Are You Wary of Apologetics?
June 8, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall
A Christian friend emailed me recently with a challenge to Christianity that was troubling her. I gladly answered her question (I think everyone ought to confront their doubts head-on!), and she thanked me and responded:
“I think I thought I could avoid apologetics, and just tuck away these types of questions that creep into my mind and assume that someone out there has an answer for them. Yes, I am still someone who cringes when I hear some apologists speak, because I think that somehow the 'love the Lord your God with all your mind' is crowding out the heart and soul parts.”
This is a very common objection to apologetics–the fear that apologetics will somehow stifle your love for God, but I think it reflects a misunderstanding of people and God's gifts in general.
I know a lot of apologists. I have one apologist friend who demanded I debate his reasons against my not liking Star Wars: Attack of the Clones, and I know other ones like Gary Habermas who move me to tears with their emotional words about God. What I've discovered is that this all has to do with innate personality. People are worried that if they study apologetics they'll end up like [fill in the blank], when in reality, it just isn't going to change your personality. Instead, the information will be filtered through your own personality and used for everyone's benefit in your unique way.
In the case of apologetics, you see a lot of one type of personality (logical, reasoning, persuasive) because those are the gifts that make a person good at apologetics. In other words, it's not the using of apologetics that makes a person have an emphasis on logic and analysis, it's the person who already has an emphasis on logic and analysis who is good at apologetics.
Because of their special gifts and the corresponding personality traits, apologists generally have to be more deliberate about developing and communicating the “heart” part of loving God (if by “heart” you mean artistic, emotional, right-brained approaches). But, trust me, they're passionate about God; they just express it in a different way–the way God created them to express it for the good of all.
Different hearts are drawn to different aspects of God's character. I know that my heart rejoices when it meditates on apologetics, and I'm often moved to worship as I'm studying. To those who have a very different gift–perhaps of mercy–this might sound unbelievable. They know only the joy of their own gift and think deep down that their service, since they're blessed so incredibly through it, must be the true way of communing with God.
In the same way, I think apologists often forget that not everyone “feels God's pleasure” just by talking about apologetics, so they don't think to mention the fulfillment and closeness to God it brings for them. They just assume everyone is experiencing it! But those who are not experiencing it don't realize it's present at all and leave thinking no heart is involved.
We make the mistake sometimes of thinking everyone will be as fulfilled by our specific gifts as we are, forgetting that we're created for different purposes. I see so much of people trying to get others to join them in their particular “most important” gift, but what we really need is to realize that all the gifts are valid and to rejoice in the diversity that makes up the whole, healthy Body, understanding that each person is most blessed by fulfilling his own gifts. Let's appreciate each other, men and women, and smile and thank God whenever we're bemused by someone enjoying God in ways we can't understand, in areas in which we don't have the least bit of interest. Thank God there's someone to take care of each kind of thing–and find joy in it! You need not fear that benefiting from another's gift will cause you to enjoy your own less.
So make use of your local apologists–God has raised them up to help you just as He raised you up in your gifts to help them.
Related posts:
- Apologetics: Not Just For Theists
- Emergent Apologetics?
- How Then Should We Do Apologetics?
- Valuing Apologetics in a Postmodern World
- Debating Emergent Apologetics
- Do We Need Apologetics?
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Main Page
content rss
June 8th, 2006 at 8:53 am
I recently met a girl who said she had taken some classes in apologetics. I started asking her questions about it, and she eventually said she doesn't see any use in apologetics because they don't pursuade anybody.
Granted she was exaggerating, but I think for the most part she's right. Most people don't change their mind about things because of well-reasoned arguments. If they change their minds at all, it's usually emotional or pragmatic reasons, but usually people will stick to their guns regardless of what kind of arguments they're confronted with.
I didn't know what to say this girl, because for the most part what she said was true. But I told her the reason I place a lot of importance on apologetics is because there's only one reason anybody should be a Christian–that's if Christianity is true. If it's true, they should be, and if it's not true, they shouldn't. And we have nothing but our cognative faculties to distinguish between true and false. Since the truth of Christianity matters, and since reason is the only way we can discover truth, apologetics seems essential for anybody who is concerned about whether they should be a Christian or not.
I supposed I could've rattled off a list of people who were all affected by reason or apologetics, but it wouldn't have disproved her point. She was stating a generalization, and generalizations are never disproved by a handful of counter-examples.
What would you have said to her, Amy?
I think you make a good point about the tendency we all have to place so much importance in our own gift that we expect everybody else to place just as much importance on it.
June 8th, 2006 at 11:12 am
It would be helpful if you defined what you mean by apologetics, because the standard understanding that non-Christians such as myself hold appears to be missing in your entry. You appear to infer that an apologist is simply someone good at logic and analysis, and uses these skills to persuade. But apologetics is about defending something, like Christian doctrine. For those of us experienced with apologists, their work is obfuscatory, designed to buttress faith in a pseudo-rational way. Whereas the rationally-minded individual arrives at a tentative conclusion through argument and logic, the apologist already knows the conclusion, and his task is to fashion argument in support of it. As you can probably discern, the apologist is not held in very high regard outside the theology or belief he defends, and his work is regarded warily.
June 8th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Sam, my short answer would have two parts, and you've hit on one of them here.
