homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Apologetics

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.    
Source: (consider it) Thread: Apologetics
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494

 - Posted      Profile for Gareth   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
First, I'm going to admit - I'm past my prime.

It's fifteen-twenty years since I was seriously active on forums like this. I've spent the last decade dealing with a massive real life responsibility that has prevented me from indulging myself with fun like SOF.

But it is hugely disappointing to see that an issue from the 1990s remains an issue now: apologetics is a lost art.

Too many people jump into online debates with their opinions, and defend them by attacking opponents.

Where is the art of the apologetic? Where is the careful deconstruction of challenge? Where is the use of reference, rhetoric, logic and persuasion to defend a position?

After twenty years most people online still seem to use the same tactic: I'll attack arguments I don't accept - then I don't have to defend my position.

--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke

Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198

 - Posted      Profile for StevHep   Author's homepage   Email StevHep   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Possibly apologetics takes place more in the realm of blogs than in that of fora. That's mostly what I encounter in blogs anyway.

--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter

Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
Possibly apologetics takes place more in the realm of blogs than in that of fora. That's mostly what I encounter in blogs anyway.

I agree. Apologetics would be extremely awkward in a multi-party conversation-like place such as a forum.
SOF is much more akin to an informal debate. One makes a point and counters or affirmations will be issued.
In essence, the motive is the same, the form adapted to the situation. Not sure what the problem is.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Schroedinger's cat

Ship's cool cat
# 64

 - Posted      Profile for Schroedinger's cat   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I would agree. I try to engage in reasoned and thought out discussion on my blog. On forum, or social media, is a far more complex interaction process, where basic responses and exploration of points raised is more appropriate.

My response question is, why should we need apologetics? There are very few occasions where a clearly worked out and argued exploration is the right answer, rather than an engagement with a question raised, or an issue mentioned.

Maybe the real answer is that engagement, not argument, is the way to do things?

--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.

Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494

 - Posted      Profile for Gareth   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Maybe the real answer is that engagement, not argument, is the way to do things?

I completely agree.

I'm not just referring to discussions here on the Ship.

A discussion on a newspaper site is typical of the problem: the winner of the debate is not the one who defends his own territory, but the one who lays waste to his opponent's.

That, as far as I am concenred, is a very poor excuse for a discussion.

--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke

Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, professional politicians have found it works better, haven't they? Why wouldn't the amateurs follow suit?

We reward the professionals for going and attacking the other guy instead of explaining their own policies.

EDIT: I suspect one of the reasons it's so successful is simply that destruction is easier than construction. The effort to build an argument is much greater than the effort to knock out one step of the argument and thus invalidate the whole argument. Or claim to have done so.

[ 26. May 2014, 22:16: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894

 - Posted      Profile for Ariston   Author's homepage   Email Ariston   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IMHO, this is a very good topic for good, civil, rational discussion—completely unlike the kind you'd find in a newspaper comments section (why DO I read those), about three quarters of the Internet, and here in Hell. I think it's time to turn on the A/C a bit and take things to Purgatory.

*whip-POW!*

—Ariston, Hellhost

--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.

Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

EDIT: I suspect one of the reasons it's so successful is simply that destruction is easier than construction. The effort to build an argument is much greater than the effort to knock out one step of the argument and thus invalidate the whole argument. Or claim to have done so.

Yes, but they are not always seperate things. Part of one's own argument is the destruction of the opponent's. It is just not always the only component.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494

 - Posted      Profile for Gareth   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

EDIT: I suspect one of the reasons it's so successful is simply that destruction is easier than construction. The effort to build an argument is much greater than the effort to knock out one step of the argument and thus invalidate the whole argument. Or claim to have done so.

Yes, but they are not always seperate things. Part of one's own argument is the destruction of the opponent's. It is just not always the only component.
A proper argument should include a "prosecution" as well as an apologetic - basically you cannot win an argument without denying your opponent's suppositions.

But without the apologetic, what remains is sophistry - an illusion of truth which is hiding a vacuum. (Kind of like one of Tony Blair's speeches...)

What is disappointing is the sheer quantity of people who seem to fall for it.

--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke

Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
First, I'm going to admit - I'm past my prime.

It's fifteen-twenty years since I was seriously active on forums like this. I've spent the last decade dealing with a massive real life responsibility that has prevented me from indulging myself with fun like SOF.

But it is hugely disappointing to see that an issue from the 1990s remains an issue now: apologetics is a lost art.

Too many people jump into online debates with their opinions, and defend them by attacking opponents.

