Christian apologetics

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Philosophical apologetics)
(Philosophical apologetics)
Line 27: Line 27:
 
*The [[Argument from design]] claims that the universe exhibits [[Intelligent design]] and that design requires a designer, [[God]]. This argument is criticized for its highly subjective and arbitrary claims of "design" and is thought of as the current form of [[God of the gaps]]. This is by far the most popular argument because [[Pseudoscience|it almost sounds like science]].
 
*The [[Argument from design]] claims that the universe exhibits [[Intelligent design]] and that design requires a designer, [[God]]. This argument is criticized for its highly subjective and arbitrary claims of "design" and is thought of as the current form of [[God of the gaps]]. This is by far the most popular argument because [[Pseudoscience|it almost sounds like science]].
 
*The [[Thomistic cosmological argument|Cosmological argument]] or argument from [[First cause]] claims that everything that exists has a cause, and since the universe exists, it must have a cause which exists outside the universe itself - meaning the Christian God. The question of why God does not need a cause inevitably leads to [[special pleading]], often by restating the argument in terms of things that begin to exist and defining their God to be eternal. These arguments are flawed because they conflate the appearance of matter in a certain form - which we know from experience to have a physical explanation - with the existence of matter itself, which we have no reason to believe is conditioned on any prior cause or dependent on any prior form.  
 
*The [[Thomistic cosmological argument|Cosmological argument]] or argument from [[First cause]] claims that everything that exists has a cause, and since the universe exists, it must have a cause which exists outside the universe itself - meaning the Christian God. The question of why God does not need a cause inevitably leads to [[special pleading]], often by restating the argument in terms of things that begin to exist and defining their God to be eternal. These arguments are flawed because they conflate the appearance of matter in a certain form - which we know from experience to have a physical explanation - with the existence of matter itself, which we have no reason to believe is conditioned on any prior cause or dependent on any prior form.  
*The [[Ontological argument]] defines God as the single most perfect being that could ever be thought of, and then argues that existence is part of perfection, so that God must exist or the definition would contradict itself. It [[begging the question|begs the question]] by assuming that man cannot imagine a being greater than one exists. The idea that the nature of the universe depends on the construction of human language is illogical and a [[non sequitor]].
+
*The [[Ontological argument]] defines God as the single most perfect being that could ever be thought of, and then argues that existence is part of perfection, so that God must exist or the definition would contradict itself. It [[begging the question|begs the question]] by assuming that man cannot imagine a being greater than one exists. The idea that the nature of the universe depends on the construction of human language is illogical and a [[non sequitur]].
 
*The [[Argument from morality]] attributes all moral rules and all intrinsic good to God. This is largely disproven by ethical systems that do not invoke the supernatural, like [[secular humanism]] and [[Confucianism]]. Ultimately, it is a [[false dilemma]]: morality must either be fixed by God and trascend human experience, or it is nothing more than a matter of preference.
 
*The [[Argument from morality]] attributes all moral rules and all intrinsic good to God. This is largely disproven by ethical systems that do not invoke the supernatural, like [[secular humanism]] and [[Confucianism]]. Ultimately, it is a [[false dilemma]]: morality must either be fixed by God and trascend human experience, or it is nothing more than a matter of preference.
 
*The [[Presuppositionalism|Transcendental argument for God]], probably the weakest of all, holds that logic, induction, and morality could only be justifiable in a world ruled by the Christian God. This argument gets used to shift the burden of proof by saying that anyone who uses logical reasoning has presupposed the existence of God.   
 
*The [[Presuppositionalism|Transcendental argument for God]], probably the weakest of all, holds that logic, induction, and morality could only be justifiable in a world ruled by the Christian God. This argument gets used to shift the burden of proof by saying that anyone who uses logical reasoning has presupposed the existence of God.   

