What should Christian apologists say?

[ViaCrucis]

If I were an atheist I don't know that I'm familiar of any apologetic arguments that would convince me of the existence of the Christian God. In part because even as a Christian I don't find the arguments I hear in favor to be particularly convincing, and in part because we all engage in confirmation bias. Certain arguments work for Christians because they already believe, as such it is confirmation bias; and the reverse is equally true. I'm not convinced that absolute and true objectivity is possible--we are all products of numerous ways of thinking that shape how we approach and consider the world around us, and all filter different things through our biased way of thinking. That's not an argument against there being objective reality, that's an argument against the idea that any of us can ever be, 100% of the time, objective concerning any given topic.

This is, in part, why I think the current model of popular apologetics is probably wrong; the goal seems to be to demonstrate that the Christian religion is true through rhetorical devices and argumentation. I don't see that as the proper goal of apologetics. In antiquity much of what constituted apologetics was to offer apologia, a formal defense, against charges and accusations. Early Christians were accused of engaging in incestuous orgies and cannibalism, among other less shocking charges; the point of apologetics was to point out that these charges were factually false, and to offer explanation for what we believe and what we practice. An example would be in St. Justin's First Apology where he goes into detail to describe what happens when Christians gather for worship, because of all the aforementioned charges that were claimed.

As such I think informing people about the Christian religion better describes what apologetics ought to be about. But this is a very different discussion then the one intended in the OP--but I felt it worth bringing up in a conversation about apologetics themselves.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[zippy2006]

That's assuming that the atheist can only be a moral realist if he is a theist or, in other words, that atheism somehow precludes moral realism.

I think this gets at the heart of it: is the atheist capable of producing an objective morality strong enough to judge God?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think this gets at the heart of it: is the atheist capable of producing an objective morality strong enough to judge God?

Assuming that the atheist holds to the notion that morality must be "objective." Not all atheists are moral realists.

 

[zippy2006]

Assuming that the atheist holds to the notion that morality must be "objective." Not all atheists are moral realists.

...Continuing from my last: if he is so capable then Lewis is wrong, if he is not then Lewis is correct.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think this gets at the heart of it: is the atheist capable of producing an objective morality strong enough to judge God?

If it's the Biblical God we are talking about, the one that putatively initiated an apocalyptic global flood because he felt regretful for having created mankind, then it's not that hard to judge.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

...Continuing from my last: if he is so capable then Lewis is wrong, if he is not then Lewis is correct.

Well, couldn't a theist also propose an objective morality "strong enough" to judge God? After all, theism doesn't necessarily commit one to Divine Command Theory. A theist could argue that God exists, but that he is, like all personal beings, bound by universal moral laws that not even he is permitted to break.

 

[zippy2006]

Well, couldn't a theist also propose an objective morality "strong enough" to judge God? After all, theism doesn't necessarily commit one to Divine Command Theory. A theist could argue that God exists, but that he is, like all personal beings, bound by universal moral laws that not even he is permitted to break.

To be clear, I know neither what point you are making nor how it is supposed to connect to the quote you responded to.

 

[muichimotsu]

It's the Euthypro dilemma, basically. Are things good because God commands them or does God command them because they are good? Either God is the arbiter of morality completely, in which case anything could be good or bad or good and evil are concepts that God has to abide by independent of his general omnipotence.

Then again, a common counter is that God's ontological nature is such that any command it makes is innately good, because it is the origin of such things, though that just seems to shift the goalposts in terms of requalifying God's nature to get around the issue of divine mandate as a viable ethical theory.

 

[zippy2006]

It's the Euthypro dilemma, basically. Are things good because God commands them or does God command them because they are good? Either God is the arbiter of morality completely, in which case anything could be good or bad or good and evil are concepts that God has to abide by independent of his general omnipotence.

Perhaps the intent was to bring up the dilemma, but to what end, I do not know. I defended C.S. Lewis' critique of atheism and I don't see how the Euthyphro dilemma relates to my defense.

Yet given your earlier posts it seems you are interested in the dilemma.

Then again, a common counter is that God's ontological nature is such that any command it makes is innately good, because it is the origin of such things, though that just seems to shift the goalposts in terms of requalifying God's nature to get around the issue of divine mandate as a viable ethical theory.

So do you find the response persuasive or not?

 

[muichimotsu]

If the concern is atheism as lacking a moral framework or sound meta ethical logic is germane, then methinks it's part of the issues of what apologetics lacks by varying Christian perspectives.

