Christian apologetics
(Changing definition to be more SPOV, and added a small bit about logical fallacies) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{religion}} | {{religion}} | ||
| − | '''Christian apologetics''', or simply, '''apologetics''' is the field of philosophy and theology | + | '''Christian apologetics''', or simply, '''apologetics''' is the field of philosophy and theology that attempts to reconcile [[christianity]] with empirical evidence and logic. This defense does not extend to the ''actions'' of Christians--it focuses solely on finding rational reasons to believe in the tenets of Christianity. One who practices apologetics is called an apologist.<ref>Because they damn well owe the rest of us an apology for their irrationality.</ref> |
| − | There are many different branches of apologetics, some focusing on evidence, some on ontology, but all share the purpose of removing "faith" from Faith. Due to the lack of evidence either way, this generally leads to arguments from [[Bullshit|a priori assumptions]]. Most arguments focus on the tenets of Christian faith being inherently true, but some change the nature of knowledge itself, redefine reason, and falling back on such [[Circular reasoning|circular]] ideas as [[biblical inerrancy]]. Apologists are often accused of using [[Argument from ignorance|rhetoric in place of facts]] or creating a [[God of the gaps]]. | + | There are many different branches of apologetics, some focusing on evidence, some on ontology, but all share the purpose of removing "faith" from Faith. Due to the lack of evidence either way, this generally leads to arguments from [[Bullshit|a priori assumptions]]. Most arguments focus on the tenets of Christian faith being inherently true, but some change the nature of knowledge itself, redefine reason, and falling back on such [[Circular reasoning|circular]] ideas as [[biblical inerrancy]]. Apologists are often accused of using [[Argument from ignorance|rhetoric in place of facts]] or creating a [[God of the gaps]]. Christian apologists also like to use the terminology used by their opposition [http://gregbahnsen.blogspot.com/], of particular note the [[logical fallacy]], where they claim there is one where there isn't. |
Famous modern apologists include [[C.S. Lewis]], Josh McDowell, and Gordon Clark. | Famous modern apologists include [[C.S. Lewis]], Josh McDowell, and Gordon Clark. | ||
Revision as of 08:37, 10 November 2010
| One of many articles on |
| The main players |
| Critics |
| Supporting actors |
Christian apologetics, or simply, apologetics is the field of philosophy and theology that attempts to reconcile christianity with empirical evidence and logic. This defense does not extend to the actions of Christians--it focuses solely on finding rational reasons to believe in the tenets of Christianity. One who practices apologetics is called an apologist.[1]
There are many different branches of apologetics, some focusing on evidence, some on ontology, but all share the purpose of removing "faith" from Faith. Due to the lack of evidence either way, this generally leads to arguments from a priori assumptions. Most arguments focus on the tenets of Christian faith being inherently true, but some change the nature of knowledge itself, redefine reason, and falling back on such circular ideas as biblical inerrancy. Apologists are often accused of using rhetoric in place of facts or creating a God of the gaps. Christian apologists also like to use the terminology used by their opposition [1], of particular note the logical fallacy, where they claim there is one where there isn't.
Famous modern apologists include C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, and Gordon Clark.
Common arguments
- 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 the universe must have a first cause and that the first cause must be the Christian God. The question of why God does not need a cause inevitably leads to special pleading.
- The Ontological argument claims that because "God" is the greatest being thinkable and humans can think of him, He must exist. It assumes that man cannot imagine a being greater than one that actually exists. (Begging the question)
- The Argument from morality attributes all moral rules and all intrinsic good to God. This argument is largely disproven by Secular humanism, which finds a basis for morals without a god.
- The Presuppostional argument, probably the weakest of all, is that if one presupposes God, God will somehow exist.
- 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)
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ Because they damn well owe the rest of us an apology for their irrationality.