First, if we as Christians are not convinced that what we believe is true, our spiritual lives and impact will be hurt. If there are nagging questions about whether we can fully place our faith in Jesus, we'll hold back. But if there are solid answers to those questions that affirm the truthfulness of Christianity, we'll be free to worship God fully with our whole being–the emotional and intellectual parts of us as one. Those who think carefully about these things–who are doing the historical research and philosophy work that we don't have the time or capability to do–can provide these answers for us.
Secondly, your friend said “she doesn't see any use in apologetics because they don't persuade anybody.” Does living out the Christian life persuade anybody? Does being kind to people persuade anybody? For that matter, does telling people the Gospel persuade anybody? Absolutely not. Ultimately, God persuades people (no one comes to Him unless He draws him). Does that mean we shouldn't engage in any of the above? I think you would agree that the answer is no. Why? Because we do what God has called us to do. We proclaim the truth, we live the life of the kingdom, we represent God and His Gospel to the world. Then God, when He chooses, will use our acts of faithfulness to persuade people. For some He uses apologetics, and for others He might use a sense of community. Where God works depends on His own purposes, the gifts of the person He's using, and the needs of the people He's reaching. We never know when God will lift the veil of understanding, so we just remain faithful in living out the work God has given us.
(Unfortunately for apologists, their part in the process of God moving in a person's life is often at the beginning, so they rarely get to see the fruit unless the person comes back later to tell them. I have been with Greg Koukl (STR) at times when former wiccans or atheists or whatevers will come up to him and say that his work started them on the road that led to their becoming a Christian. If he weren't someone easily found, how would he ever have known?)
Most people to whom Paul preached did not become Christians. Did that mean that his preaching was useless because he only had some counter-examples? No. Paul was faithful to speak the truth, and God used Paul's words to persuade certain people as He chose. And, as it is 99% of the time, God did not persuade people in a vacuum; He worked through the proclamation of truth in the words of a man. What if Paul had given up his words as useless and non-persuasive?
Part of this goes back to the subject of gifts, as well. It sounds like that girl did not have a special gift in apologetics. Then is it surprising that she hasn't seen God work through her in that way? I think she's making the mistake I mentioned that we tend to think our life with God is representative of everyone's life with God (or at least, the best life with God that everyone ought to share). Unfortunately, there are a lot of people with loud voices in the Christian world right now discouraging people from apologetics (because it's not something they relate to), and people are believing it to the point where I actually heard a woman say that she came to Christ through apologetics, but now she knows that apologetics “don't work.” Now she won't share with others what was so helpful to her. I think that's only going to hurt the Body as a whole.
June 8th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Anonymous, good to see you here.
For those of us experienced with apologists, their work is obfuscatory, designed to buttress faith in a pseudo-rational way.
I suppose everyone has to evaluate each argument on the strength of that argument's own merit as to whether or not it's pseudo-rational. Respected former atheist scholar Antony Flew did not find the arguments for intelligent design pseudo-rational, and he is quite experienced with apologists. So I guess we'll just disagree on this one.
Whereas the rationally-minded individual arrives at a tentative conclusion through argument and logic, the apologist already knows the conclusion, and his task is to fashion argument in support of it.
This is not entirely true in this sense: the vast majority of professional apologists did not begin their lives as Christians. They reached their conclusion through argument and logic, and now they're doing further work along the same lines. It's not entirely fair in this sense: scientists themselves work in the way you've described. They develop a tentative theory based on initial observations, and then, already knowing the conclusion they're proving, they fashion their argument supporting it (if they can) through experiments and research. They may or may not find that their original hypothesis is ultimately supported, but beginning with an ending in mind does not invalidate the actual reasons of support that they discover along the way. The reasons must be evaluated on their own merit.
As you can probably discern, the apologist is not held in very high regard outside the theology or belief he defends, and his work is regarded warily.
Do you hold the same wariness toward those scientists who begin with a conclusion of naturalism and look for reasons to support it? They have quite a lot at stake as well, and are biased against any evidence that may point to a God. (Just take a look at Icons of Evolution to see how certain experiments/observations were faked or falsely reported to support their view and have now been widely debunked (not just by Christians)). I think it's important to keep in mind that nobody's neutral here and then do the best you can to keep an open mind when you're evaluating all the evidence for both sides. But if having a point of view invalidates a person's work, then there's no work left for us to examine.
June 8th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Hello, thank you for your response. My name is Robert (I failed to enter that into the fields when I posted).
Perhaps I missed it, but it still remains unclear to me what you mean by apologetics. Do you agree with the standard understanding as I stated it?
I’m glad you mentioned intelligent design, because it supports the main thrust of my argument. Despite a few non-Christian supporters of the theory, its adherents are overwhelmingly Christian fundamentalists, who make little effort to hide their belief that the “intelligent designer” is God. But why God? Why not gods? Or a race of very smart aliens? Or a Flying Spaghetti Monster? The reason is apologetics – ID creators started from a conclusion–that God created the Earth and all living things–and then proceeded to craft arguments in support of it.
I cannot evaluate your assertion that the vast majority of professional apologists did not begin their lives as Christians, but any support you can provide would make for some interesting reading. But your assertion that scientists work in the apologetics way reveals a misunderstanding of science and the scientific process. It is not true that, “[scientists] develop a tentative theory based on initial observations, and then, already knowing the conclusion they’re proving, they fashion their argument supporting it (if they can) through experiments and research.” First of all, scientists don’t “prove” anything, much less conclusions; they create theories and then try to support or debunk them. Second, even if they did, how could they possibly know the conclusion before they proved it?
