4 ms·

"the answer is almost always nothing" That's just not true. The whole area of Christian Apologetics attempts to answer many of the questions that are raised.

by milesf 10y ago

sago 10y ago
> Christian Apologetics attempts to answer many of the questions that are raised With respect, either you misunderstand the point you are responding to, or you misunderstand apologetics, as actually practiced and taught in evangelical institutions. Apologetics, in the evangelical sense (like all terms, it has had varied practical forms), is the rational defence of pre-existing doctrine. It deals with epistemology, natural philosophy, hermeneutics, and other areas only when they can be used to support the doctrine. It is pretty much the opposite of rational inquiry, because it explicitly begins with the conclusion and seeks arguments to justify it. It is, in practice, an example of the parent comment: what falsification of the doctrine would an apologist accept? There would always be another argument, another apologia to bolster the claim. [Source: theological degrees and was an evangelical apologist for 20 years. Books such as Louis Markos, Apologetics for the Twenty-First Century, Crossway, 2010; Peter Kreeft, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, IVP, 1994; and much of the rest of IVP's output.]
- milesf 10y ago
  One visit to carm.org or reasonablefaith.org with any questions outside the parameters you've set and you'll see there are ample examples to the contrary.
  - sago 10y ago
    Both are mainstream evangelical apologetics, of the form I was referring to, and illustrate my point. Please point to pages in either that you feel establish good-faith falsification criteria for any evangelical doctrine, as per the original comment.
    - milesf 10y ago
      Good-faith, meaning what? Non-Christian?
      - sago 10y ago
        Good faith meaning, an honest attempt. It's not an insult to apologetics that they don't. As I said (and as CARM's front page declares) its mission is to defend and justify Christian doctrine, not to investigate whether it is correct. I think you'd be better off rejecting the premise of the original comment (why falsification is important), than you would trying to argue that apologetics operates that way.
        milesf 10y ago
        Well, I'm 47 now and have had the open challenge since 1990 that if anyone can show me that the Bible is not what it purports to be, then I will have to renounce my faith and search elsewhere. I think that qualifies as an honest attempt :) I'm also not convinced that falsification is the be-all, end-all to deriving meaning. I think it's a very useful tool, but it has its flaws. Looks like we will have to agree to disagree that Christian Apologetics is merely about defending Christian doctrine. It does that, but it does so by encompassing historical, reasoned, and evidential bases. Is it proof? No. Is it a body of evidence that people can examine and decide for themselves if the message is plausible? Most certainly yes.
        sago 10y ago
        :) Question is, what does it purport to be? This is probably not the venue for this, but it is a rabbit hole, that's for sure. if you're really interested in a respectful disagreement, I'll happily share my email. I have the same open door, if anyone can give me a rational basis that supports their truth claims (without opening the door to claims they reject), then I'll change my view. I have, once. I was an evangelical, I'm not now. > we will have to agree to disagree ... it does so by Why is that disagreeing? I've argued from the outset that it uses tools of rationality in its defence of doctrine. My point has been that it begins with the certainty of the truth of its claims. And you haven't said what else apologetics does other than defend doctrine, just said we disagree on that point. You've not been forthcoming on examples, so far, here's another example. To be clear, it isn't a problem for me that defence (apologia, 1 Pet 3:15) is the point, just that you seem to think I'm missing something, but haven't given an example.

"the answer is almost always nothing" That's just not true. The whole area of Christian Apologetics attempts to answer many of the questions that are raised.

by milesf 10y ago

"the answer is almost always nothing" That's just not true. The whole area of Christian Apologetics attempts to answer many of the questions that are raised.

sago 10y ago

> Christian Apologetics attempts to answer many of the questions that are raised With respect, either you misunderstand the point you are responding to, or you misunderstand apologetics, as actually practiced and taught in evangelical institutions. Apologetics, in the evangelical sense (like all terms, it has had varied practical forms), is the rational defence of pre-existing doctrine. It deals with epistemology, natural philosophy, hermeneutics, and other areas only when they can be used to support the doctrine. It is pretty much the opposite of rational inquiry, because it explicitly begins with the conclusion and seeks arguments to justify it. It is, in practice, an example of the parent comment: what falsification of the doctrine would an apologist accept? There would always be another argument, another apologia to bolster the claim. [Source: theological degrees and was an evangelical apologist for 20 years. Books such as Louis Markos, Apologetics for the Twenty-First Century, Crossway, 2010; Peter Kreeft, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, IVP, 1994; and much of the rest of IVP's output.]

milesf 10y ago
One visit to carm.org or reasonablefaith.org with any questions outside the parameters you've set and you'll see there are ample examples to the contrary.
- sago 10y ago
  Both are mainstream evangelical apologetics, of the form I was referring to, and illustrate my point. Please point to pages in either that you feel establish good-faith falsification criteria for any evangelical doctrine, as per the original comment.
  - milesf 10y ago
    Good-faith, meaning what? Non-Christian?
    - sago 10y ago
      Good faith meaning, an honest attempt. It's not an insult to apologetics that they don't. As I said (and as CARM's front page declares) its mission is to defend and justify Christian doctrine, not to investigate whether it is correct. I think you'd be better off rejecting the premise of the original comment (why falsification is important), than you would trying to argue that apologetics operates that way.
      - milesf 10y ago
        Well, I'm 47 now and have had the open challenge since 1990 that if anyone can show me that the Bible is not what it purports to be, then I will have to renounce my faith and search elsewhere. I think that qualifies as an honest attempt :) I'm also not convinced that falsification is the be-all, end-all to deriving meaning. I think it's a very useful tool, but it has its flaws. Looks like we will have to agree to disagree that Christian Apologetics is merely about defending Christian doctrine. It does that, but it does so by encompassing historical, reasoned, and evidential bases. Is it proof? No. Is it a body of evidence that people can examine and decide for themselves if the message is plausible? Most certainly yes.
        sago 10y ago
        :) Question is, what does it purport to be? This is probably not the venue for this, but it is a rabbit hole, that's for sure. if you're really interested in a respectful disagreement, I'll happily share my email. I have the same open door, if anyone can give me a rational basis that supports their truth claims (without opening the door to claims they reject), then I'll change my view. I have, once. I was an evangelical, I'm not now. > we will have to agree to disagree ... it does so by Why is that disagreeing? I've argued from the outset that it uses tools of rationality in its defence of doctrine. My point has been that it begins with the certainty of the truth of its claims. And you haven't said what else apologetics does other than defend doctrine, just said we disagree on that point. You've not been forthcoming on examples, so far, here's another example. To be clear, it isn't a problem for me that defence (apologia, 1 Pet 3:15) is the point, just that you seem to think I'm missing something, but haven't given an example.