One regret:
I write this with deepest regret regarding @RichardG ’ s valid concerns. I want to address something quite different from what I think he means by apologetics. Something we’ve just seen demonstrated here in this thread and in a few other current threads (as well as others).
Returning to Misrepresentation:
@T_aquaticus, I want to come back to my claim that the atheist worldview has been misrepresented. I understand if you don’t. I think much of this thread demonstrates exactly the reasons I’ve given before for my dislike for what is commonly thought of as “apologetics.”
I believe these claims about grounding for “moral intuition” are simply false and therefore a misrepresentation:
a certain world view has no grounding for that intuition
A lot of people say atheism has no grounding for morality, and through apologetics they try to show that they will require more “blind faith” than reason to believe that their world view does have a grounding for morality when they have no reason to believe so.
The existence of morality, or some vague thing referred to as “moral intuition,” can be explained well in ways that have nothing to do with God or God creating humans with a “moral intuition.” We even see evidence of “moral intuition” in higher mammals, who cannot attest to their belief in or unbelief in God/god/gods. The most rudimentary features of morality, such as whom one may and may not kill, or with whom one may mate, or from whom one may take food, are clearly understood in the animal world and enforced subjectively and violently. With animals, we might call it socialization. There are probably better terms zoologists use.
In the human world, using Kierkegaardian, actually Hegelian terms, The Universal is not so universal. It is universal within its cultural sphere. Move to other wider cultures, you will see wide variation in what cultures call “moral.” And among Christians, even, you will see great differences regarding, for example, the poor, the Other, women, justice, injustice, freedom, autonomy, community, spousing, etc.
The Hitler example seems to be a pet example in our culture for the existence of “objective” morality and it’s superiority over “subjective” morality. But what it shows us, is that within the wider Christianized western world at that time the NAZIs were outliers, as well as the Italian fascists. Although other forms of killing were justified. However, torture, genocide and slavery were practiced at other times in history by the same groups. Objective morality is not so objective as we would like to believe, and certainly not objective enough to make a universal claim that would lead to believe God gives humans an objective moral intuition.
Regarding “techniques” used in this thread:
-
The apologist “establishes” the categories for the discussion, whether the apologee thinks that way or not. By focusing the argument on the concepts “objective” and “subjective” the offensive team can distract the apologee from the wider view outside the categories.
-
As much as the apologist is able, the apologist keeps the apologee on the defensive.
-
Whenever possible, the apologist uses vagarities: “it is pretty widely regarded”, “A lot of people say”. There is a lot of strategic wiggle room here.
-
The apologist makes claims and refuses to support them, I refer you to this.
-
Rather, when support is demanded, the apologist put the burden of disproof on the apologee. See the point above.
-
The apologist misrepresents a person’s world view, and then puts the burden of disproof on the apologee.
-
The apologist is free to misdirect or bring in unexplained tangents to baffle an apologee.
-
The apologist uses perfect etiquette in order to humiliate the apologee all the more, when the apologee becomes frustrated with the game.
-
The apologist attempts to leave the ball in the apologee’s court, in order to appear undefeated, and further humiliate the apologee.
I’m sure I’ve missed other strategies. I don’t have time to look for more.
To the OP: Is apologetics (often) a waste of time?
As I see demonstrated in this thread and have seen elsewhere, the brand of apologetics I discuss in this post is something quite different from a waste of time.