You ask, “Do you hold the same wariness toward those scientists who begin with a conclusion of naturalism and look for reasons to support it?” Your question is flawed, for the reason above, namely, that is supposes scientists hold conclusions, which they do not; they hold theories. The reason “naturalism” is so broadly accepted within the scientific community is because of the huge preponderance of evidence that favors it, and in so many scientific fields. Let me ask you, why are Christians so biased against any evidence that may point to Allah (or Kali, or the Flying Spagetti Monster) as their creator?
Your last statement, “But if having a point of view invalidates a person’s work, then there’s no work left for us to examine” doesn’t make much sense to me. Would you mind clarifying?
June 9th, 2006 at 11:03 am
Robert wrote: “The reason is apologetics – ID creators started from a conclusion–that God created the Earth and all living things–and then proceeded to craft arguments in support of it.”
Some, but not all, proponents of ID probably did start with certain “guesses” about what they were looking for in advance, but this is logically irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of intelligent design claims. You are committing the genetic fallacy. The personal motivations of the proponents of an argument have no relevance on the argument’s truth or falsehood. The origin and motivation behind my belief in the law of gravity might be due to my personal commitment to voodoo, but this does not undermine any statements I make about gravity.
In fact, this is the way science typically works. Scientists intuit a good hypothesis in a relatively subjective manner (with some preliminary observations involved), and then they seek to test and support their best guesses.
“The reason ‘naturalism’ is so broadly accepted within the scientific community is because of the huge preponderance of evidence that favors it”
First, naturalism is a philosophical contention, not a scientific theory. I know of no one who thinks that science offers any evidence in support of the philosophical notion that the natural world is all there is.
Second, I don’t know many philosophers who think that there is strong affirmative evidence for naturalism, as you do. The only argument I’ve ever heard for naturalism is this: it is asserted that there is no better alternative. A. That is not “a preponderance of evidence,” that is a best guess. B. Theists have strong counters to this position. For example, the cosmological argument is a powerful counterweight to naturalism.
“[apologetics] is obfuscatory, designed to buttress faith in a pseudo-rational way.”
This is your opinion. It follows, if and only if all apologetic arguments fail—which is a premise you would have to first prove. You don’t get to skip that premise, sorry.
Many of us feel that materialism is obfuscatory, designed to buttress anti-religious belief in a pseudo-rational way. For example, the assertion that the natural world is all there is is highly contentious. How on earth anyone ever arrives at such a spurious non-sequitur is beyond me.
June 9th, 2006 at 11:47 am
I want to push Robert's contention a bit further, since I believe that defining Apologetics is important. While Robert is right that Apologetics is 'a defense of X', this in no way spoils the enterprise. Persons of any disicipline (politics, art, science, etc.) could all be said to give a 'reasoned defense' of why they hold their conclusions to be true. In my opinion, this is what Christian Apologists aim to do. Now it would be good to distinguish between different kinds of Apologetic methods. The presuppositionalist says, 'I just take X to be true' and then goes about defending it. It seems to me that Robert objects to this kind of method. On the other hand, the Evidentialist will say 'After looking at the evidence both physical and rational, I have good reason to take X to be true'. This latter method seems to fair better since it takes a similar approach that science does.
That said, I am concerned with Robert's comment that ID proponents are 'Fundamentalist Christians'. This is simply false, Robert. Having been raised in a Fundy background that I left nearly a decade ago, I tell you this is a media mishap; that is the media has simply called names here to make ID look like something it is not. Fundy Christians can be characterized by many things, but a few are (1) a disgust and distaste for anything 'scientific'; (2) a wooden literal reading of Genesis 1; and (3) little regard for philosophy or intellectual rigor–they would rather just quote verses at you. NOw I tell you, the ID movement is none of the above. In fact, it was begun by scientists with Phd's who just simply followed the empirical evidence where it led them; evidence which led away from Darwinian Evolution and menthodological naturalism. Whether or not a couple of these guys hold some religious belief is irrelevant to the truth of ID. You must critique on its own account and not be dismissive.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Thanks for the discussion, Robert!
Perhaps I missed it, but it still remains unclear to me what you mean by apologetics. Do you agree with the standard understanding as I stated it?
If a worldview is true (naturalism, Christianity, or whatever worldview), then the world ought to reflect this truth. If that's the case, then one should see evidence in philosophy, history, science, etc. If one finds the evidence compelling and takes on this worldview, then one's work will be directed by what one expects to find based on the truth about the world. If the worldview is in fact true, then having the correct view of the world should lead one to look for and discover true facts previously unnoticed (because others who did not hold a true view of the world did not even think to look for them). Everyone else has to evaluate the specific facts being offered to find out if they hold up to the standard of truth. If enough of the evidence turns out to be true, those evaluating it could be convinced to take on the whole system of ideas being offered by the one who originally discovered and/or organized the available facts.
That is how everyone who is looking for truth operates–no matter what the worldview. A Christian apologist who is convinced by the evidence that Christianity is true collects the facts that have convinced him. He addresses the arguments that oppose what he has found to be true. His arguments may or may not fail in your opinion, but he cares about truth (and what he has found to be true), so he constantly holds up his ideas for scrutiny and compares those ideas to the best arguments of the opposition. He then leaves it to the listener (or reader) to come to his own conclusion about who has the best arguments.
If you merely respond that Christians are just wrong, therefore the whole enterprise is suspect, then you're begging the question. You have to wrestle with and refute the evidence offered first before you can determine whether or not they're wrong.