I don't find most apologetics, if any, persuasive and certainly not compelling. This one in particular smacks of special pleading for the Christian god being somehow metaphysically immanent and transcendent, wanting it to be beyond particular things, but not beyond other things, so as not to create dissonance.

 

[zippy2006]

This one in particular smacks of special pleading for the Christian god being somehow metaphysically immanent and transcendent, wanting it to be beyond particular things...

Such as?

...but not beyond other things...

Such as?

...so as not to create dissonance.

 

[zippy2006]

There is nothing in this world that is truly "perfect". People look up to "perfection". But what is it truly worth? Nothing. Unable to improve any further, no scope for creation; it is despair

Perfection is derived from the Latin perficere, which means "fully made," complete, finished, excellent. Imperfection is thus incomplete, lacking, not fully made.

A lion cub is imperfect. Its teeth are small, its muscles and coordination undeveloped, its survival dependent on the mother.

An adult lion is perfect. Its teeth are sharp and large, its muscles strong and coordination refined. It is able to cooperate with other lions, to move quickly, to attack with great power, and to sustain itself and its offspring by these well-developed lion traits. With all of its powers at capacity, it has freedom to do and to act just as a lion is supposed to do and to act. It is perfect, full of the manifest power that once existed only in seed form.

I don't find many attacks on the faith, if any, persuasive. Certainly not compelling. They are mostly strawmen like this modern Kantian notion of morality and perfection, fueled more by ignorance than accuracy or clear thinking. Creativity overflows the perfect human just as strength and agility overflows the perfect lion, and it is only a dull shadow of God's magnificent creativity which brought forth them both.

 

[muichimotsu]

Completion is a relative term, especially if we're talking about something on the scale of the universe. Also, by your logic, God in terms of monotheism, being a complete being, would have no need for any of the things people ascribe to it as somehow essential: worship, people's love, creating anything at all.

It's a self sufficient entity, it has no needs, let alone wants. The Christian view in particular, alongside any monotheistic view that's fairly common, views God as something that demands worship because it somehow is deserving of it, even though logically, the very demand of such a thing undermines the alleged perfection of such a being.

An adult lion is not perfect, especially if we get away from an etymologically reductionist view of words and the meanings we ascribe to them. There are imperfections in any stage of life in the same way that there is dukkha, unsatisfactoriness, unease, in any life in the world, be it mental, physical or otherwise.

Life is always in flux, to deny otherwise, especially in regards to the physical world and its manifestations, is painfully naive. There are consistent laws, but they're abstract in our way of comprehending and structuring the world. The fact remains that someone is not perfect or complete just because they reach adulthood anymore than they are somehow at some final part of their life because they are old, except in the sense that they are more likely to die, though all are mortal, objectively speaking.

I hope you're not insinuating Kantian ethics or the like onto me. I've studied him, but he was only compelling in the dry sense of philosophical logic he employed. I'm more a virtue ethics advocate, myself, but talking abotu that would be further derailing the thread from the core issue.

There are plenty of criticisms of Christianity, especially in the last 10-20 years. Not finding them compelling doesn't mean there aren't things that could convince you. Then again, a lot of the issues in terms of peoples' beliefs are, if I had to explain it simply, based in our dispositions, our tendencies to value particular things as far as our worldviews, etc.

Sentimentality and appeals to pathos and hollow morality with rhetoric never really worked with me, which is why my baptism at 12 or so was quickly followed by a newfound skepticism that led to Deism and then further apostasy. Some people have that work on them and as long as they can temper it with sound and valid logic, they're free to have beliefs as long as they don't treat it like it's the best thing since sliced bread.

Most of my friends believe in something supernatural and I meet plenty of people who believe in things like tulpas and other "occult" things, along with Christianity and such ideas that are common in the Bible Belt, where I grew up and have lived my entire life (barring vacations elsewhere for a few weeks at most). I've heard the arguments and considered them, but they've always been wanting in terms of being compelling or relevant in the sense of what I find humanity should be seeking, which isn't purely future based or wishing for a perfect world, because that stagnates progress.

 

[zippy2006]

Completion is a relative term, especially if we're talking about something on the scale of the universe. Also, by your logic, God in terms of monotheism, being a complete being, would have no need for any of the things people ascribe to it as somehow essential: worship, people's love, creating anything at all.

Absolutely true.

