What is apologetics anyway?

[Archaeopteryx]

Beats me--I can't penetrate your lack of syllogistic precision. I guess we're done here.

Since rereading was obviously not an option for you, it seems repetition is needed: 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.

If you cannot understand that, then I suggest that it's not due to lack of clarity on my part, but lack of comprehension on yours. However, assuming that it is the former, what aspect of this is in need of clarification?

(Else, this is a discussion about the nature and necessity of falsifiability & fallibility, one which I already raised and you already derailed)

As I noted in conversation with you, the reason that thread generated so much confusion was because you tied it together with theology from the beginning rather than asking the question you wanted answered ("Is the methodology of the modern hard sciences normative for all disciplines") and then introducing theology as an example of a domain in which the methodology of the modern hard sciences isn't normative. (That last point required further justification and led quite naturally to the questions variant, The Cadet, and I were asking regarding the rational justification of theological claims. After all, if the methodology of the modern hard sciences cannot be used as a rational justification of theological claims, then what can? Even variant, who entertained your question the longest, ended up noticing that this latter point was "the elephant in the room."

 

[FireDragon76]

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.

Like Barth he was more of an existentialist than a rationalist.

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.

Somehow I don't see 1st Peter as an automatic endorsement of the sort of rationalism typical of western Christian apologetics.

 

[zippy2006]

I guess I could try piece by piece:

In faith the apologist finds a means of denying basic fallibilism regarding his religious beliefs;

In faith the believer encounters God, Who is infallible.

he cannot be wrong;

Sure he can, but God can't.

failure is not an option.

Failure in what? Now we're sitting at the explanation I already gave and you rejected without any explanation.

When failure is not an option, then all evidence is either confirmatory or it is disregarded, dismissed, and ignored.

Rather, if one knows something to be true, then contrary claims must be false and accompanying arguments may or may not be sound.

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.

See, this is the sort of wishy-washy vagueness that is problematic. If you think about it, arguing an issue that is settled by God creates the greatest honesty possible. My arguments for the issue at hand could be the best thing in the world or absolute trash. It doesn't really matter. Maybe the thing is accessible to human reason, maybe it's not. I don't really have any stake in the matter. The atheist, on the other hand, has enormous stake in the matter. Their entire worldview depends on their arguments. Thus the bias and dishonesty are much more likely to come from the other side. Bias comes from strong personal investment, not certainty.

And you keep talking about this "pretense that one is engaged in sincere inquiry." I've already noted--and it's clear upon the slightest reflection--that apologetics is not an inquiry at all. At least not an inquiry about the truth of revelation. At best it is an inquiry about the soundness of an argument.

Methinks you are just put out because you can't conquer faith with an argument. "Faith can't be conquered by an argument, therefore there must be something wrong with faith!" (Standard form of Rationalism)

Instead of dancing in swamps and bogs, why not produce something a bit more rigorous? You could start with:

1. All legitimate philosophical endeavors are _____________.
2. No apologetics is ____________.
3. Therefore No apologetics is a legitimate philosophical endeavor.

 

[zippy2006]

Like Barth he was more of an existentialist than a rationalist.

I know at least that much.

Somehow I don't see 1st Peter as an automatic endorsement of the sort of rationalism typical of western Christian apologetics.

But then we're not really talking about apologetics, are we? We're talking about a species of rationalism.

 

[zippy2006]

Since rereading was obviously not an option for you, it seems repetition is needed...

My initial reply was meant to show you how faulty your position is when it is construed as a critique of a form of argument. Yet if you are not critiquing the arguments of apologists, then we must ask what you are critiquing. Their motives, their approach to the problem?

So in the first place we have people (apologists) putting forward arguments that they believe are sound and engaging in debate. There just nothing unphilosophical about that.

So the "unphilosophical" part must come from some implication with respect to the argument given. If that implication isn't one of the two things I've already noted, then what is it? Is it unphilosophical to offer fallible defenses for infallible positions? Is it unphilosophical to defend things you know to be true?

I think your whole house is built on a single foundation: you think holding some proposition as infallible is "unphilosophical." It's just a form of Rationalism. But Rationalism isn't philosophy. Such a move isn't unphilosophical, it's merely contrary to Rationalism.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

My initial reply was meant to show you how faulty your position is when it is construed as a critique of a form of argument. Yet if you are not critiquing the arguments of apologists, then we must ask what you are critiquing. Their motives, their approach to the problem?

Their approach. The entire endeavour that is apologetics.

So in the first place we have people (apologists) putting forward arguments that they believe are sound and engaging in debate. There just nothing unphilosophical about that.

So the "unphilosophical" part must come from some implication with respect to the argument given. If that implication isn't one of the two things I've already noted, then what is it? Is it unphilosophical to offer fallible defenses for infallible positions? Is it unphilosophical to defend things you know to be true?

