What should Christian apologists say?

[Chris B]

Hi,
What I and others like me know about God, is beyond your word, 'think' as in 'think you know that'

I imagine the reason for that, is I and others have had some amount of Direct Contact with God, The God, and for real.

That is what you think, and believe, perfectly sincerely. I have no issue with that.
But having both considered existential epistemology, and had some very interesting existential moments of my own, I am pretty certain that, however it may feel and seem, that level of certain knowledge is not actually available to human beings.
(It has to be "pretty certain" as that's as high as it gets, outside of certain carefully defined and confined fields.)

Just for one point of note: those who have equivalent utter personal existential certainty about very different beliefs about the nature of reality and the universe.

"However, what is known and what is thought to be known, make sense to me, in why there is items which are thought to be true, and are in fact not true. (Memory aide for later, in code. M71516ttw, & THS, if needed.)"

And, as above, other perspectives make sense to those holding them. There is no differentiation here, except by the understandable but dubious step of giving priority to one's own thoughts and experiences.

If you mean, that you don't think that God as experienced, is in any way related to anything any if the Spiritual and Religious people have said, that would be incorrect.

I don't think that <--------> as experienced can reliably be interpreted as being contact with God to the exclusion of other possibilities. Too much is brought to the moment, to <---------->. It's hardly surprising that from that ineffable experience Hindus mostly bring forth understandings of their encounter with "utter unity and bliss".
The best of gurus seem to become more and more silent on the matter. I can understand that.

"In which case it would appear that God, if existing, wants me to be an atheist."
Actually. No.

I'm only going by the texts.

And God, if existing, is fully aware of what it would take to cause me to believe. More aware than I am, in fact.
And I'm hardly closed to belief because I used to believe with depth and sincerity.
It was in study to teach more accurately that I found what caused me to decide my faith had been incorrectly assigned.

"One of the "vessels of wrath, made for destruction"?
????? If you know that, then you Know God, and knowing God, removes your possible use of the word atheism from you.

I know the bible, it's history and that of the Christian church far better than most Christians.
But that's why I had to give up on the idea of the bible being a divine word. That "The Bible is Real" in your terms.
That was a long way from my intentions in setting out to learn more, but it's all I could do with a clean and quiet conscience.
That's why atheist is the best short descriptor. I hold that no God exists. The bible is in error at its core. From "creation" to "judgement". Yes, as a former believer I'm aware I'm betting my hypothetical eternal fate on this. Nothing to do lightly.
But I can only go where my honesty takes me.
Yes, I could be wrong. But that's more because I doubt the existence of reliable absolute certainty than because I have material doubt in the process that led to my holding my position.
(On that particular point I'm a dogmatic agnostic: I don't KNOW and you don't KNOW either, even if you think you do.)

"Now't to be done about that, if true."
It is probably not true.

But it may be.
Either way, no heaven for me.
If I'm right it doesn't exist.
If I'm wrong I don't qualify.

Just a brief candle.
(currently flickering a bit.)

Chris.

 

[muichimotsu]

Hi,

You are still making zero sense above.

Is that your intention?

Do you not want to be understood?

That's it isn't it?

You do not want to be understood.

LOVE,

Obfuscating is what you're doing, projecting that onto me isn't helping your argument. Trying to compare God and gravity is insulting to an entity that's supposed to be worthy of worship and adoration. We verify gravity objectively because we all experience it the same: God is by no means universally experienced or agreed upon, and that's why your experiments would fail peer review, which I seriously doubt any scientist worth their salt would take your ideas seriously.

 

[katerinah1947]

That is what you think, and believe, perfectly sincerely. I have no issue with that.
But having both considered existential epistemology, and had some very interesting existential moments of my own, I am pretty certain that, however it may feel and seem, that level of certain knowledge is not actually available to human beings.
(It has to be "pretty certain" as that's as high as it gets, outside of certain carefully defined and confined fields.)

Just for one point of note: those who have equivalent utter personal existential certainty about very different beliefs about the nature of reality and the universe.

