Christian apologetics

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(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 devoted to a systematic and supposedly rational defense of [[Christian]] beliefs.  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.</ref>  
+
'''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

Religion

Icon religion.svg
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

See also

Footnotes

  1. Because they damn well owe the rest of us an apology for their irrationality.
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support