I think your whole house is built on a single foundation: you think holding some proposition as infallible is "unphilosophical." It's just a form of Rationalism. But Rationalism isn't philosophy. Such a move isn't unphilosophical, it's merely contrary to Rationalism.

As Russell aptly pointed out, this isn't philosophy; it's sophistry. As you just conceded, the apologist begins from the assumption that his position is infallible, that he cannot be wrong. He then offers arguments in support of that position, but he must never reconsider the position itself, even if the arguments are shown to be inadequate or the preponderance of evidence turns against his position. I will go into this further when I respond to your other comment this evening.

 

[Soyeong]

If there is good reason to believe something, then faith is unnecessary.

Faith in synonymous with trust and you trust because you have good reason to.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Faith in synonymous with trust and you trust because you have good reason to.

The word "faith" has many uses, and in some uses it is synonymous with trust. But we aren't talking about faith in that sense.

 

[Soyeong]

The word "faith" has many uses, and in some uses it is synonymous with trust. But we aren't talking about faith in that sense.

Then you aren't talking about faith in the Christian sense.

 

[The Cadet]

Faith in synonymous with trust and you trust because you have good reason to.

...Then why not just use the word "trust"? See, the issue in my eyes is that faith typically has different implications than trust. You can have faith in something even without good reasons.

 

[Soyeong]

...Then why not just use the word "trust"? See, the issue in my eyes is that faith typically has different implications than trust. You can have faith in something even without good reasons.

I use "faith" and "trust" interchangeably for the most part, as well as most of the the Christians I know. You can only have faith or trust in someone as far as you think that you have reason to. If you had no good reason to trust someone, then you wouldn't have faith in them.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then you aren't talking about faith in the Christian sense.

I am talking about faith in the religious sense generally, not how Christians use the word within Christian circles.

I use "faith" and "trust" interchangeably for the most part, as well as most of the the Christians I know. You can only have faith or trust in someone as far as you think that you have reason to. If you had no good reason to trust someone, then you wouldn't have faith in them.

To trust someone you must first believe that they exist.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In faith the believer encounters God, Who is infallible.

And you accused me of being vague? Could you elaborate on this? How does faith lead to an encounter with God?

Sure he can, but God can't.

Failure in what? Now we're sitting at the explanation I already gave and you rejected without any explanation.

This is also vague. What do you mean that God can't be fallible? We aren't talking about whether God is or isn't fallible, but whether the apologist can admit to the possibility of being wrong about his theological commitments. You appear to want me to assume theism from the outset.

See, this is the sort of wishy-washy vagueness that is problematic. If you think about it, arguing an issue that is settled by God creates the greatest honesty possible.

I find it humorous that in the same post in which you accuse me of "wishy-washy vagueness," you post something like this. How did the apologist determine that the issue was "settled by God" and how does this encourage the greatest honesty possible? Consider apologists of other religions who likewise believe that the issue has been "settled by God" in their favour. They refuse to concede that they could be wrong about their theological commitments just as strongly as you refuse to concede that you could be wrong about yours. Is this representative of the "greatest possible honesty"?

My arguments for the issue at hand could be the best thing in the world or absolute trash. It doesn't really matter. Maybe the thing is accessible to human reason, maybe it's not. I don't really have any stake in the matter. The atheist, on the other hand, has enormous stake in the matter. Their entire worldview depends on their arguments. Thus the bias and dishonesty are much more likely to come from the other side. Bias comes from strong personal investment, not certainty.

First, by way of clarification, atheism is not a worldview. It's a response to a claim. Second, I admit that I could be wrong on the question of theism. Going from atheism to theism, if there is good reason to do so, would not be a dramatic about-turn, IMO. I don't hold on to atheism religiously; it's an outcome of my assessment of religious claims, not a dogma that I must unquestioningly uphold regardless of what inquiry may bring to bear.

And you keep talking about this "pretense that one is engaged in sincere inquiry." I've already noted--and it's clear upon the slightest reflection--that apologetics is not an inquiry at all. At least not an inquiry about the truth of revelation. At best it is an inquiry about the soundness of an argument.

Then in what sense is apologetics philosophy?

Methinks you are just put out because you can't conquer faith with an argument. "Faith can't be conquered by an argument, therefore there must be something wrong with faith!" (Standard form of Rationalism)

On the contrary, that is precisely the point! If one's theological commitments were not reached by reason and are not amenable to reason, then in what sense are they reasonable?

Instead of dancing in swamps and bogs, why not produce something a bit more rigorous? You could start with:

1. All legitimate philosophical endeavors are _____________.
2. No apologetics is ____________.
3. Therefore No apologetics is a legitimate philosophical endeavor.

I have already answered this in the OP, with supplements here and here. You are alluding to the question of what counts as philosophy. That in itself is a worthwhile philosophical question deserving of its own thread, so I'm not going to broach it here.