Where is the art of the apologetic? Where is the careful deconstruction of challenge? Where is the use of reference, rhetoric, logic and persuasion to defend a position?

After twenty years most people online still seem to use the same tactic: I'll attack arguments I don't accept - then I don't have to defend my position.

I agree apologetics is something of a lost art. Contemporary media is about attack and appeal to emotion.

Perhaps its a reflection on the superficiality of our society. Perhaps we're more emotional and less logical because it's easier and less formal to engage in debate rather than true dialectic.

I'm appalled at the superficiality of most of the Christianity vs Atheism debates for example.

Something is better than nothing however and the Ship has been instrumental in engaging me in further research in true apologetics.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870

 - Posted      Profile for Sipech   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm appalled at the superficiality of most of the Christianity vs Atheism debates for example.

Ditto. I used to try to engage in a lot of these, but no one could agree on the playing field of debate. The atheists insisted, "[first, prove to me the existence of God. Until then, I will not listen to you]" whereas when I pointed out that the creeds & confessions aren't all that helpful in often citing a thing first up and that christianity is not primarily about such an assertion I would be accused of weasel words.

Good apologetics must surely first establish the groundrules of debate and ensure that all sides understand the positions of one another, lest it descend into a festival of strawmen.

{edit: minor typo}

[ 27. May 2014, 11:18: Message edited by: TheAlethiophile ]

--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile

Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:


Good apologetics must surely first establish the groundrules of debate and ensure that all sides understand the positions of one another, lest it descend into a festival of strawmen.
QB]

Exactly right. And I think Gareth says it here:

quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
[QB] A proper argument should include a "prosecution" as well as an apologetic - basically you cannot win an argument without denying your opponent's suppositions.

Perhaps the decline in philosophy as a subject has rendered people oblivious to the fact that they even have suppositions?

[Edited to apologise for coding. Dunno how to fix it]

[ 27. May 2014, 11:22: Message edited by: Evensong ]

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I agree with the general thrust of Gareth's point, that much of what passes for debate and argument these days is shallow and / or ad hominem and / or emotionally manipulative.

But I have doubts about how effective apologetics is in terms of convincing people of the reality of Jesus as God's son and of his wish to bring all people into the community of the Trinity. How many people are argued into the kingdom of God?

I'd agree that God wants Christians to have an explanation for the hope within us, but I think it's more important for us to show God's love by the way we are, both individually and communally. (I realise this is a separate argument, though!)

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870

 - Posted      Profile for Sipech   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
How many people are argued into the kingdom of God?

Bullseye!

It does happen sometimes, but I'm not sure as many are convinced by the style of reasoning that Paul employed in the synagogues.

With apologetics as a form of evangelism, surely 'efficacy' has to be the watchword.

--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile

Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:


But I have doubts about how effective apologetics is in terms of convincing people of the reality of Jesus as God's son and of his wish to bring all people into the community of the Trinity. How many people are argued into the kingdom of God?

I am someone argued into the kingdom of God to an extent. For people like me apologetics matter. I have to understand.

Having said that, witness of love in Christian community is the incorporeal aspect of that.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:

It does happen sometimes, but I'm not sure as many are convinced by the style of reasoning that Paul employed in the synagogues.


Seriously?

Paul is likely the main reason Christianity spread as it did. He was a brilliant apologist. Without him we (as gentiles) probably wouldn't be here.

[code]

[ 27. May 2014, 12:16: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870

 - Posted      Profile for Sipech   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, Evensong, I mean nowadays, there seems to be less assent (or willingness to listen) to that kind of reasoning. I'm not having a dig at Paul.

--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile

Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
Sorry, Evensong, I mean nowadays, there seems to be less assent (or willingness to listen) to that kind of reasoning. I'm not having a dig at Paul.

You could be right.

But intellectualism in Christianity still matters IMHO.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
Sorry, Evensong, I mean nowadays, there seems to be less assent (or willingness to listen) to that kind of reasoning. I'm not having a dig at Paul.

You could be right.

But intellectualism in Christianity still matters IMHO.

I agree; it does still matter. But ISTM that more people are drawn into Christian communities and personal faith in Christ by the love we have for one another, not by the quality of our apologetics.

I suppose the effect of good apologetics is mainly to give Christianity a broader credibility such that those who proclaim the name of Jesus are not seen by society at large as gullible fools. Perhaps good apologetics contribute to the overall social atmosphere much more than they directly affect individuals and their decisions about becoming Christians.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357

 - Posted      Profile for roybart   Email roybart   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IngoB's posts on the Ship have aways struck me as an example of genuine apologetics -- sustained, self-conscious, consistently argued, willing to engage in debate -- in the context of a discussion forum. As some once forced to read a great deal of 17th century Puritan and 20th century Roman Catholic apologetics, I feel quite nostalgic when I read his posts. It's possible to admire well-designed apologetics without agreeing with it..

