Ship of Fools: to what extent is apologetics useful

Thread: to what extent is apologetics useful Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026396

Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :

Someone on this very chatroom has an avatar called "It is better to be kind than to be right."

Because is it useful for Christians and Atheists to try to convert one another by persuading and logic. Is apologetics not very arrogant to suggest what we know is correct and that we might not be wrong about something and learn from others. Is it not better to have a good character and not be obnoxious and be loving and caring towards people and tread all humans as having dignity even if they believe things that are difficult to understand or even dangerous.

Also istm that apologetics is a bit bad for reconciliation. It encourages "othering" and treating those who disagree as some sort of nebulous enemy. Or is it one of those things that is just good for some people and not others.

[ 13. October 2013, 19:49: Message edited by: scuffleball ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

I would distinguish between two concepts of apologetics.
One is reasoned debate that seeks to listen to what the other person says and is open to being persuaded in return should the other person have a good argument. The other is the equivalent of standing on street corners shouting. The first is good. The second isn't.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by scuffleball:
Is apologetics not very arrogant to suggest what we know is correct and that we might not be wrong about something and learn from others.

How will we know if we are wrong about something? Wouldn't it come from others presenting a strong case for what they believe? Shouldn't others also consider that they might be wrong? Wouldn't that come from us presenting the best arguments in favor of our position?

quote:
originally posted by scuffleball:
Is it not better to have a good character and not be obnoxious and be loving and caring towards people and tread all humans as having dignity even if they believe things that are difficult to understand or even dangerous.

You mean should we be nice at all costs.

No

quote:
originally posted by scuffleball:
Also istm that apologetics is a bit bad for reconciliation. It encourages "othering" and treating those who disagree as some sort of nebulous enemy.

Language by its very nature encourages "othering."

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

I can't see why some people have a down on apologetics.

What's supposed to be wrong about trying to persuade other of what one believes to be true?

If one acts like an arsehole in doing so, that's the problem, not the apologetics.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

It's not arrogant to hold opinions. We naturally think our opinions are right (otherwise we wouldn't hold them), and we want others to agree with our pov, therefore try to persuade them.

If we treat those who disagree as enemies, we'll have a lot of enemies! I'm not too keen on the views of people who think it's OK to rape or murder. They're entitled to their opinions, but it's right to stand against them, and locking them up is kind to their potential victims. It's a tall order to love them as myself rather than to see them as enemies, but I do my best.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I think we've got a definition problem. Properly speaking, apologetics is a defense, not an attack on x, y, or z (even if those happen to be opposed to Christaianity. Maybe you mean polemics?

But apologetics proper is quite useful when done correctly, as it clears out the undergrowth of misunderstanding* and allows a saner, more fruitful discussion to follow.

* as in, What? You mean Catholics really are Christians after all / Christians don't worship Mary as part of the Trinity / it's possible to be a Democrat/Republican/soldier/policeman/bellydancer and a Christian at the same time? And other newbie questions that provoke eye rolling among the knowledgeable but form a real stumblingblock to the not-yet-believers.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

As the user of the signature "It is better to be kind than right" I thought I should perhaps enter the fray on this one.....

To begin with, I think we need definitions of what we mean by "apologetics" and what we mean by "useful". As Lamb Chopped said, I've always thought of apologetics as an explanation, giving the reason for our faith as encouraged by Peter in his letter rather than a line of attack.
As for useful, if we mean as an aid to sharing our faith then it surely has a place....a friend of mine worked in West Africa for many years digging wells and he built a really good relationship with a local Iman. They met regularly to discuss matters of faith. One day the Iman said to him "We will continue to meet until you persuade me that Jesus is God or I persuade you that the only God is Allah". Neither of them actually ever moved from their faith position but they built a friendship, found points of agreement and became a source pf promoting peace and unity within the community.

For me, I know what I believe and will willingly talk about it when people ask me. But when people have very opposite opinions or beliefs be they religious, social, political etc I will always try to be kind in how I express myself rather than standing my ground aggressively because I believe I am right. It seems to be a good way to be and has resulted in some quite remarkable conversations and some quite unusual friendships.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Public apologists also speak to the gallery. In fact often I think they primarily speak to their supporters in the gallery rather than anyone else.

I used to think this was a pointless exercise in affirmation of a priori prejudice, but I have come to see in myself a psychological effect of witnessing meetings where views contrary to those I hold are given prominence, and then a different reaction when the apologia are given. I might be very familiar with the material produced, but it does seem to have a psychological effect hearing it in context with the arguments against, and hearing what the speakers then make of the arguments.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
For me, I know what I believe and will willingly talk about it when people ask me. But when people have very opposite opinions or beliefs be they religious, social, political etc I will always try to be kind in how I express myself rather than standing my ground aggressively because I believe I am right.

To me that doesn't sound like a dichotomy between rightness and kindness - it sounds more like both/and.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
To me that doesn't sound like a dichotomy between rightness and kindness - it sounds more like both/and.

Yes, sometimes it is both/ and. Sometimes though, it is about a deliberate choice to be kind in a situation even though I believe I am right, maybe even going back on a course of action in the name of kindness only to find a greater good comes out of that choice later on.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

In the realm of apologetics the only actions are talking. I guess one could hold one's tongue in private conversation to avoid giving offence (I'm sure we all do this to greater or lessor extents) and another course of action might be to choose a polite rather than blunt manner of speaking.

In the real world outside the world of apologetics I could see how one might help a friend to prepare their application for a job that one thought they weren't best suited for - choosing kindness of helping over insisting on one's view. Again I would not see that as an actual conflict. I could express my view kindly, then nevertheless go on and help them without that challenging my integrity or "rightness".

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

Is this where 'dialogue' comes in? Dialogue should mean that different parties listen to the views of others and seek to understand in mutual respect and goodwill (hopefully). There may be occasion for apologetics (defending one's position) but polemics are not helpful.

I guess there may be a problem if one or other party sees dialogue as a 'foot-in' for apologetics...i.e. I'm only interested in dialogue so that I can try to convince you I'm right. Perhaps the true test of dialogue if whether the different parties are prepared to change hteir views as a result?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

On the other hand I may be very unlikely to change my views, but nevertheless interested in why someone else thinks other than me. I may have a non-confrontational dialogue because I am interested in what they say and why they say it, but not necessarily open to changing my mind.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Like others, I do not think the role of apologetics is to convert. I think it has a limited role which is essentially to defend the possibility of Christianity being intellectually credible. In the end belief or not is just that - belief. In some things, at least, people choose what to believe in. They usually choose not to believe in things they think of as being inherently irrational or illogical. The role of Christian apologetics is to show that Christianity is not inherently irrational or illogical.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

Here's what I think apologetics should be: it should be any well-meaning attempt to present yourself attractively to the outside world, done because you consider yourself the recipient of a wonderful gift that it would be selfish not to share and because you genuinely love the rest of the world and want all to share in the gift you have, without merit, been given. It should recognize that there may be gifts waiting for you in the world that you have not yet received. It should be something whose opposite is escapism.

That is a good thing.

However, what the term seems to have been co-opted for is attempts at narrowly rationalistic proofs that the speaker is right that all seem to carry presupposition that anyone who disagrees is a bit dim really.

That is a bad thing.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0