Revision as of 20:03, 3 April 2012

Christ died so we could write articles on

Christianity

link=:category:
Christianity
Random examples
Resources

Apologetics derives from the Greek ἀπολογία, "apology" or "speaking in defense," an ancient Greek legal term that refers to the defendant's response in opposition to charges. The term was first used in the Christian context by the Apostle Paul in several epistles to refer to his defense of the Gospels. It is in this regard that Christian apologetics developed as a group of related ideologically defensive theological, philosophical, scientific, etc., disciplines concerned with attempting to defend and/or advance Christian truth claims using reason and/or evidence. One who practices apologetics is called an apologist.

Apologists concerned with defending the provenance of books of the Bible are called biblical apologists. Apologists concerned with proving the existence of a god are called philosophical apologists. Christian apologists might also be concerned with proving or defending the veracity prophetic or miracle claims. Apologetics focused on various areas of concern are discussed below.

Contents

Framing the debate: burdens and methodology

Regardless of the specific area of concern of the apologist, there are are two overarching approaches to the debate: negative and positive apologetics.

The names of these approach do not refer to their tone. Negative apologetics is aimed at negating or refuting a claim or criticism of an opponent while positive apologetics is aimed at offering positive justification for Christian belief. These defenses are most often based in evidentialist and presuppositionalist epistemologies.

There is a debate within the Christian apologetic community regarding the function and utility of the various apologetic methods. Some apologists like William Lane Craig, who never saw a Christian truth claim he didn't like, accept the ability of positive apologetics to adequately substantiate affirmative truth claims. Others believe the most apologetics can achieve is overcoming objections to Christian truth claims, rather than proving affirmatively proving the claims themselves.[1]

Negative apologetics

Purely defensive apologetics, or negative apologetics, "is concerned with responding to direct attacks upon the truth or rationality of Christian faith, trying to show that such criticisms are unjustified. This apologetic method is commonly associated with Reformed Epistemology. The objective is to show that the believer is justified or is not in violation of any rationality norms or is within his or her 'epistemic rights' in accepting Christian beliefs."[2] Negative apologetics may attempt to refute arguments perceived as contrary to Christian faith by showing them to be internally inconsistent or by showing them to be irrational according to Christian presumptions.[3] As negative apologetics is framed in terms of permission to maintain a belief despite objections, it makes no attempt to justify the belief as warranted. Thus, where negative apologetics is the sole apologetics presented, as is common among young earth creationists, the apologist implicitly makes an argument for the existence of a god or some other religious proposition that remains unvalidated.

Branches

Christian apologetics can be further divided into a number of substantially overlapping ad hoc categories by their primary focus, whether it is arguing for the existence of god, special creation, or the compatibility of science and Christian faith.

A few categories core to RationalWiki's Mission Statement are discussed below.

Philosophical apologetics

Philosophical apologetics is primarily concerned with arguments for the existence of God, including:

  • The Argument from design claims that the universe exhibits Intelligent design and that design requires a designer, God. This argument is criticized for its highly subjective and arbitrary claims of "design" and is thought of as the current form of God of the gaps. This is by far the most popular argument because it almost sounds like science.
  • The Cosmological argument or argument from First cause claims that everything that exists has a cause, and since the universe exists, it must have a cause which exists outside the universe itself - meaning the Christian God. The question of why God does not need a cause inevitably leads to special pleading, often by restating the argument in terms of things that begin to exist and defining their God to be eternal. These arguments are flawed because they conflate the appearance of matter in a certain form - which we know from experience to have a physical explanation - with the existence of matter itself, which we have no reason to believe is conditioned on any prior cause or dependent on any prior form.
  • The Ontological argument defines God as the single most perfect being that could ever be thought of, and then argues that existence is part of perfection, so that God must exist or the definition would contradict itself. It begs the question by assuming that man cannot imagine a being greater than one exists. The idea that the nature of the universe depends on the construction of human language is illogical and a non sequitur.
  • The Argument from morality attributes all moral rules and all intrinsic good to God. This is largely disproven by ethical systems that do not invoke the supernatural, like secular humanism and Confucianism. Ultimately, it is a false dilemma: morality must either be fixed by God and trascend human experience, or it is nothing more than a matter of preference.
  • The Transcendental argument for God, probably the weakest of all, holds that logic, induction, and morality could only be justifiable in a world ruled by the Christian God. This argument gets used to shift the burden of proof by saying that anyone who uses logical reasoning has presupposed the existence of God.
  • The Argument from beauty is that beauty is a metaphysical property that can only be attributed to a supernatural entity, such as God. The argument from love is similar, but replaces beauty with love. Both are non sequiturs.
  • Pascal's Wager is the argument from adverse consequences: disbelief in God could result in burning in the Lake of Fire forever. (Argumentum ad baculum)

