Religion
In reply to the discussion: Could someone explain what apologetics are? [View all]Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)In many logical arguments, we begin with a premise, which is something asserted to be true. And then we either 1) see what follows from it, if it is assumed to be true. Or 2) we see if the premise itself holds up, to logical interrogation.
So for example, apologetics usually poses, as its chief, general, methodological assumption or assertion or premise, 1) the idea that God exists, and that he is as he is described to be, in the Bible. If this is true it says, then we should be able to prove it. we can examine the logical consequences of that, and see if they hold up.
Or better, Apologetics' more proper general premise is 2) that simple logical, rational exploration of our religion, can "prove" that it is true.
But 1) we should question both premises. First, if we are really interested in logical and reason, and deeply interrogating religion, then we should not assume that God exists. Which should not accept that premise.
Or better, 2) we might question whether Christians, pretending to use logica, are really arguing in good faith. We should be aware that most Christians based themselves explicitly on "faith," not reason. Indeed often the "mind" and "philosophy" so forth are explicitly rejected in many readings of the Bible. Therefore when attempting to argue with Christians on a logical basis, we might well question their objectivity and sincerity. Is logic more than a front, for them? isn't their whole emphasis on "faith" really an attack on reason itself? Therefore we would expect Christians to be typically, misusing logic; employing sophistry and false arguments instead.
Which is in fact what we see.
Apologetics pretends to be about logica and reason. But ultimately it is actually the last great bastion of ... Sophistry.
To be sure, this isn't the strongest argument against apologists; just a general warning. Next to be sure, we might extend the benefit of the doubt to them, and assume for purposes of argument that they are arguing, using logic in good faith. Though perhaps finally this is a concession we should not make. Given their history.