In the OP, to keep matters simple, I used the definition given by the forum's Statement of Purpose, which defines philosophy as a "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). My reasons for thinking that apologetics doesn't qualify were articulated in the OP and those follow-up posts.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Methinks you are just put out because you can't conquer faith with an argument. "Faith can't be conquered by an argument, therefore there must be something wrong with faith!" (Standard form of Rationalism)

In its most pernicious form, faith exhibits resistance to arguments and evidence that contraindicate a presupposed conclusion. Am I "put out" by this? It depends on what you mean. As a way of immunising beliefs from criticism, faith plays into our biases and ensures that errors in thinking, if there are any, are much more difficult to detect. I think anyone genuinely interested in knowing whether something is true should at least be worried by this.

 

[FireDragon76]

As a way of immunising beliefs from criticism, faith plays into our biases and ensures that errors in thinking, if there are any, are much more difficult to detect. I think anyone genuinely interested in knowing whether something is true should at least be worried by this.

You're arguing a meaning of faith quite abstracted from Christian belief. Christian faith starts and ends with faith in a person.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You're arguing a meaning of faith quite abstracted from Christian belief. Christian faith starts and ends with faith in a person.

I know that this is what Christians claim; they claim to trust in the person of Jesus Christ, God incarnate. However, that trust depends first on accepting a number of other claims; namely, that there is a God, that Jesus was the Son of God, that he performed miracles while present on Earth, that he died and rose from the dead, etc. Exercising faith, even in the Christian sense, is therefore more than merely an expression of trust in a person. It is the acceptance of a body of doctrines that specify who that person is and how Christians are supposed to relate to that person (i.e., forms of worship such as prayer, songs of praise, eucharistic adoration, etc).

 

[FireDragon76]

I It is the acceptance of a body of doctrines that specify who that person is and how Christians are supposed to relate to that person (i.e., forms of worship such as prayer, songs of praise, eucharistic adoration, etc).

I can think of a number of Christians that would not share your definition of what faith in Christ means.

Lutherans and many other Protestant groups even consider the matter of worship adiaphora or a "thing indifferent" (I only use that example because I'm most familiar with it). So you are trying to confuse secondary matters with primary matters. I also know that mainline Lutherans and Episcopalians do not regard a necessary component of salvation as "believing a body of doctrines". If that were true, then no child could be saved.

I can already guess you are going to come back with an objection that Protestants have no particular authority to speak for the Christian tradition, but that just sounds like a "no true scottsman" to me.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I can think of a number of Christians that would not share your definition of what faith in Christ means.

Lutherans and many other Protestant groups even consider the matter of worship adiaphora or a "thing indifferent" (I only use that example because I'm most familiar with it). So you are trying to confuse secondary matters with primary matters. I also know that mainline Lutherans and Episcopalians do not regard a necessary component of salvation as "believing a body of doctrines". If that were true, then no child could be saved. The mistake you are making is over-intellectualizing Christian faith.

This is unintentionally humorous. In effect, you are saying that I'm thinking too much about it.

 

[FireDragon76]

This is unintentionally humorous. In effect, you are saying that I'm thinking too much about it.

It is not within your natural power to have faith and you cannot reason your way into belief. Faith is not an intellectual exercise, though it can certainly inspire the intellect. All an apologist can do is remove some obstacles to faith, but the final leap of faith is not something within our power. My signature sums it up perfectly, we cannot take a single step towards God.

Yes, I do think you are thinking too much about it. You are looking for excuses not to believe, instead of examining your own life, your own intellect, to see whether you yourself are deficient. You critique Christian faith, but do you turn that same intellect in on yourself?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is not within your natural power to have faith and you cannot reason your way into belief. Faith is not an intellectual exercise, though it can certainly inspire the intellect. All an apologist can do is remove some obstacles to faith, but the final leap of faith is not something within our power. My signature sums it up perfectly, we cannot take a single step towards God.

This is congruent with my own observations of how apologetics operates. Apologetic arguments are scaffolding, a means to an end. The goal is to get the person to the point of conversion, to the point where the person believes on faith. There's a reason why apologists want people to believe on faith and not solely because of the arguments presented. Faith ensures that the belief is less likely to be perturbed when the scaffolding is removed or if contrary evidence comes to light. A seemingly strong case for theism may be overturned by further inquiry. But faith ensures that the person continues to believe even if it is overturned.

Yes, I do think you are thinking too much about it. You are looking for excuses not to believe, instead of examining your own life, your own intellect, to see whether you yourself are deficient. You critique Christian faith, but do you turn that same intellect in on yourself?

You are making this personal. I don't have any objection to that per se, except that it is liable to distract from the main discussion. I don't need to "look for excuses" not to believe. I can simply point to the ramshackle case that the religious have presented in favour of their many diverse beliefs. In answer to your question about examining my own life, an intensely personal examination is what eventually led me away from Christianity. In answer to your question about deficiency, I don't pretend to be perfectly rational. If you are referring to a different kind of deficiency, then you'll have to be more specific about it. I would rather that we not take the conversation in that direction, however, since this thread isn't about me, but about the relationship between apologetics and philosophy.