What is apologetics anyway?

[Archaeopteryx]

As most of you are aware, discussions that centre on Christian apologetics are forbidden not only in the Philosophy subforum but across CF generally. To avoid trespassing against this rule let me make clear that this is not a thread for apologetics, but a thread about apologetics. What is it and what is its relationship to philosophy?

According to Wikipedia, Christian apologetics "is a field of Christian theology which present reasoned bases for the Christian faith, defending the faith against objections." On the surface, this appears to fall broadly in line with the definition of philosophy given in this forum's Statement of Purpose: "Critical examination of the rational grounds of our most fundamental beliefs and logical analysis of the basic concepts employed in the expression of such beliefs" (Concise Encyclopedia). As an exercise in providing "reasoned bases" for Christianity, apologetics would therefore seem to fall under the broad umbrella of philosophy.

However, on a deeper level, such a conclusion might be naive and premature. To understand apologetics' relationship to philosophy we should, I think, examine what apologists themselves have to say about their work and their motivations. The Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics notes that "apologetics is synonymous with evangelism," or preaching the Gospel to win converts. Following Luther, the apologist William Lane Craig has stated that the proper function of reason is ministerial; that is, reason must serve the Gospel as a "hand-maiden" rather than critically examining the claims contained therein. The evangelistic nature of apologetics, and the attitude to reason it embodies, seem to place it out of line with the spirit of philosophy as defined above. Apologetics is first and foremost a religious exercise, driven by the dictate to evangelise, and not a "critical examination of the rational grounds of our most fundamental beliefs." In any discussion of the case for Christianity, if one is engaged in the latter, one has arguably ceased to do apologetics.

 

[BL2KTN]

If you're asking about apologetics as it is understood here: a means by which to lock threads.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you're asking about apologetics as it is understood here: a means by which to lock threads.

It's like a spell in that regard. Utter the right combination of words and lo the thread shall be closed.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Judging by the board on this very site that bears its name, 'apologetics' is an echo chamber of pseudo-philosophical ineptitude.

 

[ananda]

IMO apologetics is the practice of interpreting, explaining, or defend things which are originally unclear as written by the original author(s).

In terms of religious apologetics, IMO any scripture which claim to have originated from an omniscient or omnipotent deity should not need human apologists to interpret or defend it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

IMO apologetics is the practice of interpreting, explaining, or defend things which are originally unclear as written by the original author(s).

In terms of religious apologetics, IMO any scripture which claim to have originated from an omniscient or omnipotent deity should not need human apologists to interpret or defend it.

 

[Paradoxum]

I agree that apologetics is defense of belief, rather than critical examination of belief.

But philosophy of religion could include arguments for God. And more religion specific arguments could come under theology.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Thats why I dont like apoogetics. It respects belief and winning over more than it does disciplined use of reason. Before you try to convert, maybe teach someone critical thinking skills.

As a shi'a said "uqool" (intellect) is the "wahy" (process of revelation) for the layman.

So in neglecting intellect, be it through mystic drunkeness* even, or deviant will, then we are offending against one of our intimate links to the divine and the divine will. And hence, to the potential for accurate self realisation also, maybe?


*I recall readong "Life in the Spirit" where the Chritian writer Tozer said the the Holy Spirit is sane. I dont believe in the Holy Spirit exactly, but he's right, people can do unusual things in the state of religious "sukr" (intoxicaiton) as opposed to sahw (sobriety).

 

[Crandaddy]

I'm trying to have this rule removed. Keep your fingers crossed...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm trying to have this rule removed. Keep your fingers crossed...

It seems strange that such a rule is in place given the biblical dictate to evangelise. However, on the other hand, it is somewhat understandable. If members here are evangelising to others, then it may cease to be a discussion forum and become a series of monologues for wannabe preachers of various denominations.

Regardless, the rule is not at issue here. It's the relationship of apologetics to philosophy.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What about ostensive philosophy and apologetics:

take a look at the end of people and their community... sick or well, healthy or ill, peaceful or disturbed, according to their chosen ways.


"The human body is the best picture of the human soul." - Wittgenstein.


That kind of thing...

