What is the reason for Apologetics?

Weston Bortner
atheist
Weston Bortner's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2011-06-12
User is offlineOffline
What is the reason for Apologetics?

The whole idea of apologetics, to me, seems to fly in the face of what faith is. I have seen people say, "Faith cannot be faith without substantial evidence". G.K Chesterton once wrote:

"To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.”

To seek for proof for something that you wish to belief is not faith. It is knowledge. If the apologists wish to show and verify that Jesus existed and did everything that he said that he did, then that is not faith. There are then trying to use reason. William Lane Craig's book, "Reasonable Faith" is actually an oxymoron. Religious faith isn't supposed to be reasonable. You are supposed to belief it no matter what the evidence says. If you're seeking to prove the existence of God, then you're not supporting faith. You're supporting knowledge, which faith is supposed to trump.

A relationship with Jesus is supposed to be the "Ultimate Evidence" that trumps all other evidence. But all the other evidence does is make people think that Jesus is real, even though they might be wrong, and then they THINK that they are having a relationship with Jesus when they are really just believing a man's leap of faith and deluded themselves. Why do we need apologists if faith is supposed to trump knowledge? Why should the lack of evidence cause any fear. I think they just don't enjoy the title, "Blind Believer". However, I think most arguments made by apologists are not really arguments for the existence of god or the reality of Jesus' Resurrection, but rather rationalizing why they believe what they want to believe. They offer more explanations for why their religion is useful than why it is true. It doesn't matter if it is useful and that Atheism is bad. That is simply a fallacy of appealing to the consequences. Religion may be useful, but that doesn't make it true.

 

Our job on this Earth, is to take care of each other. Something that we have ultimately failed at doing, hence why we are so miserable.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Weston Bortner wrote:...To

Weston Bortner wrote:

...To seek for proof for something that you wish to belief is not faith. It is knowledge. If the apologists wish to show and verify that Jesus existed and did everything that he said that he did, then that is not faith. There are then trying to use reason. William Lane Craig's book, "Reasonable Faith" is actually an oxymoron. Religious faith isn't supposed to be reasonable. You are supposed to belief it no matter what the evidence says. If you're seeking to prove the existence of God, then you're not supporting faith. You're supporting knowledge, which faith is supposed to trump.

A relationship with Jesus is supposed to be the "Ultimate Evidence" that trumps all other evidence. But all the other evidence does is make people think that Jesus is real, even though they might be wrong, and then they THINK that they are having a relationship with Jesus when they are really just believing a man's leap of faith and deluded themselves. Why do we need apologists if faith is supposed to trump knowledge? Why should the lack of evidence cause any fear. I think they just don't enjoy the title, "Blind Believer". However, I think most arguments made by apologists are not really arguments for the existence of god or the reality of Jesus' Resurrection, but rather rationalizing why they believe what they want to believe. They offer more explanations for why their religion is useful than why it is true. It doesn't matter if it is useful and that Atheism is bad. That is simply a fallacy of appealing to the consequences. Religion may be useful, but that doesn't make it true.

 

SO you are visiting from Debunking Christianity. In the Greek PISTIS so translated faith belief has an idea of trust. Trust is warranted by reasons.  ?  A proof of god entails the question of his existence not his trustworthiness.  The idea of faith of believing the unbelievable is recent Protestant mumbo jumbo such a G.K. Chesterton's abuse of the scriptural meaning for a post Enlightenment retreat into subjectivism.  Where did you get the idea that a relationship with Jesus is the "ultimate evidence".  My belief in UFO's proves that Elvis rose from the dead and explains his sightings.  It is not lack of evidence that is the real issue though that is a bassis for agnositicism in the least. It is the plethora of evidence that runs contrary to the claims of Christianity.  That is there is substantial evidence against it. So the apologist must confront that evidence or be on the par of having an Elvis experience of Jesus.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The word "Apologetics" has

The word "Apologetics" has nothing to do with evidence. It's spin off in modern lexicon is "apology" which means to say "  I am sorry for what I did".

How is it "I am sorry" got spun from a word that was meant to mean "I defend my position"

The reason is Apologetics is not about evidence, but appeal. It is not concerned about testing, just the ability to market. And if all one has is an ability to market, even if the product is faulty, then they should be sorry.

The problem with "Apologetics" is that it depends on the fallacy of defending and not the pragmatism of testing. It puts the cart before the horse.

Before something can be defended it must be tested. You can market shit as ice cream and "defend it" if you are slick enough. But it will never, no matter how successfully you sell it, make shit ice cream.

You don't defend something first, you test it. And if others outside you come up with the same results, it does not need defending.

Apologists are merely people who give a fancy name to credulity and want to mistake their cleaver mental masturbation as being provable.

The only definition I can give to the word "apology" is "I am sorry for this bad argument, I simply wish it were true"

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I can't help hearing in the

I can't help hearing in the word an actual apology for defending the indefensible, for being so stuck in the illogical nonsense that they have to say "sorry, but I can't help trying to explain why I swallow this shit".

