What is apologetics anyway?

[Archaeopteryx]

TheMessianicManic had an interesting response to the claim that "atheists think too much."

 

[FireDragon76]

You are making this needlessly personal.

If it sounds that way but so many times these discussions seem to come down to the implication that Christians are immoral for believing the things we do. Sam Harris in particular takes this perspective. His proposals amount to the same sort of fanaticism of which he accuses "believers". In fact there is something very "religious" about his faith in science and reason, one not justified by history.

In answer to your question about examining my own life, it was this intensely personal examination that eventually led me away from Christianity.

I would be genuinely curious to hear your story, perhaps in another place other than this thread.

 

[FireDragon76]

TheMessianicManic had an interesting response to the claim that "atheists think too much."

Christians should incorporate critical perspectives. I do not think that hinders faith. In fact, liberation theology takes Marxist materialism very seriously in its critique of religion.

My intuition though is that many people are atheists because God became so wrapped up in church-state politics and the polemics of the 17th century that many people feel wounded by religion. I have been there and I understand that. I'm not advocating for a return to some pristine past.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If it sounds that way but so many times these discussions seem to come down to the implication that Christians are immoral for believing the things we do. Sam Harris in particular takes this perspective. His proposals amount to the same sort of fanaticism of which he accuses "believers". In fact there is something very "religious" about his faith in science and reason, one not justified by history.

There are multiple claims here, but I'm not sure what I should be addressing. In what sense are Christians claimed to be "immoral for believing the things [Christians] do"? And in what way does Sam Harris show a "religious" devotion to science? I've heard this accusation before. Some Christians claim that science is the religion of atheism. But I think this seriously misconstrues the meaning of "religion." Scientists are not our priests, The Origin of the Species is not our holy text, and laboratories are not our cathedrals. I think this accusation comes from the observation that many atheists show a particular reverence towards scientific endeavour. Yes, many of us do, but that reverence is not of a religious nature. We revere science because it is a remarkably productive way of satisfying our curiosity about the world we live in.

I would be genuinely curious to hear your story, perhaps in another place other than this thread.

I'd be happy to share it, though I personally don't think it's all that interesting. Considered relative to many of the stories I've heard, both here and elsewhere, mine seems dull by comparison.

 

[FireDragon76]

When I think of 1st Peter saying we should always be ready to given a reason for the hope that is in us... I don't necessarily think he was talking about the sort of apologetics conservative evangelicals engage in. I think he was talking about personal testimony.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Christians should incorporate critical perspectives. I do not think that hinders faith. In fact, liberation theology takes Marxist materialism very seriously in its critique of religion.

My intuition though is that many people are atheists because God became so wrapped up in church-state politics and the polemics of the 17th century that many people feel wounded by religion. I have been there and I understand that. I'm not advocating for a return to some pristine past.

I think you're intuition gets it partly right. Many don't consider religion seriously because the institutions of organised religion have been tainted by appalling policies that discredit the moral authority of those institutions. To their credit, many Christians and others are trying to address this systematically by reforming those institutions. I think we should consider reasons for belief apart from the moral behaviour (or lack there of) of the institutions dedicated to promoting those beliefs.

 

[Holoman]

This whole topic is totally bizarre. The OP seems to have invented an assertion to refute. Apologetics is about providing logical reasoning and argument in defense of the Christian faith. Of course it is going to appear one-sided, because a Christian apologist has already by definition chosen his side. Someone interested in seeking truth and exploring their understanding is obviously not a Christian apologist, but this is how many Christian apologists begin their journey, and eventually become converted.

It's a bit like saying a defense attorney is biased towards his client because he always argues in their favour. Well of course he is, he's chosen his side, and he defends them. If a Christian apologist starts to question and doubt the existence of God then they will cease to be a Christian apologist.

Apologetics alone is not philosophy, but plays a vital role in it. In seeking truth we must explore the arguments of each side to their fullest. Just like in a trial where a prosecutor faces a defense and each argues solely from one point of view so that the observant can make a reasoned judgement.

 

[Soyeong]

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

You are talking about Christian apologetics, so I figured it would be in the Christian sense, but either way it's the same. What you're talking about in in the sense of the people who really ought to know better.

To trust someone you must first believe that they exist.

Indeed, which is why faith is about trusting God to do something, rather than trusting God to exist. It makes no sense to trust someone to exist. Believing that God exists is about interpreting evidence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Indeed, which is why faith is about trusting God to do something, rather than trusting God to exist. It makes no sense to trust someone to exist. Believing that God exists is about interpreting evidence.