Presuppositional apologetics

See the main article on this topic: presuppositionalism

Young earth creationist apologetics

Contemporary young Earth creationists, including outfits like Creation Ministries International, which along with anti-gay hate group the Traditional Values Coalition is responsible for the Question Evolution campaign, employ an extreme method of negative apologetics in defense of their religion of biblical literalism. YEC apologists presume the truth of dispute ultimate conclusions and then rigidly hold their challengers to the fatuous burden of proving their theories to the exclusion of all others, not just that they are more plausible than not and accurately describes the physical reality. As CMI puts it, "A Christian should point out that we should not budge unless he can show conclusively that his view is the only possible one."[4] This follows the advice of Calvinist minister and antebellum racist Robert Lewis Dabney:

We consider that the theologian, who asserts the infallibility of the Bible, and the independency and sufficiency of its own laws and interpretation, is entitled to the preliminary presumption; and therefore the burden of proof rests upon the geologist, who asserts a hostile hypothesis. ... The defender of the Bible need only stand on the defensive. That is, the geologist may not content himself with saying that his hypothesis (which is opposed to Bible teaching) is plausible, that it cannot be scientifically refuted, that it may adequately satisfy the requirements of all the physical phenomena to be accounted for. All this is naught, as a successful assault on us. We are not bound to retreat until he has constructed an absolutely exclusive demonstration of his hypothesis; until he has shown, by strict scientific proofs, not only that his hypothesis may be the true one, but that it alone can be the true one; that it is impossible that any other can exclude it. And we, in order to retain our position, are not at all bound to construct any physical argument to demonstrate geologically that Moses' statement of the case is the true one; for, if the Bible is true, what it teaches on this subject is proved by the biblical evidences, in the absence of all geologic proof.[5]

Thus, the YEC apologist engages dishonest question begging by merely asserting but not proving his conclusions while both hypocritically holding his opponent to the impossible task of proving a negative yet rejecting any conclusion contrary to "biblical evidences."

Anti-science biblical literalists Answers in Genesis, curators of the Creation "Museum", also adopt [6] this approach.

Historical and modern apologists

Early Christian apologists include Justin Martyr, Origen, Irenaeus, Augustine of Hippo. Their surviving work provides insight into the theological milieu of the early Christian church. Medieval theologians St. Anselm and Thomas of Aquinas are credited with several ontological arguments for the existence of God that influenced renaissance and modern theologians. Thomas of Aquinas' late 13th Century Summa Theologica is an extensive compilation of teachings of the Catholic Church that provides apologetic justifications for many points of Christian faith. Well known modern apologists include Cornelius Van Til, C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, and Gordon Clark, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, Hugh Ross, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, and Ken Ham. Oh and Jack Chick.

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. See, e.g., William Lane Craig, et al., Five views on apologetics, p. 321, Zondervan, 2000
  2. Harold A. Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism: the challenge to Christian faith and mission, p. 260, InterVarsity press, 2001
  3. Alvin Plantinga and James F. Sennett, The analytic theist: an Alvin Plantinga Reader, Ch. 13., Wm. B. Eerdmands, 1998
  4. http://creation.com/presuppositionalism-vs-evidentialism-and-is-the-human-genome-simple
  5. http://books.google.com/books?id=_m7UAAAAMAAJ&lpg=PA256&ots=RFT7QWqECR&pg=PA256#v=onepage&q&f=false
  6. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/chronology.asp
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support