they will inevitably disagree on things, and some of these things will be held to be important--important enough to question or defend. Then we're right back to a clear form of apologetics. Penner seems to envision the therapist-client relationship without realizing that even in therapy arguments and disagreements are common.

Penner's argument seems to rest on an equivocation of bad apologetics with apologetics generally, and I don't see how you can oppose apologetics itself without also being opposed to rational discourse. I certainly think everyone can see the dangers of bad apologetics, but there might be some baby mixed in with that bathwater.

...Indeed, it almost strikes me as disrespectful towards unbelievers to hold up non-argument as an unimpeachable principle. One way that a person's voice manifests is in argument and reason, and to shut down argument without qualification is to deny that person a voice.

It sounds like you more or less agree with Penner, then. Or maybe you don't. Or maybe, like me, you find yourself with one foot in the Craig camp and another foot in another camp. Or maybe, we find ourselves playing hopscotch as the need arises.

Personally, I like my position as Philosophical Hermeneuticist because it allows me to draw advantages in critical thinking from the Pre-modern, the Modern, and the Post-Modern, whereas everyone else seems to be vying for and jockeying for a particular "systematic position."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I haven't watched the opening video, and I've been avoiding the thread because I was never going to watch the video, but I'm somewhat critical of the fideistic approach that seems to underly what little I've seen here of Penner's thought. Kierkegaard is lovely, though I think more as a taste of the existential side of faith than as a useful epistemology.

I think some of what @muichimotsu has been saying in the last page here really highlights the intellectual assumptions of the modern period. We're no longer in an environment where theism is seen as self-evidently true, and the only question would be deciding between the various religious (or deism). His comments about the idea of a supernatural reality being nothing more than pattern seeking are particularly important--if someone truly believes this, then it's not fair to tell them that their question is the result of a secular and idolatrous modernist worldview. That would be begging the question and result in all manner of cognitive dissonance if actually applied.

I don't believe naturalism is true. I believe that theism (or at least idealism) is probably true. That's not a matter of faith--it's because a couple of Christian apologists actually managed to do their job (in conjunction with a fair amount of atheistic philosophy and a touch of Hinduism). Those who are not interested in actual evidentiary or logically based defenses of theism or Christianity do not need to engage in them, but trying to sabotage the whole project strikes me as ill-advised.



I don't think either A or B is completely appropriate. I have been a skeptic in the past, and it's a mindset that Christians often seem not to understand. I had someone try to convict me of my sin of not thinking his arguments worked before, and it was more than a little bit traumatic. Christian apologetics way too easily cross over into abuse, and that needs to be taken into account.

On the other hand, I don't think the reasons that one person believes, if based entirely on subjective grounds, is necessarily going to be of much interest to a second person. I think it falls into the same trap of "I talk, you listen." That's not a conversation. (Random in person conversations where someone asks you why you believe something are obviously different.)

I think the goal at a personal level should be to just get people thinking, which is probably best served by a Socratic method. Entire worldview shifts take time--you're not going to convince someone of anything in one sitting (or probably at all, since you'll be at most one factor), so the ego and savior complex needs to be checked at the door. Honestly, this probably goes for both sides, since evangelical atheism is a thing too.

Another fun factor is politics. As a leftist, I quickly learned to avoid American apologetic material, since many of the Evangelical writers (and some of the Catholic ones as well) are enmeshed in the culture war and open up their books by attacking the secular left. It was alienating to the point where I'd write someone off without even reading further, and it still annoys me in a sort of "get off my lawn and clean up your own house" manner. If American apologetics is about actually winning people over and not simply the Christian right engaging in some sort of self-congratulatory hate fest, they need to put considerable more thought into presentation.

So, are you essentially saying I need to be nicer and fuller of Christmas cheer or than I'm kind of ignorant,

..... or both?

 

[Silmarien]

Penner seems to envision the therapist-client relationship without realizing that even in therapy arguments and disagreements are common.

This is interesting. I think the therapist-client relationship is a really problematic way to engage in apologetics because of the power imbalance inherent in it. There's a tendency for Christians to fall back into thinking that the nonbeliever lacks knowledge, doesn't understand things properly, cannot have any real insights to bring to the table, and needs to adopt the role of the passive student. To a certain extent, this is understandable--someone who is merely curious about Christianity doesn't have the depths of understanding as someone who has been practicing it for ten or twenty (or more) years, but it's still extremely irritating to be written off as an nonbeliever.