It's a self sufficient entity, it has no needs, let alone wants. The Christian view in particular, alongside any monotheistic view that's fairly common, views God as something that demands worship because it somehow is deserving of it, even though logically, the very demand of such a thing undermines the alleged perfection of such a being.

God demands worship just as he demands us to take food, and for much the same reason.

An adult lion is not perfect, especially if we get away from an etymologically reductionist view of words and the meanings we ascribe to them.

Rather, criticizing a philosophical and theological concept that predates the English language based on its current meaning in English is anachronistic and sloppy.

There are imperfections in any stage of life in the same way that there is dukkha, unsatisfactoriness, unease, in any life in the world, be it mental, physical or otherwise.

Perfection is a relative concept in creation, but that doesn't undermine my analogy or explanation. The growth of a cub is still a growth in perfection that culminates in the adult, even if there are small imperfections in any lion.

I hope you're not insinuating Kantian ethics or the like onto me. I've studied him, but he was only compelling in the dry sense of philosophical logic he employed. I'm more a virtue ethics advocate, myself, but talking abotu that would be further derailing the thread from the core issue.

Your idea of perfection seems to be Kantian and narrow.

There are plenty of criticisms of Christianity, especially in the last 10-20 years. Not finding them compelling doesn't mean there aren't things that could convince you. Then again, a lot of the issues in terms of peoples' beliefs are, if I had to explain it simply, based in our dispositions, our tendencies to value particular things as far as our worldviews, etc.

True enough.

Sentimentality and appeals to pathos and hollow morality with rhetoric never really worked with me, which is why my baptism at 12 or so was quickly followed by a newfound skepticism that led to Deism and then further apostasy. Some people have that work on them and as long as they can temper it with sound and valid logic, they're free to have beliefs as long as they don't treat it like it's the best thing since sliced bread.

And yet your vehement disagreements with Christians are filled with sentimentality and pathos.

Most of my friends believe in something supernatural and I meet plenty of people who believe in things like tulpas and other "occult" things, along with Christianity and such ideas that are common in the Bible Belt, where I grew up and have lived my entire life (barring vacations elsewhere for a few weeks at most). I've heard the arguments and considered them, but they've always been wanting in terms of being compelling or relevant in the sense of what I find humanity should be seeking, which isn't purely future based or wishing for a perfect world, because that stagnates progress.

...and Progress demands worship.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

To be clear, I know neither what point you are making nor how it is supposed to connect to the quote you responded to.

Well, you seem to be operating on the assumption that the theist is necessarily committed to sharing Lewis' view and, conversely, that the atheist must produce an objective morality "strong enough" (what this means isn't clear) to judge God to counter this view.

 

[zippy2006]

Well, you seem to be operating on the assumption that the theist is necessarily committed to sharing Lewis' view...

Not sure where you get that idea.

...and, conversely, that the atheist must produce an objective morality "strong enough" (what this means isn't clear) to judge God to counter this view.

I think this gets at the heart of our conversation about Lewis' quote:

Is the atheist capable of producing an objective morality strong enough to judge God?

...if he is so capable then Lewis is wrong, if he is not then Lewis is correct.

(how this post responds is still unclear to me)

..."strong enough" (what this means isn't clear)...

An objective morality which applies to/judges all human beings is one thing. One which judges all rational beings is another, "stronger" thing. One which judges all intellectual beings is even stronger, and one which judges God is stronger yet.

Even granting that atheists are capable of objective morality, it does not follow that Lewis' point about atheists is invalid (even ignoring his specific understanding of atheism as the rejection of God rather than god). A morality that is applicable to humans but not God would be insufficient to undermine Lewis' argument.

 

[muichimotsu]

Absolutely true.



God demands worship just as he demands us to take food, and for much the same reason.



Rather, criticizing a philosophical and theological concept that predates the English language based on its current meaning in English is anachronistic and sloppy.



Perfection is a relative concept in creation, but that doesn't undermine my analogy or explanation. The growth of a cub is still a growth in perfection that culminates in the adult, even if there are small imperfections in any lion.



Your idea of perfection seems to be Kantian and narrow.



True enough.



And yet your vehement disagreements with Christians are filled with sentimentality and pathos.



...and Progress demands worship.

The meaning of a word is evolving, that doesn't undermine the previous meanings, it means you have to consider them relative to each other, not as if one has hierarchy or seniority over another. It's still an etymological fallacy to appeal to the mere meaning of the word in a simple linguistic interpretation rather than its use in culture and history

I don't need God to survive except in a presuppositionalist notion that you need something that ignores causality for your existence, because that's special pleading. Now anyone, barring cyborg enhancements or such, needs food. God is optional. Water isn't optional. Religion is.