"However, what is known and what is thought to be known, make sense to me, in why there is items which are thought to be true, and are in fact not true. (Memory aide for later, in code. M71516ttw, & THS, if needed.)"

And, as above, other perspectives make sense to those holding them. There is no differentiation here, except by the understandable but dubious step of giving priority to one's own thoughts and experiences.



I don't think that <--------> as experienced can reliably be interpreted as being contact with God to the exclusion of other possibilities. Too much is brought to the moment, to <---------->. It's hardly surprising that from that ineffable experience Hindus mostly bring forth understandings of their encounter with "utter unity and bliss".
The best of gurus seem to become more and more silent on the matter. I can understand that.



I'm only going by the texts.

And God, if existing, is fully aware of what it would take to cause me to believe. More aware than I am, in fact.
And I'm hardly closed to belief because I used to believe with depth and sincerity.
It was in study to teach more accurately that I found what caused me to decide my faith had been incorrectly assigned.


I know the bible, it's history and that of the Christian church far better than most Christians.
But that's why I had to give up on the idea of the bible being a divine word. That "The Bible is Real" in your terms.
That was a long way from my intentions in setting out to learn more, but it's all I could do with a clean and quiet conscience.
That's why atheist is the best short descriptor. I hold that no God exists. The bible is in error at its core. From "creation" to "judgement". Yes, as a former believer I'm aware I'm betting my hypothetical eternal fate on this. Nothing to do lightly.
But I can only go where my honesty takes me.
Yes, I could be wrong. But that's more because I doubt the existence of reliable absolute certainty than because I have material doubt in the process that led to my holding my position.
(On that particular point I'm a dogmatic agnostic: I don't KNOW and you don't KNOW either, even if you think you do.)



But it may be.
Either way, no heaven for me.
If I'm right it doesn't exist.
If I'm wrong I don't qualify.

Just a brief candle.
(currently flickering a bit.)

Chris.

Hi,

There is no possible way, that you are in trouble with God.

No way.

If you want to know, how and why I can say that ask.

However, it makes no difference, as your final fate, does not include your not being in heaven and with God.

It does not. Not for you.

I cannot say that is my fate. I can say, it is your fate.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Obfuscating is what you're doing, projecting that onto me isn't helping your argument. Trying to compare God and gravity is insulting to an entity that's supposed to be worthy of worship and adoration. We verify gravity objectively because we all experience it the same: God is by no means universally experienced or agreed upon, and that's why your experiments would fail peer review, which I seriously doubt any scientist worth their salt would take your ideas seriously.

Hi,

You are still at it aren't you?

How many times do you wish to be wrong? And what is with the pedantic use of words like obfuscate. Esoterica, has no place in any conversations, where people of diverse backgrounds meet.

You don't want to be understood, do you?

All my work goes through peer review. Your assessment of what happened is totally flawed.,

Why are you talking like you understand science, and why are you refusing to understand anything in science, but still have so many words to speak?

Still you are making no sense, hence, with the addition of your not wanting to be understood, you match one more characteristic, of the group mentioned earlier that you mimick well.

LOVE,

 

[muichimotsu]

And the projection and passive aggression continues on. I'm just automatically wrong, I'm automatically being obtuse just because I don't agree with your presumptuous and biased conclusion? You're being anything but objective or scientific when you can't even remotely consider that your experiments were using a flawed methodology

And then you continue to throw accusations at me through a limited understanding of me from our conversation, as if that gives you everything you need for such assessment.

 

[katerinah1947]

And the projection and passive aggression continues on. I'm just automatically wrong, I'm automatically being obtuse just because I don't agree with your presumptuous and biased conclusion? You're being anything but objective or scientific when you can't even remotely consider that your experiments were using a flawed methodology

And then you continue to throw accusations at me through a limited understanding of me from our conversation, as if that gives you everything you need for such assessment.

Hi,

I think me listening to you anymore has no point.

I will try and no longer respond to you.

Again above, none of your points are valid.

Nor do you respond to your personal errors or admit to them, furthering that initial observation.

