I may be using a priori incorrectly, I am just copying the way I have heard it used, to describe a premise which is not the conclusion of any other argument. A premise beneath which there are no other premises. That doesn’t mean that believing the premise is irrational, or blind, or unwarranted, just that it is basic.
I do think apologetics can help remove barriers to faith, but usually only when a person really wants to believe and is headed in that direction. I have personally never met anyone coerced into faith by solid argumentation, though maybe some people have that story. Even those who say apologetic arguments were key in their conversion usually point to significant loving relationships with Christians or inexplicable experiences with God as part of the equation. I definitely think there is value in leveling the playing field by pointing out inconsistencies in people’s epistemologies. It is not just Christians who have picked a narrative, everyone has.
I agree with some points you make (such as apologetics are useful for bolstering the faith of people who already believe), but I disagree with your comment that I’ve chosen to quote above. Empirical observation is exactly what I’m looking for and if it was there, and if it would support Christianity, I’d be a Christian. As you can read in my previous posts, I chose to take the promises of Jesus that apply to today and test them (or observe them).
The way I look at it, I can’t verify the historicity of the resurrection. Christian apologists themselves are incorrectly arguing that the Jews would never believe in the resurrection without confirming the dead person rose in the same body (i.e. the grave was empty), when we clearly find that John the Baptist was thought to have been risen from the dead in the person of Jesus, supposedly John’s body was still in the grave then.
Matt. 14:1 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the reports about Jesus, 2 and he said to his attendants, “This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”
Mark 6:14 King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”
Luke 9:18 Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say I am?” 19 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life.”
So, here we have an example of Jesus’ contemporaries believing he is someone who has been raised from the dead before Jesus even died. I don’t know how it’s possible for me to believe this same Jesus was truly raised from the dead in the sense that Christian apologists argue for.
I don’t buy it. Because “being a Christian” is a lot more than believing certain facts. I have to duck out of the conversation because I am losing my access to internet for a while. All the best to you.
Thanks, you don’t have to buy my reasoning. After all, people believe all kinds of things for all sorts of reasons. There are people today who believe UFO’s are being hidden in Area 51 or that moon landings have been staged. There is little you or I can do to sway them.
As you’ve noted, people hold to religious belief in Christianity (and any other religion) for all sorts of reasons, sometimes reasons that don’t necessarily require strong evidence that would convince others. I have asked my dad and other Christians I know whether they would believe truth or Jesus if they were in a conflict. Most Christians, in my experience, say they would chose Jesus. I think Billy Graham is known for making a decision to trust the Bible even after seeing big problems with it. It’s the kind of attitude that says… Even if there are big problems, I’ve made up my mind to ignore them. And this decision is respectable. I wish more Christians would admit to it, rather than arguing that Atheists and Agnostics are willfully ignoring the truth and are, in fact, choosing to be in Hell for all eternity.
There is an interesting observation on Cognitive Dissonance confirming some peoples remaining in a religion or holding a belief even when their beliefs contradict their experience or observations.
An early version of cognitive dissonance theory appeared in Leon Festinger’s 1956 book When Prophecy Fails. This book gives an account of the deepening of cult members’ faith following the failure of a cult’s prophecy that a UFO landing was imminent. The believers met at a pre-determined place and time, believing they alone would survive the Earth’s destruction. The appointed time came and passed without incident. They faced acute cognitive dissonance: had they been the victim of a hoax? Had they donated their worldly possessions in vain? Most members chose to believe something less dissonant to resolve reality not meeting their expectations: they believed that the aliens had given Earth a second chance, and the group was now empowered to spread the word that Earth-spoiling must stop. The group dramatically increased their proselytism despite (because of) the failed prophecy.
Back to the title question, we bend the curve by simply following Jesus Christ instead of twisting Christianity to suit our desires to tell others what to do:
And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these."
If this is less important to you than homosexuality and abortion (two things that Jesus Christ never mentioned, or if he did were not deemed worthy of inclusion in the Gospels), you’re doing Christianity wrong.
Actually, the Pew Forum Religious Landscape Study indicates that acceptance of homosexuality is a function of age, not of a church’s teaching. Pretty soon, Evangelical ministers will be in the same position as Catholic priests who must preach against the use of contraceptives to a congregation that has already moved on. Anyway, here’s the pertinent info from the link, although I encourage you to check it out. Lots of fascinating stuff there.
“The survey finds that acceptance of homosexuality is growing rapidly even among religious groups that have traditionally been strongly opposed to it. For instance, more than a third of evangelical Protestants now say homosexuality should be accepted by American society, up 10 points since 2007… The shifts in attitudes toward homosexuality among the largest religious groups are being driven partly by young adults, who are much more accepting of homosexuality than older Americans. Among evangelical Protestants, for example, 51% of Millennials say homosexuality should be accepted, compared with about a third of Baby Boomers and a fifth of those in the Silent generation. Similar patterns are seen among mainline Protestants, in the historically black Protestant tradition and among Catholics.”
Regarding the response of the church to popular trends among its laity, here is a specifically Catholic response that I think applies well to churches in general. It is Fr. Robert Barron on “Extreme demands / extreme mercy.” I’ve listened to this multiple times and each time am challenged by it.
Hi Eddie, I would like some statistics on this, if possible. Do you know why Joel Osteen is so popular? I know of many Christians who vehemently disagree with his teachings, and yet, his church keeps growing.
Interesting to consider. Many of the popular mega-churches are pretty permissive by traditional standards… I wonder how the non-denominational statistics are gathered as there is not a very good way to judge. If you apply evolutionary principles to church growth, you would think that churches that adapt to changing cultures would survive, those that do not would diminish. That does not seem at first glance to be the case, but probably just because we are looking at the wrong things, and perhaps people look for more certainty and rules in uncertain times, which also explains the rise of Islamic fundamentalism as well as Christian fundamentalism. Legalism is attractive because it puts the control of things in our court, rather than submitting to grace. Prosperity gospel is attractive because… well, we like prosperity. Just rambling here, will stop now.