We don't end our life as an adult, the life cycle works on people reaching old age. Maturity is not the end of our life, it's a peak point in biological development. Analogies are relatively effective, they aren't direct in terms of a comparison you make that may not always fit structurally except as you already think it must. An adult lion is not perfect in the biological sense of maturity, it's mature. Applying perfection to biological notions is a category mistake.

My idea may overlap with Kant's, but it's more a pragmatic consideration of things as working on a basic logic rather than people's warm fuzzy feelings and rationalizing the irrational.

Did I claim to be perfect? No one is. I naturally use pathos because it communicates my perspective in an effective sense. It's not the fullness of said worldview, it's a fraction, a reflection on a multifaceted crystal. I don't need to invoke "resentment" or the like, which you may have perceived it as, I merely happened to

Progress demands nothing even by its very nature, let alone in some anthropomorphized notion. Progress is change, life is change. Worship is human attempts to structure the world in a way that makes it more meaningful to them personally. Doesn't mean that follows to how meaning is created by necessity

 

[muichimotsu]

Not sure where you get that idea.



I think this gets at the heart of our conversation about Lewis' quote:





(how this post responds is still unclear to me)



An objective morality which applies to/judges all human beings is one thing. One which judges all rational beings is another, "stronger" thing. One which judges all intellectual beings is even stronger, and one which judges God is stronger yet.

Even granting that atheists are capable of objective morality, it does not follow that Lewis' point about atheists is invalid (even ignoring his specific understanding of atheism as the rejection of God rather than god). A morality that is applicable to humans but not God would be insufficient to undermine Lewis' argument.

More special pleading issues: God is posited and qualified as such a complex entity that it may as well not exist or be pertinent to human affairs to begin with. Antony Flew's argument stands in spite of his conversion to Deism in old age. Guy was a brilliant thinker, though one isn't entirely unjustified in thinking he changed his mind because of his mind slowly going from age.

 

[zippy2006]

I don't need God to survive except in a presuppositionalist notion that you need something that ignores causality for your existence, because that's special pleading. Now anyone, barring cyborg enhancements or such, needs food. God is optional. Water isn't optional. Religion is.

Correction: you don't need to believe in God to survive on earth. God either holds every atom of your body in being each second of your life whether you like it or not, or he doesn't. The idea that you need to believe in God's existence to survive is just another strawman. God is too beneficent for that.

We don't end our life as an adult, the life cycle works on people reaching old age. Maturity is not the end of our life, it's a peak point in biological development.

Then imperfection follows. So what?

What walks on four legs in the morning, two at noon, and three in the evening?

Analogies are relatively effective, they aren't direct in terms of a comparison you make that may not always fit structurally except as you already think it must. An adult lion is not perfect in the biological sense of maturity, it's mature. Applying perfection to biological notions is a category mistake.

I've already explained this in my last.

Progress demands nothing even by its very nature, let alone in some anthropomorphized notion. Progress is change, life is change. Worship is human attempts to structure the world in a way that makes it more meaningful to them personally. Doesn't mean that follows to how meaning is created by necessity

Well you're right or you're wrong, but you seem short on arguments so we may never know. Or perhaps you think pretty words and Buddhistic colors speak for themselves?

 

[muichimotsu]

Correction: you don't need to believe in God to survive on earth. God either holds every atom of your body in being each second of your life whether you like it or not, or he doesn't. The idea that you need to believe in God's existence to survive is just another strawman. God is too beneficent for that.



Then imperfection follows. So what?

What walks on four legs in the morning, two at noon, and three in the evening?



I've already explained this in my last.



Well you're right or you're wrong, but you seem short on arguments so we may never know. Or perhaps you think pretty words and Buddhistic colors speak for themselves?

Thinly veiled threats of destruction from a god that had no need to create me doesn't make it more desirable to worship it: quite the contrary

Growing in maturity does not equal growing in perfection or even to it, because it isn't a complete sequence: adulthood is not the end, it's a stage in an overall cycle.

Only enhances my point: imperfection and impermanence are part of life: perfection is a fleeting idealistic dream. Why seek perfection when you can realistically seek excellence without delusions of grandeur?

And your arguments are so great? They've been found wanting at every turn: twisting things to fit your preconceived notions is not new apologetics, it's the common strategy in general, because you can't countenance a world where your meaning might have to involve some actual work