But why God? Why not gods? Or a race of very smart aliens? Or a Flying Spaghetti Monster? The reason is apologetics – ID creators started from a conclusion–that God created the Earth and all living things–and then proceeded to craft arguments in support of it.
I think you’re misunderstanding the end goal of ID. ID doesn’t make any claims about who the designer is. It may be that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world for all you can tell from ID work. Scientists have to leave it to philosophers, historians, and theologians to discuss the evidence from their fields of study (the moral nature of the universe, events in history, etc.) to determine the identity of the designer in question. And they do. They don’t claim anything beyond the evidence available to them in their field. It’s because ID does not address the issue of the identity of the designer that there’s no problem with including Jewish people, agnostics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc among their ranks. What they do agree on is that the empirical evidence such as information in the DNA and irreducible complexity cannot be explained by the mechanism of random selection, but instead meets the criteria we use everyday to determine whether something happened by chance or was brought about by an intelligent agent. Those are completely valid questions, totally within the field of science.
Are many ID people Christians? Yes. But that says nothing to disprove the evidence they’ve presented. In fact, simply dismissing the evidence based on who’s presenting it is not only a logical fallacy, it’s just irrational prejudice.
But your assertion that scientists work in the apologetics way reveals a misunderstanding of science and the scientific process. It is not true that, “[scientists] develop a tentative theory based on initial observations, and then, already knowing the conclusion they’re proving, they fashion their argument supporting it (if they can) through experiments and research.” First of all, scientists don’t “prove” anything, much less conclusions; they create theories and then try to support or debunk them. Second, even if they did, how could they possibly know the conclusion before they proved it?
I gave support in my previous comment for my claim that naturalism is a conclusion scientists are assuming and then trying to prove (i.e., Icons of Evolution). Or are you saying naturalism is only a theory in science? It doesn’t sound that way from your next paragraph. You say that all the evidence points to naturalism, but that’s only the case if you throw out all the ID evidence simply because it doesn’t point to naturalism. Do you see how that’s “knowing the conclusion before they proved it”? Do you think most naturalistic scientists are really open to proof that naturalism is wrong?
The reason “naturalism” is so broadly accepted within the scientific community is because of the huge preponderance of evidence that favors it, and in so many scientific fields.
But that is the very question at play. People are introducing evidence that goes against it. But instead of naturalistic scientists addressing the evidence, they’re assuming their conclusion (naturalism) and dismissing other evidence automatically simply because those who hold it have been convinced of a different view based on evidence. It’s easy to say all the evidence supports naturalism if you won’t allow any evidence into the discussion that supports a designer.
The idea that there is a huge preponderance of evidence favoring naturalism is false. This is a fairly new idea in the world of science, as philosophers and scientists throughout history have recognized that order does not come from disorder and that something does not come from nothing. There’s a reason science arose in the Christian West. Only a creator (rather than chance) can create an orderly universe, and only an orderly universe can be studied. Science itself arose out of a Christian worldview. (You can read The Soul of Science to understand the history of the philosophy of science.)
Let me ask you, why are Christians so biased against any evidence that may point to Allah (or Kali, or the Flying Spagetti Monster) as their creator?
Christian apologists squarely address the arguments others propose for Allah, the FSM, and everything else–they don’t just dismiss them. Do they think the arguments fail? Yes. But they give reasons for why they fail rather than just make a biased, dismissive statement that they’re wrong just because. Can you see the difference? We can evaluate the reasons against the arguments for ourselves–they may be good or bad. Their having a point of view that the other people’s arguments fail does not automatically invalidate any reason they offer to back up their claim. We must evaluate the reasons themselves. Can you see again how we need to evaluate the reasons rather than merely the point of view of those promoting the reasons?
Your last statement, “But if having a point of view invalidates a person’s work, then there’s no work left for us to examine” doesn’t make much sense to me. Would you mind clarifying?
Absolutely. Naturalistic scientists believe in naturalism–that’s their point of view. They look for things to support this point of view. For example, all evidence we currently have in astronomy points to a beginning of the universe. Many scientists were upset by this because such a universe would need a free agent to cause something to exist, and that agent would have to be supernatural (since there was no nature when nothing existed). So, beginning with a naturalistic conclusion, scientists are proposing all sorts of theories now to explain how the universe didn’t really have a beginning. These theories do not have the evidence that the beginning of the universe has, and yet the scientists pursue them, looking for evidence to support them. They have an idea of what the universe is like, and then they look for evidence to support that idea, trying to defend their worldview from the opposing scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe.
That is no different from what you’re accusing Christians of (having a worldview and then looking for evidence that supports it). In both cases, people began with available evidence that convinced them of their worldview (in your case, you’re convinced by naturalism, in the case of Christian scientists, they have been convinced of theism). Then, their theories are developed based on their understanding of the truth about the world. For example, a scientist who believes in a designer thinks, “If that’s true, then I should see evidence of systems in human bodies–or even cells–that could not have been added piece by piece because they only work as a whole.” Then they proceed to do experiments and observation to see if this is the case. If it is, then it supports their theory.
Likewise, naturalistic scientists believe the world was not begun by something outside of nature. They say, “If that’s true, then it’s likely the universe did not have a beginning, and I should be able to find another explanation.” They then propose another theory and do experiments and observations to see if the evidence supports it. So far, though the preponderance of evidence supports a beginning, scientists continue to propose different theories (because of their worldview).
