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.
I'm not sure how this relates to my post.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.
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.
"I believe..."
Please show how this is ratonally defensible.
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.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.
The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading.
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.
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:
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.
I have never seen this happen. It always seems that only those that already believe find it convincing. <shrug>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,
...
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).
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.
I have already provided those reasons.Instead of jumping ahead, I will just allow you to provide your own reasons for the inadequacy of apologetics.
What does this have to do with merit of Russell's critique? Nothing whatsoever.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)
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.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.
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.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:
- First, you are committing the formal fallacy of denying the antecedent.
- 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.
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.
If there is good reason to believe something, then faith is unnecessary.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.
How does the longevity of a belief imbue it with truth?Barth and Bon vs St. Peter and 2000 years of tradition.
Have you actually read Bonhoeffer's Letters from Cell 92A?
How does the longevity of a belief imbue it with truth?
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.As far as I can tell, this is what you are saying: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.
"'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:
- First, you are committing the formal fallacy of denying the antecedent.
- 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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?