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Weston Bortner
atheist
Weston Bortner's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2011-06-12
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:SO you are

TGBaker wrote:
SO you are visiting from Debunking Christianity. In the Greek PISTIS so translated faith belief has an idea of trust. Trust is warranted by reasons.  ?  A proof of god entails the question of his existence not his trustworthiness.  The idea of faith of believing the unbelievable is recent Protestant mumbo jumbo such a G.K. Chesterton's abuse of the scriptural meaning for a post Enlightenment retreat into subjectivism.  Where did you get the idea that a relationship with Jesus is the "ultimate evidence".  My belief in UFO's proves that Elvis rose from the dead and explains his sightings.  It is not lack of evidence that is the real issue though that is a bass is for agnosticism in the least. It is the plethora of evidence that runs contrary to the claims of Christianity.  That is there is substantial evidence against it. So the apologist must confront that evidence or be on the par of having an Elvis experience of Jesus.

Where did I get the notion that Jesus is the "Ultimate Evidence?" It's been said by prominent apologists. Such as William Lane Craig. They say that there is evidence for Jesus, but they don't really matter since you need a personal relationship with Jesus, which trumps the rest of the evidence.

I think my use of G.K Chesterton's "Having faith is believing the unbelievable" is inaccurate. I think that's exactly what they think Faith is, but my objection is that's not what they're doing. They're searching for reason. They're actually doing the very thing that they condemn. Lee Strobel's Case for Faith says that if we had all the facts of Jesus, we wouldn't have faith, we would have knowledge (which is apparently bad). So they think that faith is important and trumps all evidence. And my thought is, if true faith is believing despite the evidence (and that that is apparently good) then why waste your time defending the Gospel? Who cares what everyone else says? It shouldn't matter.

 

Our job on this Earth, is to take care of each other. Something that we have ultimately failed at doing, hence why we are so miserable.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Apologizing for any

Apologizing for any inconsistencies and unplausible "facts" via more inconsistencies and unplausible "facts" = apologetics.

It's adding stink to shit if you ask me.

edit: they realize "faith" alone is no longer strong enough in this growing technological world making for the "god of the gaps", maybe they will apologize for that as well.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Weston Bortner wrote:TGBaker

Weston Bortner wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
SO you are visiting from Debunking Christianity. In the Greek PISTIS so translated faith belief has an idea of trust. Trust is warranted by reasons.  ?  A proof of god entails the question of his existence not his trustworthiness.  The idea of faith of believing the unbelievable is recent Protestant mumbo jumbo such a G.K. Chesterton's abuse of the scriptural meaning for a post Enlightenment retreat into subjectivism.  Where did you get the idea that a relationship with Jesus is the "ultimate evidence".  My belief in UFO's proves that Elvis rose from the dead and explains his sightings.  It is not lack of evidence that is the real issue though that is a bass is for agnosticism in the least. It is the plethora of evidence that runs contrary to the claims of Christianity.  That is there is substantial evidence against it. So the apologist must confront that evidence or be on the par of having an Elvis experience of Jesus.

Where did I get the notion that Jesus is the "Ultimate Evidence?" It's been said by prominent apologists. Such as William Lane Craig. They say that there is evidence for Jesus, but they don't really matter since you need a personal relationship with Jesus, which trumps the rest of the evidence.

I think my use of G.K Chesterton's "Having faith is believing the unbelievable" is inaccurate. I think that's exactly what they think Faith is, but my objection is that's not what they're doing. They're searching for reason. They're actually doing the very thing that they condemn. Lee Strobel's Case for Faith says that if we had all the facts of Jesus, we wouldn't have faith, we would have knowledge (which is apparently bad). So they think that faith is important and trumps all evidence. And my thought is, if true faith is believing despite the evidence (and that that is apparently good) then why waste your time defending the Gospel? Who cares what everyone else says? It shouldn't matter.

 

I got you on the "ultimate evidence."  Craig and several others (Plantinga) are formulating an argument that personal expereince of the type ( Rrealizing jesus is lord ) is a logical and rational evidence. It is the ultimate in subjectivism.  I have a philosopher friend who wrote a paper about faith without belief.    No evidence and you practice faith despite you don't rationally believe it which in turn is a rationally defended act!!! Good to see you here and Debunking. I have started a new blog if you you wanna get some traffic flowing there too.  I consider this place my home though.

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Weston Bortner
atheist
Weston Bortner's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2011-06-12
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: I have a

TGBaker wrote:
I have a philosopher friend who wrote a paper about faith without belief.  No evidence and you practice faith despite you don't rationally believe it which in turn is a rationally defended act!!!

I'm sorry, but did you type that correctly? Because I'm not sure I understand what you said. Maybe I'm not reading it correctly...

Edit: Ok, hold on, I think I got it. You're saying that believing despite there being no evidence for it is a rationally defended act.

Also, thank you. It's good to see you on here too.

Our job on this Earth, is to take care of each other. Something that we have ultimately failed at doing, hence why we are so miserable.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Weston Bortner wrote:TGBaker

Weston Bortner wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
I have a philosopher friend who wrote a paper about faith without belief.  No evidence and you practice faith despite you don't rationally believe it which in turn is a rationally defended act!!!

I'm sorry, but did you type that correctly? Because I'm not sure I understand what you said. Maybe I'm not reading it correctly...

Edit: Ok, hold on, I think I got it. You're saying that believing despite there being no evidence for it is a rationally defended act.

Also, thank you. It's good to see you on here too.

I quess the distinction between faith and belief is wherein the belief would be rational about propositional  truth while faith would be the practice of trust without the belief that supposrts it. To trust in the "faith" (religion) without any belief. 

http://faculty.brenau.edu/jsennett/research/acceptance.htm

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism