Even if we switch the word ‘explanation’ for ‘apologetics’?
The problem with apologetics is that it encourages you to approach science in ways that are pretty much guaranteed to undermine your ability to understand the subject correctly.
Apologetics basically gets you to view your science degree as an ammunition gathering exercise. You aren’t there to learn useful skills that you can use to build things or make new discoveries; you’re there to learn sales and marketing. It has you sitting through lectures looking for sound bites to trot out in debates, or ways to say “Gotcha!” to your professors. Attitudes such as that turn your confirmation bias dials right up to eleven, while making you inattentive to the details that you need to master in order to understand the subject properly.
The one course that I did at university as an ammunition gathering exercise was the one course that I ended up doing the most badly in my exams.
Count me in on that one. One of the biggest reasons why I am a Christian is thanks to the influence of my parents in particular. They lived a life of faith while showing themselves to be trustworthy and taking me seriously at a time when it seemed that nobody else did.
On the other hand, the biggest knocks that I’ve had to my faith have come from dishonesty or breaches of trust by other Christians, especially those in positions of authority. That’s why one of the things I emphasise a lot in these discussions is that pastors and teachers in the Church are in a position of trust, and breaching that trust can be very, very damaging.
4 Likes
Meeting someone that actually believed it was a huge step for me. He was a decent but imperfect guy. And he was able to answer my questions to the best of his ability.
Apologetics is both answering questions (1 Peter 3:15) and addressing mistaken beliefs (Acts 2:14).
The trouble here is that once you’ve “outed” yourself as an apologist - as now recognized in all its most obnoxious senses (and nobody can be a true apologist without outing themselves - it’s a core part of that landscape), then in the ears of all who’ve come to know you that way, there is no such thing as any innocent ‘explanation’ or even ‘question’ from you any more - at least not in their ears, and not even if in a moment of lapse you were actually innocently engaged! Do you see the difficulty here? Reputation is a harsh and often unfair mistress. People should always have subsequent fresh starts and new chances. We all thank God for a running tap of that. But sometimes with a particular people or in a particular setting, a bell has already been rung, that in that setting and with those people, cannot be unrung.
Everyone is entitled to their perspective. I just heard a great quote from Malcolm Muggeridge about how when the church lowered it’s drawbridge to modernity, modernity up and moved its camp. And so is the challenge with a culture today that views any positive confession as violent.
- Are they? Or does it depend on who “they” are? or the setting?
- 2 Corinthians 10:5. “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”
- Understanding the Recent Claim that Allah and Yahweh Are the Same God - Beth Grove Peltola
1 Like
- I have a point of view and you have a point of view. If our points of view are identical, then we have a point of view in common. If they aren’t, we don’t.
- If your point of view and my point of view are not identical–whether yours is wrong or mine is wrong, or both are wrong–it’s not likely that you’re “entitled” to my perspective nor I to yours, is it?
I’ve no issue with apologetics per se, and have used many apologetic approaches. Most often I found apologetics most useful in pastoral/discipleship conversations with Christians.
The problem is, in my experience, a lot of Christian men (and young men in particular) give the impression that if they memorise certain apologetic arguments then they can then wield apologetics like an intellectual Excalibur and strike down all the counter arguments of their opponents (enemies?). Whilst this might be a good way to win arguments, it is a lousy way to win people. As such I prefer the time honour apologetic of courtesy, curiosity, hospitality, and a good ol’ pint down the pub.
That’s what I was driving at in my post. So perhaps I am not such much anti-apologetics and anti apologists. 
I’d also add that much of apologetics assumes that people are won over by logical, rational, arguments. But the times I’ve presented such arguments or graciously pointed out the flaws in others thinking, the most common response was “yeah, but I just don’t see it that way”.
My experience in my little corner of the UK has been that what actually wins you a fair hearing as a Christian is kindness, character, and consistency not whether you can tell the difference between a red herring and a reductio ad absurdum.
5 Likes
If your point of view is valid, you’re perfectly entitled to ask me to consider it. If I tell you it’s not valid, then it’s up to you to provide me with evidence that I’m mistaken.
- If I have a point of view, and you deign to consider it at my request, and you tell me it’s not valid, without taking time to explain to me why it’s not valid in age- and language-appropriate words, what’s the probability that I’m going to waste anymore of your time or mine in conversation on the subject?
2 Likes
… then I would be making an unsubstantiated assertion.
And in that case you would have every right to give me an ear-bashing for it, because if there’s one thing that I am firm about with people, it is that they need to substantiate their assertions.
2 Likes
I’ll take your word for it and spare the test.
2 Likes
Nice picture. It took me a minute to catch the meaning.
Where would the pov fit for there being an infinite number of objects in space?
Betrand Russell presumed this was a possibility. What if that like the star, has been repeated so often that people presume it’s really possible, even though they don’t sit down to think about it?
In The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by any chance?
“Ford!” he said, “there’s an infinite number of monkeys outside who want to talk to us about this script for Hamlet they’ve worked out!”
My philosophy of religion professor took the cosmological argument head on and made an interesting counter claim while admitting an infinite series cannot be formed through successive addition.
Never did I suppose anyone would disagree with the impossibility of an action being performed an infinite number of times. Like never in my wildest imagination would I have thought this would be disagreed with.
So just how long do you suppose we will live after we die in this world?
1 Like
It’s probably best to start a new thread to discuss this, otherwise we’ll just end up with this thread veering off track.
2 Likes
So assumptions trump written history these days do they?
Rather odd way to develop a world view. World views are usually philosophical first, then evidence is sort after that supports it. It’s a fallacy to attempt to make the opposite claims. The mere fact that science first starts out with a hypothesis and then seeks to find evidence to support that theory should hilight this as an obvious problem. I think this thread is asking the wrong question.
God is not a science experiment…you will not find him there.
If there’s no burning bush or the Ark of the Covenant in your house or church, there’s not much chance of finding Him there either, unless …