 

[Tree of Life]

I prefer Dr. Frame's definition. Apologetics is the application of Scripture to unbelief.

 

[BL2KTN]

T'were that the case, apologetics wouldn't be specifically defensive.

 

[Received]

What this is all about is the powers that be at CF are down with thinking about things, but not with certain tenets of Christianity being criticized in such a way that can be linked to insufficient justification through attempted apologetics.

 

[RDKirk]

However, on a deeper level, such a conclusion might be naive and premature. To understand apologetics' relationship to philosophy we should, I think, examine what apologists themselves have to say about their work and their motivations. The Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics notes that "apologetics is synonymous with evangelism," or preaching the Gospel to win converts. Following Luther, the apologist William Lane Craig has stated that the proper function of reason is ministerial; that is, reason must serve the Gospel as a "hand-maiden" rather than critically examining the claims contained therein. The evangelistic nature of apologetics, and the attitude to reason it embodies, seem to place it out of line with the spirit of philosophy as defined above. Apologetics is first and foremost a religious exercise, driven by the dictate to evangelise, and not a "critical examination of the rational grounds of our most fundamental beliefs." In any discussion of the case for Christianity, if one is engaged in the latter, one has arguably ceased to do apologetics.

Yes, this is true. This is the purpose of Body of Christ and the primary mission toward which every Christian works. It would be the purpose of "apologetic" for a forum called "Christian."

Regardless, the rule is not at issue here. It's the relationship of apologetics to philosophy.

It's kind of like the relationship of "military law" to "law." "Military law" has the specific purpose of maintaining order and discipline in the military and does not go into jurisdictions not regarding military order and discipline (such as divorce issues).

In my own opinion, apologetics has its greatest use for Christians in answering the questions of believers--IOW, teaching--rather than evangelism.

 

[zippy2006]

As most of you are aware, discussions that centre on Christian apologetics are forbidden not only in the Philosophy subforum but across CF generally. To avoid trespassing against this rule let me make clear that this is not a thread for apologetics, but a thread about apologetics. What is it and what is its relationship to philosophy?

According to Wikipedia, Christian apologetics "is a field of Christian theology which present reasoned bases for the Christian faith, defending the faith against objections." On the surface, this appears to fall broadly in line with the definition of philosophy given in this forum's Statement of Purpose: "Critical examination of the rational grounds of our most fundamental beliefs and logical analysis of the basic concepts employed in the expression of such beliefs" (Concise Encyclopedia). As an exercise in providing "reasoned bases" for Christianity, apologetics would therefore seem to fall under the broad umbrella of philosophy.

However, on a deeper level, such a conclusion might be naive and premature. To understand apologetics' relationship to philosophy we should, I think, examine what apologists themselves have to say about their work and their motivations. The Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics notes that "apologetics is synonymous with evangelism," or preaching the Gospel to win converts. Following Luther, the apologist William Lane Craig has stated that the proper function of reason is ministerial; that is, reason must serve the Gospel as a "hand-maiden" rather than critically examining the claims contained therein. The evangelistic nature of apologetics, and the attitude to reason it embodies, seem to place it out of line with the spirit of philosophy as defined above. Apologetics is first and foremost a religious exercise, driven by the dictate to evangelise, and not a "critical examination of the rational grounds of our most fundamental beliefs." In any discussion of the case for Christianity, if one is engaged in the latter, one has arguably ceased to do apologetics.

Apologetics is the rational defense of the faith. Evangelism and philosophy are not incompatible. Defending the faith is, by definition, evangelical.

Apologetics is first and foremost a religious exercise, driven by the dictate to evangelise, and not a "critical examination of the rational grounds of our most fundamental beliefs." In any discussion of the case for Christianity, if one is engaged in the latter, one has arguably ceased to do apologetics.

I already pointed out the false dichotomy you are making. Yet the fact is positively visible given a concern about the rational grounding of religious belief. Once that concern is raised, the defense of such a rational grounding obviously falls within the purview of apologetics. Indeed, this is precisely the starting point for books such as Peter Kreeft's Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Generally speaking, the discipline of Christian apologetics is nothing other than a critical examination of the grounds for Christian belief.