--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton

Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
Sorry, Evensong, I mean nowadays, there seems to be less assent (or willingness to listen) to that kind of reasoning. I'm not having a dig at Paul.

You could be right.

But intellectualism in Christianity still matters IMHO.

I agree; it does still matter. But ISTM that more people are drawn into Christian communities and personal faith in Christ by the love we have for one another, not by the quality of our apologetics.

I think its more complicated than that...we often suck at loving each other. But that's probably another thread. [Big Grin]

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
A proper argument should include a "prosecution" as well as an apologetic - basically you cannot win an argument without denying your opponent's suppositions.

But without the apologetic, what remains is sophistry - an illusion of truth which is hiding a vacuum. (Kind of like one of Tony Blair's speeches...)

What is disappointing is the sheer quantity of people who seem to fall for it.

I do think that form is subservient to forum, so though I am not saying you are incorrect, I am saying your premise is not always the best practice.
..............
tangent/
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

I'm appalled at the superficiality of most of the Christianity vs Atheism debates for example.


ISTM, there is a category error in what your arguments there attempt. /tangent

[ 27. May 2014, 15:20: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494

 - Posted      Profile for Gareth   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But I have doubts about how effective apologetics is in terms of convincing people of the reality of Jesus as God's son and of his wish to bring all people into the community of the Trinity. How many people are argued into the kingdom of God?

I'd have thought none.

Well, maybe Pascal. Or maybe not, if these things happen by grace alone.

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I'd agree that God wants Christians to have an explanation for the hope within us, but I think it's more important for us to show God's love by the way we are, both individually and communally. (I realise this is a separate argument, though!)

As St Francis put it, 'Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary, use words.'

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
Sorry, Evensong, I mean nowadays, there seems to be less assent (or willingness to listen) to that kind of reasoning. I'm not having a dig at Paul.

You could be right.

But intellectualism in Christianity still matters IMHO.

Nicely put, Evensong.

I still believe that since our Maker went to the trouble of giving us the power of reason, there is an implicit expectation for us to use the damn thing. If we reach the 'Day of Reckoning' and account for all we did and failed to do by saying, "I obeyed your written word without question!" I expect a spanking will be be delivered in response.

--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke

Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494

 - Posted      Profile for Gareth   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
IngoB's posts on the Ship have aways struck me as an example of genuine apologetics -- sustained, self-conscious, consistently argued, willing to engage in debate -- in the context of a discussion forum. As some once forced to read a great deal of 17th century Puritan and 20th century Roman Catholic apologetics, I feel quite nostalgic when I read his posts. It's possible to admire well-designed apologetics without agreeing with it..

This is quite a tribute - I shall seek out IngoB's posts and have a good read.

I completely agree with your final point. When you can admire the work of your adversary in a debate, the entire experience becomes a real pleasure.

That's why it is so bitterly disappointing to read Richard Dawkins, and so delightful to read Jim Al-Khalili.

--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke

Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I gave up on apologetics long ago. I'm not sure it's always beneficial, well, not for me anyway. In fact I'd say it was spiritually detrimental for me.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
balaam

Making an ass of myself
# 4543

 - Posted      Profile for balaam   Author's homepage   Email balaam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is not a tangent, I will get to a point.

A couple of years ago I spent a long time looking at the book of Colossians. An interesting letter in that it deals with a heresy in the early Church. What that heresy was is hard to find out, because St Paul does not tell us what it was.

Paul is writing a letter to a church dealing with false teaching, but there's something missing from the letter — what the false teaching is is absent. Paul does not bother to tell them what it is.

Now you could tell me that the people in the church in Collossae (sp?) knew what the false teaching was. But that still does not explain why Paul never mentions it.

Still with me?

You see in this letter Paul does not waste time on the negative, saying at length why he disagreed with someone would have detracted from his point. That the antidote to bad teaching is not having a go at the bad teachers, the antidote to bad teaching is good teaching.

So what has this to do with apologetics?

The internet does not seem to be the best place for apologetics because the internet is geared more to the flame war than it is to being a place of good teaching and friendly discussion.

Look at Christian internet Fora, even this one, though it is nor as bad as some, Liberal has a go at conservative, and when they've taken a breather they both take a swing at the traditionalists before putting the boot in to the Pentecostalists and Charismatics. Eventually the Quaker breaks her silence to bad mouth them all.