Good-Bye for awhile.

Maybe someone else can now post, on the topic.

LOVE,

 

[cloudyday2]

Going back to the question of the OP, it seems there are increasingly difficult goals that Christian apologists might seek to achieve.

(1) Show that a set of Christian beliefs could be true (i.e. they don't contradict each other, and they don't contradict any universally accepted secular beliefs).

(2) Show that a set of Christian beliefs are likely to be true

 

[bhsmte]

And the projection and passive aggression continues on. I'm just automatically wrong, I'm automatically being obtuse just because I don't agree with your presumptuous and biased conclusion? You're being anything but objective or scientific when you can't even remotely consider that your experiments were using a flawed methodology

And then you continue to throw accusations at me through a limited understanding of me from our conversation, as if that gives you everything you need for such assessment.

Stick around. I guarantee, you will be entertained.

 

[muichimotsu]

Not really much entertainment to be found from someone flailing about and attempting to be sophisticated with hollow verbiage

 

[bhsmte]

Not really much entertainment to be found from someone flailing about and attempting to be sophisticated with hollow verbiage

I hear ya.

I tend to enjoy, the entertainment from observing human psychology though and the behaviors that go along with it.

 

[muichimotsu]

It's not always amusing when you see that there's not much to be done half the time but let the deluded stew in their own perceptions of grandeur and fizzle out. Makes you more than a bit cynical

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What strikes me is that the majority of the points were not syllogistic arguments at all. For example, "Good Literature and Reasonable Writing." So when you say, "I don't agree with that reasoning," I am left wondering whether you have experienced good (Christian) literature and reasonable writing and have found it unpersuasive, or whether you simply haven't experienced such literature and reasonable writing. Since good literature and reasonable writing are persuasive by definition, I assume it's the latter.

Lewis' quote from Surprised by Joy is instructive:

"In reading Chesterton, as in reading MacDonald, I did not know what I was letting myself in for… A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading."​

So is Edward Feser's:

"When I was an undergrad I came across the saying that learning a little philosophy leads you away from God, but learning a lot of philosophy leads you back. As a young man who had learned a little philosophy, I scoffed. But in later years and at least in my own case, I would come to see that it’s true."​

What is the commonality? God is found when one's guard is let down. When one is receptive and open they are susceptible to truth, to God. Encounter with God and conversion are almost always unexpected, and this is part of the reason why. One cannot be influenced unless they open themselves up to something, and the atheist will only open themselves up as they mature, and often only when they believe it to be safe, when they believe it to be free of God's hand.

One often hears quotes like those of Lewis and Feser, particularly on sites like this, but they usually miss the mark. For instance, take Lewis' "a young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist..." Implicit in this is the notion that, to the atheist, atheism must be held firmly, cherished, and never exposed to scrutiny, no matter what further inquiry may reveal. It must become unyielding like the dogmas of religion. But this notion is foreign to most atheists. To them, atheism is the outcome of their assessment of religious claims, not a dogma they must uphold without question. They are therefore free to read widely, free to inquire.

This is why apologetics, especially in a place like CF, is generally so unsuccessful. The atheists coming here are often immature, they are often looking for a fight. They are in a combative mindset and often in an offensive stance. They have some chip on their shoulder that involves religion, and their primary aim is not openness to truth but rather combat with the religious. Or, at the very least, theirs is a "Convince me!" mindset rather than a neutral, vulnerable search for truth. Inevitably the Christians respond in kind, adopting a posture that is similarly unfocused on truth as primary, and open inquirers are liable to meet a hostile environment on either side of the fence. CF is better than many forums, but the basic model holds here as well.

I don't think a person's activity on this forum is enough to glean whether they are genuinely open to learning. After all, one may be combative for many reasons independent of whether they are open-minded or not. I've encountered Christians on here who initially presented as adversarial, but whose demeanour later changed as we engaged in conversation. Had I assumed that their hostility was a pathognomonic sign of a closed-mind then such conversations would never have taken place, and we both would have missed an opportunity for intellectual growth.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Wrong.

Apologetics: reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.

Empirical science is not that.

Empirical sciences are about building models of reality and actually support / test them with physical evidence / data.

They are not mere words on paper, like apologetic nonsense.

 

[Chris B]

Hi,

There is no possible way, that you are in trouble with God.

Have you read the bible?
I fall squarely under Paul's outpouring of denunciation in Romans 1, for a start, if Paul's right.
But that's one of the passages that helped convince me that Paul is not reliable, and theological implication flowed from there.

I've not found wriggle room to avoid the message of the passage, so it is pretty much a binary situation. It's right or it's wrong. I've not found a convincing liberal or universalist exposition to be able to think that "all will be well."

If you want to know, how and why I can say that ask.

However, it makes no difference, as your final fate, does not include your not being in heaven and with God.

Well that's the exact opposite of my understanding, and of what I thought to be Christian doctrine, so I would be interested to see what underpins your case.

Chris

 

[AV1611VET]

Empirical science is not that.

Empirical sciences are about building models of reality and actually support / test them with physical evidence / data.

Then come the apologetics to defend them.

They say for everything God has, Satan has a cheap imitation.

Exodus 4:14a And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well.

Didn't Darwin have someone to represent him verbally?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then come the apologetics to defend them.

No, not the "apologetics". Rather: the evidence.

Didn't Darwin have someone to represent him verbally?

No, he had something. That thing being the evidence.

 

[muichimotsu]

No, not the "apologetics". Rather: the evidence.



No, he had something. That thing being the evidence.

I think he's referring to Thomas Huxley, Darwin's bulldog in regards to something speaking for him. The whole analogy of Darwin/Huxley to Moses/Aaron seems specious at best in regards to relevance.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think he's referring to Thomas Huxley,

 

[Snark]

Assuming Christianity was actually true, what kind of apologetics arguments would you find persuasive? I like hearing personal testimonials about changes in lives, miraculous healings, or whatever. Why aren't these arguments presented by apologists?

Hypothetically, an argument that showed that it made more sense to adhere to the Christian religion then to not do so. I doubt such an argument actually exists and I don't think it's fair to expect apologists to make them. We're talking about something that requires at least some level of faith.

What I think apologetics can do is show that belief in Christianity is a position a rational intelligent individual can hold. (That includes philosophical arguments about things like the problem of evil). It can't instill belief, but it can remove barriers to belief.

It also works when the issue at stake is less metaphysically based- the historicity of Jesus, biblical inerrancy etc.

Unlike you, I don't find personal testimonies that convincing. They're a very good argument against people who claim that Christianity is a malign influence. But I already fully accept that Christian belief has changed many people's lives for the better, so I don't need it proving.

 

[zippy2006]

One often hears quotes like those of Lewis and Feser, particularly on sites like this, but they usually miss the mark. For instance, take Lewis' "a young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist..." Implicit in this is the notion that, to the atheist, atheism must be held firmly, cherished, and never exposed to scrutiny, no matter what further inquiry may reveal. It must become unyielding like the dogmas of religion. But this notion is foreign to most atheists. To them, atheism is the outcome of their assessment of religious claims, not a dogma they must uphold without question. They are therefore free to read widely, free to inquire.

Rather, I think that Lewis and Feser--former atheists--are making points about atheism rather than atheists. There are many different kinds of atheists. Some will remain in that camp and some will not.

I don't think a person's activity on this forum is enough to glean whether they are genuinely open to learning. After all, one may be combative for many reasons independent of whether they are open-minded or not. I've encountered Christians on here who initially presented as adversarial, but whose demeanour later changed as we engaged in conversation. Had I assumed that their hostility was a pathognomonic sign of a closed-mind then such conversations would never have taken place, and we both would have missed an opportunity for intellectual growth.

I'd say it is enough to glean whether they are open to learning on this forum. Combativeness leads to closed-mindedness, regardless of the cause (which could be legitimate or illegitimate).

This means that the apologist who loses his cool and gets involved in personal battles has lost sight of truth, even if there was genuine provocation.