But in both cases, though each side has a point of view, that doesn’t give us the right to dismiss the evidence they present. Their points of view do not invalidate their work. The question we must ask is, what is the evidence for their point of view? Is it more reasonable than the other side’s evidence? But neither side is neutral. Both are part of an overall philosophy of what is true about the world. Therefore, if we dismiss all work that comes from people with a point of view–an overall philosophy–we would have to dismiss all work, and that’s just silly. We ought to instead examine the merit of the evidence presented by each side.
June 9th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Very clear. Thanks, Goose!
June 9th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Greetings again all, thank you for taking the time to further illuminate my understanding of your position.
I was beginning to despair that we’d actually discuss the main thrust of my first post–how do you understand apologetics?—but thankfully Chad has taken up the torch. Before I address his comments, let me respond to “Goose,” mostly because some of what I have to say is relevant to Chad’s post.
“Goose” claims I commit a genetic fallacy. Not at all. I’m not skeptical or dismissive of ID arguments because they’re made by Christians; I’m skeptical because there are severe problems with the arguments. I merely state my belief that ID theory appears to be a species of Christian apologetics. As support, I noted that most ID proponents barely hide their identification of God as the “intelligent designer,” which, in an apparent amazing coincidence, just happens to be the same God they personally believe in. But as I’ve repeatedly asked, why should the intelligent designer be God? No supporter of ID appears to be able to answer this question. That God is the default answer, despite the lack of any evidence, shows to me that ID is about apologetics: the conclusion (that God created the universe and all living things within it) is already known, and arguments (ID theories) are being fashioned to support it. In deciding against the teaching of ID in Pennsylvania schools, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones concluded that its advocates “have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors.”
I appreciate “Goose’s” discussion of naturalism. Perhaps Amy could benefit from it too. In reference to the cosmological argument, it remains unclear to me why the cause of the universe’s existence has to be God. Perhaps you can clarify.
It follows, if and only if all apologetic arguments fail—which is a premise you would have to first prove. You don’t get to skip that premise, sorry.
I’m not sure how my (admitted) opinion must necessarily follow a premise. It simply follows from my observation and readings of apologetic arguments. Here is an interesting exercise to illustrate. I’m sure you believe that Mormons are in error in their beliefs. Is such a belief predicated on having shown that all Mormon apologetic arguments fail? And to extend the apologetics discussion somewhat, why would Mormon apologetics be wrong, while Christian apologetics be right?
For example, the assertion that the natural world is all there is is highly contentious. How on earth anyone ever arrives at such a spurious non-sequitur is beyond me.
This is a straw-man. Who can definitively say the natural world is all there is?
Now to Chad’s comments.
I think his summation of apologetics is a very useable one, a means of defense. It appeared to me that Amy saw it as a means to persuade. One of the bases for my belief that Christian apologetics tend to “conclude first, support later” is their assertion of certain axioms, like “God exists” or “Jesus died for my sins,” that cannot be rationally known as certain.
…ID proponents are ‘Fundamentalist Christians’. This is simply false…
I did not quite say ID proponents are fundamentalist Christians, just that they are overwhelmingly so. You must admit that ID appears to have the greatest appeal to “fundy” Christians; it is where they are prevalent that the most strenuous efforts are made to include it in the school curriculum.
A point of curiosity: as an ID proponent and Christian, do you accept the account of the creation of the world as described in Genesis? Why, or why not?
June 9th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
I suppose what gets me is that we know evolution happened in some form (we can see stars in their various dying and growing stages), yet most Christians equate that with debunking the Bible and Genesis 1. Putting 'naturalism' and 'super-naturalism' aside for a moment, what evolution allows in the sciences is a neutral secular model by which solid exploratory research can be done, and that's a good thing. When you have a non-religious paradigm as a working model in the classroom you can also get Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, and Athiests to work together on research without anyone getting bent out of shape. (“My God is bigger than your God!”) On top of that, all truth is God's truth, and it's sad so many Christians are told evolution is not compatible with Christianity. Gresham Machen, former president of the Presbyterian denomination and framer of the “5 Fundamentals” of Fundamentalism was himself a believer in evolution. He understood that all truth is God's truth, not something to run from or be scared of.
On top of that I don't see anyplace in the Bible where “apologist” is listed as a spiritual gift. Apostle, prophet, teacher, but no office of apologist. (“Mercy” is probably far more important than winning arguments I would think.) So there's really no biblical basis for a person to just sit around answering questions nobody is asking, and that's what I see many apologists doing.
So the problem I see with the conservative apologist of today is this: in wanting to defend the faith he tries too hard to be intellectual and ends up stifling intellectualism (evolution for example, and one could ask why not apply biblical literalism to the heliocentric model of the universe as well.). Second, in wanting to prove the factuality of Christianity he ends up “protecting” people from being confronted with some of the hard realities out there thay God may be wanting to use in order to stretch people's faith.
In these ways the apologist of today is a far cry from the apologists of the early church era, and actually he works against his own cause.
Go ahead and tear this apart, but when you go to bed at night pray about it some more.
June 9th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Amy, I enjoyed reading your post and I agree with your basic premise that some, because of their personalities, abilities, and gifts, are better suited for being apologists.
Robert, I agree that apologetics is the defense of something and Christian apologetics is the defense of the Christian faith. But, as others have noted, the defense of something does not imply that the arguments cannot be reasonable and logical.