It should not be like this.

Not that I'm not critical. I can be very critical, especially of Evangelicalism and Anglicanism, but guess what; I'm an Evangelical Anglican. And I love both Anglicanism and Evangelicalism. I really love them, I am not trying to destroy anything.

So if you are from another tradition and want to criticise mine I have this to say. You are wasting your time. I already know this, and more, because this is where I spend my time and I don't go around with my eyes shut.

I don't need your criticism of my tradition, I'm critical enough of my tradition as it is. All your criticism does put my back up.

But I do want to know about you. How you worship, how you feel, what your tradition makes you feel, how you encounter God. Even if you think your tradition has got something wrong and you need to rant about it, or if it has got something right and you cannot contain your joy. All this I love to hear.

But there's too much backstabbing going on for there to be any apologetics on the internet as it is. I pray that that would change.

--------------------
Last ever sig ...

blog

Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
ISTM that more people are drawn into Christian communities and personal faith in Christ by the love we have for one another, not by the quality of our apologetics.

For me, the big value of apologetics wasn't to draw me into the faith, the initial draw was relationships and genuine friendship. But, once I was in then apologetics became vital - it was the means by which I moved from dabbling at the edge of faith to having the confidence to swim. I needed the assurance that there was intellectual credibility to what I was learning. For me, it was the difference between being planted in shallow soil, and having a depth of soil into which I could sink roots.

quote:
I suppose the effect of good apologetics is mainly to give Christianity a broader credibility such that those who proclaim the name of Jesus are not seen by society at large as gullible fools. Perhaps good apologetics contribute to the overall social atmosphere much more than they directly affect individuals and their decisions about becoming Christians.
That may be the case, but it will only work if good apologetics is actually something that the general public know exists. Producing good apologetics that defends the faith in terms that are accessible to people today is hard, to then promote those apologetics works is a major undertaking in addition to that.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

The internet does not seem to be the best place for apologetics because the internet is geared more to the flame war than it is to being a place of good teaching and friendly discussion.

But I think the internet is a good place for apologetics. Just not every part of it. Especially not discussion forums such as this.
The nature of discussion boards is just that; discussion. Discussion, at least in my experience, is neither flame war or apologetics.
Paul's teachings might be a good example of teaching, but not so much discussions.
In my estimation, there is not always a substantive difference between apologetics and discussion, regardless. The difference is often style or flavour.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I guess the thing with apologetics, classically understood, is that it, too, is only partially engaging with the other person's point of view.

The purpose of apologetics is to persuade to a certain opinion. If you allow your opponents' opinions to sway your own worldview, then from an apologetics perspective you've lost.

So if I am advancing apologetics against Richard Dawkins and he makes a Good Point, my response as an apologist will always be "That is a plausible argument: how can I refute it?" rather than "That is a useful insight: how should I incorporate it into my worldview?"

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
balaam

Making an ass of myself
# 4543

 - Posted      Profile for balaam   Author's homepage   Email balaam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
So if I am advancing apologetics against Richard Dawkins and he makes a Good Point, my response as an apologist will always be "That is a plausible argument: how can I refute it?" rather than "That is a useful insight: how should I incorporate it into my worldview?"

The rux of the Dawkins viewpoint is that religion is not rational. You could spend time refuting it or you could concentrate on showing why your faith is rational. I prefer the latter approach.

--------------------
Last ever sig ...

blog

Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
balaam

Making an ass of myself
# 4543

 - Posted      Profile for balaam   Author's homepage   Email balaam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
crux not rux. Missed the edit window.

--------------------
Last ever sig ...

blog

Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198

 - Posted      Profile for StevHep   Author's homepage   Email StevHep   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I gave up on apologetics long ago. I'm not sure it's always beneficial, well, not for me anyway. In fact I'd say it was spiritually detrimental for me.

I think apologetics in the context of a forum like this or the comments section of a newspaper could have that effect. The temptation is to score points, to make your opponent feel stupid, to win the imagined applause of the imaginary audience.

In the context of apologetic by blog, though ISTM that it is possible to avoid these pitfalls. It is necessary to construct a sustained argument which mostly relies upon its own strengths rather than the factual, theological or philosophical errors of this or that opponent.

As to whether apologetics serve much of a purpose. Well, for what its worth I usually craft my own blog posts for the person who is a spiritual seeker but who has not yet found what they seek. This is a large category and they do not necessarily show up in a debate because they are more concerned with finding answers than with providing them.