You don't "trust" someone to exist, but you do believe that they exist. The question then, in terms of Christian theism, is whether there is good reason to believe that the Christian God exists. Apologists maintain that there are many good reasons to believe that this is so, but many (most?) also note that they would continue to believe that it is so even if their reasons for belief were shown to be inadequate.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This whole topic is totally bizarre. The OP seems to have invented an assertion to refute. Apologetics is about providing logical reasoning and argument in defense of the Christian faith. Of course it is going to appear one-sided, because a Christian apologist has already by definition chosen his side. Someone interested in seeking truth and exploring their understanding is obviously not a Christian apologist, but this is how many Christian apologists begin their journey, and eventually become converted.

It's a bit like saying a defense attorney is biased towards his client because he always argues in their favour. Well of course he is, he's chosen his side, and he defends them. If a Christian apologist starts to question and doubt the existence of God then they will cease to be a Christian apologist.

Apologetics alone is not philosophy, but plays a vital role in it. In seeking truth we must explore the arguments of each side to their fullest. Just like in a trial where a prosecutor faces a defense and each argues solely from one point of view so that the observant can make a reasoned judgement.

I have no objection to the analogy of a defense attorney; it seems apt. This does, however, raise two questions: (1) Is this how apologists present themselves in practice, as "lawyers" for God? (2) Why would a deity need a defense attorney to begin with? You can view the latter question as somewhat tongue-in-cheek. The former question is much more relevant to the thread.

 

[Soyeong]

The question then, in terms of Christian theism, is whether there is good reason to believe that the Christian God exists. Apologists maintain that there are many good reasons to believe that this is so, but many (most?) also note that they would continue to believe that it is so even if their reasons for belief were shown to be inadequate.

The witness of the Holy Spirit is a reason why WLC believes. He sees it as being a sufficient reason in itself even if all of his other reasons were shown to be inadequate.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The witness of the Holy Spirit is a reason why WLC believes. He sees it as being a sufficient reason in itself even if all of his other reasons were shown to be inadequate.

Yes, that is emblematic of precisely what I'm talking about. The arguments he gives are not essential to his theological commitments; he would remain committed even if his case for Christianity were overturned. This raises an important question: if one's theological commitments were not reached by reason and are not amenable to reason, then in what sense are are they reasonable? And in what way are we intellectually obligated to make the same commitments?

 

[Soyeong]

Yes, that is emblematic of precisely what I'm talking about. The arguments he gives are not essential to his theological commitments; he would remain committed even if his case for Christianity were overturned. This raises an important question: if one's theological commitments were not reached by reason and are not amenable to reason, then in what sense are are they reasonable? And in what way are we intellectually obligated to make the same commitments?

No, he considers the witness of the Holy Spirit to be part of the case for Christianity.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, he considers the witness of the Holy Spirit to be part of the case for Christianity.

So he is claiming that the "inner witness of the Holy Spirit" is a good reason to believe in the Christian God and that, on the basis of this, we are obligated to commit ourselves to Christianity?

 

[Soyeong]

You don't "trust" someone to exist, but you do believe that they exist.

Which is why I say that I believe God exists and have faith in His promises.

So he is claiming that the "inner witness of the Holy Spirit" is a good reason to believe in the Christian God and that, on the basis of this, we are obligated to commit ourselves to Christianity?

Indeed.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Indeed.

This strikes me as a controversial proposition. Why should Craig's "inner witness" be considered authoritative? What of those whose "inner witness" leads them to theological commitments that differ to Craig's? What makes you think that Craig's "inner witness" is more reliable than that of someone of a different religion who feels just as strongly about his own theological commitments? What if my "inner witness" tells me that Craig is wrong? Should I abandon my "inner witness" in favour of Craig's? Craig doesn't seem willing to do that, so why should I?

 

[Soyeong]

This strikes me as a controversial proposition. Why should Craig's "inner witness" be considered authoritative? What of those whose "inner witness" leads them to theological commitments that differ to Craig's? What makes you think that Craig's "inner witness" is more reliable than that of someone of a different religion who feels just as strongly about his own theological commitments? What if my "inner witness" tells me that Craig is wrong? Should I dismiss my "inner witness" in favour of Craig's? Craig doesn't seem willing to do that, so why should I?

The inner witness of the Holy Spirit to you should be considered authoritative, not Craig's inner witness.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The inner witness of the Holy Spirit to you should be considered authoritative, not Craig's inner witness.

What if my "inner witness" contradicts Craig's "inner witness"? Am I obligated to abide by my "inner witness" or should I reconsider what it tells me?

 

[Soyeong]

What if my "inner witness" contradicts Craig's "inner witness"? Am I obligated to abide by my "inner witness" or should I reconsider what it tells me?

The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself, so in that case either one or both of you are wrong about identifying your experience.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself, so in that case either one or both of you are wrong about identifying your experience.

So it is possible for Craig to be wrong about claims based on the "inner witness of the Holy Spirit"? He may need to reconsider his theological commitments after all? But I thought the entire point of appealing to the "inner witness" was to support those theological commitments?