I found it amusing that you cited Judge Jones’s statement that the advocates of ID “have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors.” I’m an attorney and I write for the courts—not the one you quoted. It’s great to see language in judicial opinions get used by others outside the legal community (granted, I’m sure this particular quote made it into the newspapers—as it did the LA Daily Journal). But it should be noted that it’s nothing more that a statement of the court’s opinion—without citation to evidence or authority. It stands or falls on its own merits. Sometimes the person speaking makes the statement more worthy of weight. But, here, that’s not the case. Although called upon to make these sorts of decisions, the court certainly is no expert as to whether (1) a person or group holds bona fide and deeply held beliefs and, more importantly, (2) whether their scholarly endeavors are motivated by such beliefs.
After skimming through the comments, here’s a few of my thoughts:
(1) Everyone begins with a certain predisposition. No one is neutral, no one is capable of purely objective thought. A Christian apologist defends his own faith. A scientist defends his own theories. Science has an aura of greater objectivity. But, as others have noted, underlying one’s scientific theories are assumptions based on a certain worldview—one that is inconsistent with Christianity. A scientist with a Christian worldview may consider the same evidence and arrive at different conclusions.
In my work, I’m constantly reading briefs from parties that are so convinced by their own arguments that they have lost the ability to see objectively. It’s actually quite amusing. In certain cases, after reading the briefs, it seems that the parties are talking about two completely different things. They refuse to see things from the other’s perspective.
That’s how Christians and non-Christians often sound. They don’t realize that both sides may have some merit. And that both sides may be presenting reasonable arguments.
(2) I don’t think that the work of an apologist is to prove the truth of Christianity to an absolute or logical certainty. Proving something to a logical certainty is impossible, unless we’re talking about tautological statements or the like.
We can, however, provide persuasive arguments that our beliefs are reasonable. To the atheist, we can present strong arguments for the existence of God. To those of other faiths, we can compare Christianity to their religion and demonstrate that our beliefs provide more coherent and comprehensive explanations for the big questions in life. To everyone, we can speak of impending judgment and the need to be reconciled to God.
We may not be able to prove truth to a logical certainty, but we can persuade people that Christianity is the best alternative.
(3) Although I have not studied ID extensively, my initial impression is that ID is not science in the traditional sense. ID is grounded on a particular religion. While science also relies on a worldview, science traditionally has been taught without embracing a particular religion. That said, I still think there’s a strong argument for teaching creation with evolution. Both are theories—neither can be proven true or false to an absolute certainty. Evolution is based on a worldview that, for the most part, is inconsistent with the Christian worldview. In certain schools, the Christian students equal or outnumber the non-Christian students. If I were a parent of one of these students, I would want my child to be exposed to teaching that is consistent with my faith. So, on grounds of equal protection and a parent’s fundamental right to determine a child’s upbringing and education, I think school districts should be able to teach ID in accordance with the wishes of the parents who live in those districts. It seems inherently wrong to force upon children scientific conclusions that are inconsistent with their faith. (Disclaimer: I mentioned that I write for the court, but the opinions expressed here are my own and should not be taken for that of the court.)
(4) While the Bible does not use the term “gift of apologetics,” certainly the Bible is not against people giving a defense for the Christian faith. We are told to “contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3), to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15), and to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5).
I think the work of an apologist is to tear down barriers that prevent people from being open to the gospel. The gospel itself is what saves. Faith is by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rm. 10:17).
I think of myself as an apologist, but I usually study an issue to answer a question that has been presented to me. I don’t “sit around answering questions that no one is asking.” At the same time, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with anticipating questions and preparing in advance. Those of us who are apologists maybe are confronted with questions more than most (God has a funny way of doing this). One of my atheist coworkers recently started attending our work bible studies. During each study, he has a new set of questions—and we’ve at this point covered almost everything—creation and evolution, free will and predestination, judgment and hell, inspiration, canonicity….this week, the authorship of the gospel of John.
What I’m constantly reminded of, however, is that it is not about winning the argument. Better to lose an argument if it means that I might win a soul. He who wins souls is wise (Prov. 11:30). It’s easy to over-intellectualize and lose sight of the goal. And, as a couple of people noted, most people are persuaded not by our arguments, but by encountering God—by seeing Christ in us.
The athiest attorney at work seems most persuaded when I simply admit that I don’t have all the answers. He has an incredible mind (meticulous and rational, to the point of fault)–he refuses to accept anything by faith. But my earnest hope is for his salvation.
June 10th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
The original apologists were those men who responded to people outside the church who insisted on calling themselves “Christian.” In doing so, they hammered out cardinal Christian doctrine which we all adhere to today. Those were the real apologists of the Christian church.
Although there are still false Christians who insist on calling themselves Christian, today's “apologists” have simply comandeered the name. Granted, they defend the truth well, which is to be commended, and there is certainly a biblical mandate to do this, as you have pointed out. But there is no church “office” known as apologist.
Why not? Possibly because Christians are called to be “witnesses.” (A term you are more than familiar with as a lawyer.) And a witness simply gives testimony: This is what happened to me, this is what I know, etc.
No place in the Bible are we told to take up the full-time occupation of defense attorney for God. You made the great point that sometimes saying you don't know the answers is the best thing to do. It would be refreshing to see more “apologists” with that sort of attitude.
June 12th, 2006 at 11:09 am
Amy, I believe I have a better understanding of your position. A few follow-ups if I may.
You first stated,
Ultimately, God persuades people (no one comes to Him unless He draws him).
Then stated,
A Christian apologist who is convinced by the evidence that Christianity is true collects the facts that have convinced him.
Are you saying some people become Christians due to the evidence, and some others due to God’s persuasion?
If people become Christians due to God’s persuasion, then what need for evidence?
This discussion is interesting to me because it seems to indicate that there is an evidentiary path to Christianity. It’s a unique angle I’ve rarely encountered, but admittedly remain deeply skeptical of. It’s my belief that religion is ultimately about faith, not reason. When I encounter argument for Christianity from reason, I’ve found the results to be, to put it mildly, unconvincing. For example, at one of the blog’s on your blogroll, there is a post entitled Having A Reasonable Faith, in which the author asserts some very dubious premises, such as everyone’s innate belief that “that there is a God, that he has set the world up the way it is (morally, etc.), and that he has a claim to rule over them.”
You say that all the evidence points to naturalism, but that’s only the case if you throw out all the ID evidence simply because it doesn’t point to naturalism. Do you see how that’s “knowing the conclusion before they proved it”? Do you think most naturalistic scientists are really open to proof that naturalism is wrong?
Actually, my exact words were “huge preponderance of evidence,” not “all the evidence.” In any case, I think we need to clarify what we mean by “naturalism”. Your colleague Goose above pointed out that naturalism is a philosophy, not a scientific theory. This is true. (For a good discussion, see here.)
If by “naturalism” we actually mean “evolution theory”, yes I very much believe that scientists would be open to proof that it is wrong. Imagine the accolades and awards to any scientist that can offer a better theory that accounts for the evidence (ID doesn’t offer any evidence per se, just a different interpretation of existing evidence). You seem to be arguing that scientists are somehow beholden to naturalism, but how do you explain theistic scientists who nonetheless support evolution?
I’d love to debate ID theory, particularly as it relates to Christianity, but fear this is going beyond the original topic. Perhaps you can start up a separate topic? You might elaborate on what evidence there is for a designer (not designers?). As far as I’m aware, ID theory does not provide any evidence for a designer, but instead argues that since we don’t have plausible explanations for certain natural systems, some sort of designer must have been involved. In other words, a designer is deduced, not evidenced.
June 12th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
The original apologists were those men who responded to people outside the church who insisted on calling themselves “Christian.” In doing so, they hammered out cardinal Christian doctrine which we all adhere to today. Those were the real apologists of the Christian church.
This supposes an agreement on basic canon that I believe was largely absent in early Christian history. In fact, there was a tremendous variety of belief with respect to fundamental doctrine which would probably exist up to today had not the Roman Emperor Constantine commanded the contending bishops to come up with a consistent doctrine at the First Council of Nicaea in 325. This was to some degree done, but nonetheless, many teachings largely continued in a divergent fashion.
In my opinion, the original apologists of the Christian church were the wealthy bishops of Rome who enjoyed official state favor and could therefore enforce their version of Christian canon. The slaughter of “heretics” such as the Gnostics was one means of enforcement…
Even today there is no uniform doctrine upon which all Christians agree, much less actually practice. And it seems to me that doctrine within Christianity is becoming more divergent, not convergent. This raises a question in my mind, are we witnessing the reversion of Christianity back to its original form?
You made the great point that sometimes saying you don’t know the answers is the best thing to do. It would be refreshing to see more “apologists” with that sort of attitude.
As a non-Christian, I would agree. But it all goes back to a fundamental tension between faith and reason. As creatures with an intellect who guide the vast majority of their lives from reason, it is only natural to practice it in every sphere, or at least try to. But then what room for faith, which has typically enjoyed such a heavy emphasis in religion?
June 12th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Robert, thanks–this is thoughtful. I'm moving the discussion to the bottom of the page, so look there for my answer.
June 12th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Are you saying some people become Christians due to the evidence, and some others due to God’s persuasion? If people become Christians due to God’s persuasion, then what need for evidence?
I think if you take a look at my answer to Sam, I explained my view on this. I don’t think people are going to choose God on their own, ultimately. People want to be their own God, and they don’t want to submit to another one, so they’ll do whatever they have to to avoid it. That’s just the nature of a humanity in rebellion against God. However, God usually doesn’t just appear to people and pluck them out of thin air. He uses people as His means. We’re called to explain the truth in the best way we can–God is allowing us to take part in the process–and then He enables them to respond or not. (Also, I should point out that not all Christians think this is the case.) The job of apologists is to explain Christianity in a way that will make sense to others–to commend the truthfulness of Christianity in a way others can understand.
This discussion is interesting to me because it seems to indicate that there is an evidentiary path to Christianity. It’s a unique angle I’ve rarely encountered, but admittedly remain deeply skeptical of. It’s my belief that religion is ultimately about faith, not reason. When I encounter argument for Christianity from reason, I’ve found the results to be, to put it mildly, unconvincing.
Well, obviously you’ve found them unconvincing!
Christianity is about trust (faith) in something for which we’ve been given reasons to trust. For example, when you get on a plane, you have evidence that it’s going to stay up in the air (at least, you could have it if you researched how a plane can fly). You also have the evidence of planes in the past–when they go up in the air, they usually make it to their destinations. But when you step onto the plane, at that point you’re exercising faith. You’re able to trust (have faith) because planes have shown themselves to be trustworthy.
In the same way, Christianity involves both faith and reason. We have good reasons to believe God exists and Christianity is true (historical, philosophical, even scientific!, and the record of God’s past working in our own lives), so we’re able to place our trust in God. Some people (depending on their personalities) need more evidence than others in order to place their trust in God. I’m a very skeptical person by nature, so I had to do a lot of digging before I was intellectually convinced and could place my full trust in God.