--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter

Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
ISTM that more people are drawn into Christian communities and personal faith in Christ by the love we have for one another, not by the quality of our apologetics.

For me, the big value of apologetics wasn't to draw me into the faith, the initial draw was relationships and genuine friendship. But, once I was in then apologetics became vital - it was the means by which I moved from dabbling at the edge of faith to having the confidence to swim. I needed the assurance that there was intellectual credibility to what I was learning. For me, it was the difference between being planted in shallow soil, and having a depth of soil into which I could sink roots.
Oh yes indeed. ISTM that in several areas of theology (e.g. the problem of evil) Christians tend to shy away from a deep analysis of the issues because they don't believe there to be plausible solutions. IMO this leads to a weak faith which is easily derailed when trouble comes, rather than a strong faith built on a solid foundation, which lasts through the storms and traumas of life. So I thoroughly agree with you, Alan, on the importance of apologetics and well-reasoned faith!

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
By coincidence, after I posted last night I looked up the lectionary for when I'm next preaching to start thinking about what I might say. The coincidence? The Gospel is the parable of the sower.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494

 - Posted      Profile for Gareth   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
So if I am advancing apologetics against Richard Dawkins and he makes a Good Point, my response as an apologist will always be "That is a plausible argument: how can I refute it?" rather than "That is a useful insight: how should I incorporate it into my worldview?"

That's the difference between debate and research, isn't it?

--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke

Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I would say it's a differnce in why you enter a debate/discussion. One option is to enter a discussion to convince others that your opinion is correct. Another option is enter a discussion to try and improve your understanding, both in trying to express what you believe (and, hence, better understanding it) and listening to others and incorporating their understanding into your faith.

At it's best the Ship is very good at the second, and that's certianly where we've always aimed to be - hence commandments about crusading, board guidelines that used to use phrases like "flying theological kites" and so on. Although the apologetics approach of trying to inform others is admirable, it can get very frustrating when you're entering a discussion for other reasons.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would say it's a differnce in why you enter a debate/discussion. One option is to enter a discussion to convince others that your opinion is correct. Another option is enter a discussion to try and improve your understanding, both in trying to express what you believe (and, hence, better understanding it) and listening to others and incorporating their understanding into your faith.

I'm wondering if the former option is ever the right one for Christians to have. Should there be anything about which our view is utterly settled, and impervious to any criticism or argument? I certainly don't think there should be much.

If you (general 'you') enter into a discussion purely with the 'apologetics hat' on then haven't you flat-out assumed that your interlocutors have nothing to teach you and are simply there in the discussion in order to be persuaded of the glory and complete correctness of your viewpoint? That strikes me as very patronising and not at all conducive to respectful, mature dialogue.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, absolutely. Although I must hold my hand up and confess that I don't always live up to this ideal.

[Hot and Hormonal]

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I'm wondering if the former option is ever the right one for Christians to have. Should there be anything about which our view is utterly settled, and impervious to any criticism or argument? I certainly don't think there should be much.

While I certainly agree that there shouldn't be anything that is utterly settled I still think there is value in apologetics. I could write a book or a blog defending and explaining my views, that will by virtue of being a monologue be something that says "this is what I beleive and why", it may appear as something that is settled (though, I assure you, I hold everything tentatively - although some points a lot less tentatively). There's nothing stopping me at a later date producing a revised version of the same book/blog taking into account new ideas and thoughts that have developed subsequently, or even writing something that completely contradicts it if I have radically changed my opinion.

When I went through my phase of reading apologetics books 'til they came out my ears (which was a good 15y or more) a lot of those books were contradictory, so part of the exercise for me was to sort out in my own mind what I believed - and I still hold onto some contradictory ways of describing what I believe. It wouldn't have worried me to much to read two books by the same author which expressed things differently.

Of course, such an approach of giving an extended defense of what I believe would be inappropriate for a discussion forum where hearing what others believe and questioning that is much more valuable to me.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
They're OK if you like goalless draws.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Schroedinger's cat

Ship's cool cat
# 64

 - Posted      Profile for Schroedinger's cat   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oddly enough, one of the best books I have recently read is "Unapologetic" by Francis Spufford. This is a logical, argument for his faith, tackling the topics that are raised as he meets them.

It is, I think, a far better apologetic for his version of faith than much I have read.

So yes, it accepts that there are differences of opinion. In fact, it rejects an awful lot of people saying "this is true", where it is not provable. A proper apologetic should, I think, help you to a) understand what the person is arguing for and b) enable you to accept or argue against those points, and think through the subjects. Unapologetic does both of these.

--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.

Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged


 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools