• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

What is apologetics anyway?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
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.
I'm not sure how this relates to my post.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
42,106
22,719
US
✟1,729,766.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.

And that is why I said in #15: In my own opinion, apologetics has its greatest use for Christians in answering the questions of believers--IOW, teaching--rather than evangelism.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
42,106
22,719
US
✟1,729,766.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"I believe..."
Please show how this is ratonally defensible.

Scientists rationally defend things they believe all the time. So do court prosecutors. I think you meant something more qualified than the statement you made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Soyeong
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
And that is why I said in #15: In my own opinion, apologetics has its greatest use for Christians in answering the questions of believers--IOW, teaching--rather than evangelism.
Wouldn't teaching be something separate? Anyone can teach another individual about the Christian faith, assuming that they have the requisite knowledge. You don't even need to be a Christian to do that.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
42,106
22,719
US
✟1,729,766.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Wouldn't teaching be something separate? Anyone can teach another individual about the Christian faith, assuming that they have the requisite knowledge. You don't even need to be a Christian to do that.

Back to what I said: "...apologetics has its greatest use for Christians in answering the questions of believers..." That would be part of the teaching--i.e., indoctrination--process, although not all of it.
 
Upvote 0

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟53,117.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
@Archaeopteryx

The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading.

It's been a while since my ethics classes, but wouldn't "sophism" be a rather applicable term here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archaeopteryx
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟299,538.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
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.

That's basically right. As I said, (Christian) apologetics is properly a defense of the faith. In practice that almost always results in a rational grounding of religious belief, because one is responding to attacks against the rationality of the religion.

Attempting to present a rational case for belief is therefore a means to an end, with apologetic arguments serving as scaffolding.

Apologetics itself is a means to an end, but revealing a rational grounding over and against charges of irrationality is the purpose of apologetics.

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.

You're forgetting that apologetics is defensive, negative in nature. It is evangelization only insofar as it removes impediments to belief. It is true that once the impediments are removed, the individual is free to believe. Yet impediments and difficulties also arise after initial conversion, and CF allows the kind of apologetics that address such difficulties.

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.

First, I would just remind you that comments like these sparked my thread about Theology and the Scientific Method.

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.

Apologetics is not an inquiry at all, it is a defense.

Instead of jumping ahead, I will just allow you to provide your own reasons for the inadequacy of apologetics. Yet I would caution you insofar as your reasons inevitably lie themselves in the fact that you believe Christianity is false. And if that really is the crux of the matter, then we can't resolve it without ourselves engaging in apologetics.

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


Aquinas has already outlived Russell in the philosophical world, so there's not much to it. For example, look up SEP's article on Aristotle's Categories, a foundational document for all of philosophy. Aquinas is still recognized as one of the most formidable interpreters even after 700 years. It is unlikely that anyone will even remember Russell's name after 200 years. (The history of philosophy has, and will continue to, show Russell to be wrong)

Russell doesn't seem to understand the basic fact that an argument is either sound or unsound. His critique is merely an ad hominem. He is upset because he doesn't personally agree with some Aquinas' motivations. Who cares? Aquinas would merely ask Russell to consider the arguments themselves. That is because Aquinas loves Truth more than Russell ever could. He knows truth personally, and follows it wherever it leads. As Russell's career in logical positivism shows, he wasn't overly serious about truth at all; his inquiry was biased at the intellectual level. He thought certain philosophical methods were impractical, and thus developed others on the basis of practicality.

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.

As far as I can tell, this is what you are saying:

"'Philosophical legitimacy' can only occur if, when one offers an argument for a position, they are at the same time willing to give up their belief in the position if the argument fails."​

Two points:

  1. First, you are committing the formal fallacy of denying the antecedent.
  2. Second, your position assumes that all beliefs/positions are supported by only one argument. If this were true, then your claim above might work. But the assumption is false.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
That's basically right. As I said, (Christian) apologetics is properly a defense of the faith. In practice that almost always results in a rational grounding of religious belief,
...
I have never seen this happen. It always seems that only those that already believe find it convincing. <shrug>
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟299,538.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Bonhoeffer believed apologetics was a misguided excercise, so did Karl Barth. Not only that, they believed it seriously distorted Christian theology.

Barth and Bon vs St. Peter and 2000 years of tradition.

"Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence" (1 Peter 3:15).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Soyeong
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,443
20,738
Orlando, Florida
✟1,509,613.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Barth and Bon vs St. Peter and 2000 years of tradition.

"Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence" (1 Peter 3:15).

Have you actually read Bonhoeffer's Letters from Cell 92A?
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,630
4,676
Hudson
✟344,602.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
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.

You could take a philosophical view and find people who will raise arguments against it and find other people who will give arguments in favor of it and try to show why the arguments against it are unfounded. If the person successfully defends the view and the objector comes to realize that the reasons for holding the view are solid their objections were unfounded, then they might come to share the view instead. It's the same with apologetics.

I'd be interested is seeing a quote from WLC where he says apologetics is not about critically examining the claims therein.

Faith is not about continuing to believe something when there is insufficient reason to do so, but rather is about continuing to believe something because there is sufficient reason. For example, your past experience with someone can give you good reasons to think that they are trustworthy, but you can't prove that they will be trustworthy in the future. If they tell you that they will do something, but you begin to have doubts, then having faith in them is about having the will to keep your mind focused on the good reasons you had for thinking that they are trustworthy. If they said they would do it and you trust them, then you should proceed like it's a done deal.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Instead of jumping ahead, I will just allow you to provide your own reasons for the inadequacy of apologetics.
I have already provided those reasons.
Aquinas has already outlived Russell in the philosophical world, so there's not much to it. For example, look up SEP's article on Aristotle's Categories, a foundational document for all of philosophy. Aquinas is still recognized as one of the most formidable interpreters even after 700 years. It is unlikely that anyone will even remember Russell's name after 200 years. (The history of philosophy has, and will continue to, show Russell to be wrong)
What does this have to do with merit of Russell's critique? Nothing whatsoever.
Russell doesn't seem to understand the basic fact that an argument is either sound or unsound. His critique is merely an ad hominem. He is upset because he doesn't personally agree with some Aquinas' motivations. Who cares? Aquinas would merely ask Russell to consider the arguments themselves. That is because Aquinas loves Truth more than Russell ever could. He knows truth personally, and follows it wherever it leads.
Ad hominem? Russell's critique is applicable not only to Aquinas, but to apologetics generally. The apologist can always fall back on faith and summon his "self-authenticating witness" if the argument doesn't go his way. Russell's critique isn't merely about Aquinas' motivations, but about his philosophical practice.
As far as I can tell, this is what you are saying:

"'Philosophical legitimacy' can only occur if, when one offers an argument for a position, they are at the same time willing to give up their belief in the position if the argument fails."​

Two points:

  1. First, you are committing the formal fallacy of denying the antecedent.
  2. Second, your position assumes that all beliefs/positions are supported by only one argument. If this were true, then your claim above might work. But the assumption is false.
No, that is not what I'm saying. I think I was fairly clear in what I said, so to avoid repeating it I would suggest rereading it.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I'd be interested is seeing a quote from WLC where he says apologetics is not about critically examining the claims therein.
William Lane Craig said:
I think Martin Luther correctly distinguished between what he called the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason. The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel.
Faith is not about continuing to believe something when there is insufficient reason to do so, but rather is about continuing to believe something because there is sufficient reason.
If there is good reason to believe something, then faith is unnecessary.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟299,538.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Have you actually read Bonhoeffer's Letters from Cell 92A?

I haven't. My hunch is that Bonhoeffer doesn't oppose apologetics, as you said he does, but rather some rarefied academic exercises or quibbles that he encountered in his lifetime.

Have you ever read Ignatius, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Augustine, Anselm, Bonaventure, Aquinas, Erasmus, Thomas More, John Henry Newman, or the dozens upon dozens filling in the gaps? Seriously though, it's already in 1 Peter.

How does the longevity of a belief imbue it with truth?

If you read the exchange, you'll see that I was answering a "consensus of two" argument. My answer provides a qualitatively similar consensus.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟299,538.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
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.
As far as I can tell, this is what you are saying:

"'Philosophical legitimacy' can only occur if, when one offers an argument for a position, they are at the same time willing to give up their belief in the position if the argument fails."​

Two points:

  1. First, you are committing the formal fallacy of denying the antecedent.
  2. Second, your position assumes that all beliefs/positions are supported by only one argument. If this were true, then your claim above might work. But the assumption is false.
No, that is not what I'm saying. I think I was fairly clear in what I said, so to avoid repeating it I would suggest rereading it.

Beats me--I can't penetrate your lack of syllogistic precision.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.