There is only one truth that encompasses all of reality, and we’re saying that part of that one truth of reality is in the realm of religion. In other words, there are propositions (if one can find them) that express the truth about what actually exists in terms of spiritual matters (if there’s a God, what He’s like, what is good, etc.). There is only one way that the spiritual realm actually is because it’s part of the one reality. Therefore, you can reason about religion just as you can about any other subject when you’re trying to find what is true.
If you’re really curious, I would suggest reading the book Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig. It covers evidence in a variety of subjects, including mathematics. As I mentioned before, if Christianity is true as a philosophy–if it is the basis for reality–then all reality ought to reflect this.
If by “naturalism” we actually mean “evolution theory”, yes I very much believe that scientists would be open to proof that it is wrong.
No, I actually meant naturalism as a philosophy driving much of evolutionary theory (macro, not micro). Scientists aren’t open to having their philosophy proven wrong, and this leads to problems I’ll mention in a moment (in the links). It cuts out a whole host of possible answers only because of their own prejudice for their philosophy. But what if the evidence points away from naturalism? They need to ask themselves if they’re more interested in truth or in defending their philosophy at all cost. They need to at least be open to hearing the evidence and having it debated.
Imagine the accolades and awards to any scientist that can offer a better theory that accounts for the evidence
I can only imagine the accolades for someone who offers a better naturalistic theory. Theistic theories will never be considered better because they have already been ruled out as possible answers because of their existing philosophy.
You seem to be arguing that scientists are somehow beholden to naturalism, but how do you explain theistic scientists who nonetheless support evolution?
If they’re theistic–and if they believe God actually exists and isn’t just an idea that makes them feel better, then they don’t believe the world popped into being by chance, but that a being brought it into being.
You might elaborate on what evidence there is for a designer (not designers?).
As I mentioned, ID people aren’t concerned with defining the designer, since that goes beyond the scope of science. I think one would have to look to philosophy and/or other areas for that kind of evidence.
As far as I’m aware, ID theory does not provide any evidence for a designer, but instead argues that since we don’t have plausible explanations for certain natural systems, some sort of designer must have been involved. In other words, a designer is deduced, not evidenced.
A designer is deduced from the evidence, just as natural selection is deduced from the evidence. Here’s part of the evidence in a tiny nutshell: the information in DNA was not determined by physical laws, it is not random, it contains specific information. We know by observing the world that meaningful information only comes from an intelligent agent. Therefore, it’s reasonable to conclude this is also the case with DNA. It would be unscientific to say that, despite all the previous observations of reality, only the case of DNA is different (even though there’s no reason to suspect it is different…except the reason of their previously held philosophy).
I’d love to debate ID theory, particularly as it relates to Christianity, but fear this is going beyond the original topic. Perhaps you can start up a separate topic?
I might start one up soon, so stick around! In the meantime, take a look at these things I posted before that will explain more:
The reason why specified complexity points to a designer
The confusion of science with the philosophy of naturalism: Part One and Part Two
The dogmatism of scientists defending their philosophy of naturalism
Ruling out God as a possible answer could be ruling out the true answer so that no satisfying answer is ever found (there’s an illustration here that could be helpful to you)
Incidentally, how did you find this blog?
June 12th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Robert, your statements about the canon aren't quite true, but I'm going to leave that for now since there are about a billion DaVinci Code books that address this that you can look to.
But I do want to respond to this:
As a non-Christian, I would agree. But it all goes back to a fundamental tension between faith and reason. As creatures with an intellect who guide the vast majority of their lives from reason, it is only natural to practice it in every sphere, or at least try to.
Amen, amen, and amen!! We ought to practice reason in every sphere of our lives–including religion. Yes! I hope you'll resolve this “tension” by correctly understanding faith as trusting in something for which you do have reason, and which you do believe is actually true–true in the same sense that there are actually true things in any other sphere. (See my longer answer to you below where I explain the relationship between faith and reason.)
This integrating of faith and reason to one true understanding of reality as a whole is the subject of Nancy Pearcey's book, Total Truth.
June 14th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
Wow, it seems like tangents are in order, but I would still like to keep on trac with my original engagement with Robert on ID and Fundy Christians. Sorry it took me awhile to respond. . .I've been sick.
First, you have yet to define what a Fundy Christian is. I gave you at least 3 critieria to draw a key distinction between what I consider to be Fundy Christians and evangelicals or conservative protestants. The reason this distinction is important is that the media by pulling the “all ID theorists are Fundy's” have done a hasty generaliztion, appealed to the emotions of the audience, and hence sloppily ruled out ID as creationism.
Second, regardless of what type of person holds to ID or even if they think God is the intelligent mind behind the natural world has nothing to do with the data and theorizing about it. It's precisely because ID theorists started with empircal data that they wound up concluding that methodological naturalism is insufficient to ground the complexity of certain biological organisms. It's important to note here that a key dif. between ID and Fundy Creationism is that ID starts in the lab and moves to conclusion. Creationism starts with Gen. 1 and just bites the bullet. Finally, whether or not I take the Gen. 1 account to be compelling in terms of a creator God is irrelevant to the discussion. The question is “Can Darwinism or Naturalism account for those physical systems which have the appearance of design?” ID theorists say 'NO' unless a scientist reads their materialist worldview into the picture. That's where the debate ensues. . NOT Genesis 1.
April 2nd, 2010 at 8:20 pm
[...] they’re defending their particular worldviews? In an interesting discussion that ensued in the comments for my recent post on apologists, a reader made this [...]