I think inter-religious dialogue can avoid this pitfall, since if both people are coming from established traditions, it's hard for one to overpower the other. This is part of why I played the Platonist angle for so long--it's harder for people to say, "Hello, seeker, let me share my knowledge with you" if they see you as already representing an autonomous tradition. It allowed for more give and take than just presenting primarily as an inquirer would have. (Of course, my issues with intellectual pride are through the roof, and when it comes to Christianity, I compensate for perceived inadequacies in increasingly ridiculous ways.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is interesting. I think the therapist-client relationship is a really problematic way to engage in apologetics because of the power imbalance inherent in it. There's a tendency for Christians to fall back into thinking that the nonbeliever lacks knowledge, doesn't understand things properly, cannot have any real insights to bring to the table, and needs to adopt the role of the passive student. To a certain extent, this is understandable--someone who is merely curious about Christianity doesn't have the depths of understanding as someone who has been practicing it for ten or twenty (or more) years, but it's still extremely irritating to be written off as an nonbeliever.

It's also irritating for a Christian to consistently have a group of outsiders verbally gang up on him as they essentially ignore, utterly dismiss and attempt to confound whatever syllables might, with good intention, fall from the mind of the Christian.

I'll admit straight off that whether or not my attitude comports with what we think 1 Peter 3:15 "means," just as a fellow human being who has to share the world and a nation with other people, it really chaffs my hide when my fellow citizens become devious and political through behind-the-scenes machinations of their own devising. I tend to feel especially this way when anyone, whether Christian or Skeptic, attempts to land into me, shut me down, close me out and otherwise remove me from having my own say simply because my view doesn't comport with their own. I mean, I don't know if anyone has noticed, BUT I go out of my way to NOT argue and demean my fellow Christian brethren, of whatever denomination. Also, as far as I can tell, I don't initiate political fisticuffs or insinuated political threats or innuendoes, most particularly NOT in relation to my own Christian faith. But Hell!!! I get talked to as if I helped put Trump in office. I didn't. Plain and Simple. And he can be voted out just as easily as he was voted in.

I think inter-religious dialogue can avoid this pitfall, since if both people are coming from established traditions, it's hard for one to overpower the other. This is part of why I played the Platonist angle for so long--it's harder for people to say, "Hello, seeker, let me share my knowledge with you" if they see you as already representing an autonomous tradition. It allowed for more give and take than just presenting primarily as an inquirer would have. (Of course, my issues with intellectual pride are through the roof, and when it comes to Christianity, I compensate for perceived inadequacies in increasingly ridiculous ways.)

And I don't mind if you consider yourself a Platonist. I really don't. He's useful. My only gripe is that folks [in various eras] have tried to pull some things out of the overall historical and conceptual context in which certain arguments of Socrates, Plato and/or Aristotle were made, not the least of which is the Euthyphro Argument. It's a classic argument, of course, and it was rather brilliant for the time and the specific metaphysical and axiological conceptual arrangement it was created in and in which Plato's Socrates sought to address a moral dilemma.

BUT, like a number of things Plato/Socrates said, it's not all simply transferable and applicable to the conceptual structures of Deity and Ethics we find in the Bible, and it's this kind of "tool-box" mentality that I object to, and I object to the praxis involved in attempted transference, and I do so without at the same time objecting to the brilliance and usefulness of the analytics of either Socrates or Plato, or Aristotle. The same goes in my mind for the Moderns, from Descartes through Kant and up to the newer skeptics, and for various diversified Post-Modernized thinkers from Hegel to today. They're all useful, often interesting and helpful in their own ways and especially as they are understood in the situation in which they lived in their own times.

I also don't have any qualms about inter-religious dialogue, but at the end of the day, we have to contend with the fact that, like with the attempts to take Plato and use him as a screwdriver upon the Christian Faith, not everything in Christian Theology can or will comport with every other religious or philosophical idea that may be out there. And that's all I'm trying to say, and without getting assertively political about.