It seems strange that such a rule is in place given the biblical dictate to evangelise. However, on the other hand, it is somewhat understandable. If members here are evangelising to others, then it may cease to be a discussion forum and become a series of monologues for wannabe preachers of various denominations.

Presumably the rule is in place so that an endless source of name-calling and bickering does not emerge. When you have Christians more interested in apologetics than Christianity, and atheists solely interested in attacking religion, an "apologetics" forum becomes a problem. Public forums like CF attract both kinds. Yet it's worth noting that such an arrangement usually falls short of apologetics and far short of evangelism.

Removing apologetics from the area of philosophy is an artificial solution, as apologetics falls naturally within the category of philosophy. Despite that, it seems perfectly reasonable for a Christian forum to bar general apologetics in our antagonistic day and age.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Apologetics is the rational defense of the faith. Evangelism and philosophy are not incompatible. Defending the faith is, by definition, evangelical.



I already pointed out the false dichotomy you are making. Yet the fact is positively visible given a concern about the rational grounding of religious belief. Once that concern is raised, the defense of such a rational grounding obviously falls within the purview of apologetics. Indeed, this is precisely the starting point for books such as Peter Kreeft's Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Generally speaking, the discipline of Christian apologetics is nothing other than a critical examination of the grounds for Christian belief.

Based on my own experience with apologists, the goal of apologetics isn't a "rational grounding of religious belief" per se. The goal is to remove "intellectual obstacles" to faith. Attempting to present a rational case for belief is therefore a means to an end, with apologetic arguments serving as scaffolding. Consistent with its evangelistic aspirations, the goal is to get the individual to the point of conversion, to the point where the scaffolding is no longer necessary and the individual believes on faith.

Removing apologetics from the area of philosophy is an artificial solution, as apologetics falls naturally within the category of philosophy.

I couldn't disagree more strongly on this point. Apologetics is far removed from philosophy. In fact, I'd go further to argue that apologetics is not even a sincere form of inquiry. As an exercise in evangelism, it is a one-sided conversation: we are not jointly examining reasons for belief. Instead, the apologist starts with a conclusion that must never be reconsidered and builds arguments to defend it. If and when those arguments fail, the conclusion is still upheld by invoking faith.

This is incongruous with philosophy. As Bertrand Russell said of Aquinas in A History of Western Philosophy:

There is little of the true philosophic spirit in Aquinas. He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading.

In faith the apologist finds a means of denying basic fallibilism regarding his religious beliefs; he cannot be wrong; failure is not an option. When failure is not an option, then all evidence is either confirmatory or it is disregarded, dismissed, and ignored. If one cannot admit even the possibility of error, it becomes difficult to argue one's case honestly or to maintain the pretence that one is engaged in sincere inquiry.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The goals of apologetics and philosophy are different, and so too is the criterion of success. In conversation with an apologist, if the other person believes because they are convinced by apologetic arguments, then the apologist has failed, or at least, they are only half-way toward their goal because the person doesn't yet believe on faith and still needs the scaffolding that the arguments provide. This makes the belief vulnerable. It could be overturned by further inquiry, which is why the apologist's goal is to bring the person to faith. On the other hand, if the person believes because there is good reason to believe, or they are at least more critical of their own beliefs, then the philosopher has succeeded. She doesn't need to immunise the belief by inculcating faith because she has no fear of what further inquiry may bring.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The attribution of "great faith" is a compliment to the apologist, but an insult to the philosopher.

 

[paulm50]

IMO apologetics is the practice of interpreting, explaining, or defend things which are originally unclear as written by the original author(s).

In terms of religious apologetics, IMO any scripture which claim to have originated from an omniscient or omnipotent deity should not need human apologists to interpret or defend it.

So ALL bibles don't need to be interpreted or defended.

This is very dangerous ground. Due to the many bibles, sub bibles and different interpretations of all bibles. And all it needs is someone to claim it was originated from an omniscient or omnipotent deity. Or would it require proof?

IMO it's a rule the owners of the board can use at their discretion to close down a thread. Their board, their rules.