Is Apologetics Insincere?

[ruski_canuk]

This is an important issue -- I think the position referenced above is misguided, incidentally -- but it's not the topic of the thread.

I'm particularly interested in having amantha explain why s/he regards (Mormon?) apologetics as intrinsically insincere.

I wouldn't mind, too, if amantha would explain whether s/he really regards those religious believers who are not flatly dishonest as, by definition, intellectually incapacitated.

I would have to agree that there is a level of insincerity associated with the apologetic approach if sincerity means a *pure* search for truth. Of course everyone's motivations are affected by the implications to some degree. I suppose the degree to which the implications affect your reasoning would be the best measure of whether your pursuit of truth is sincere. Is there a better definition of a sincere pursuit of truth ?

The more standard definition of sincere is really meaningless to bounce around and is totally individual-biased. There are all sorts of crazy sincere people out there. Any insane asylum can show you some people who really really believe that they are Jesus Christ, etc.

[Daniel Peterson]

I would have to agree that there is a level of insincerity associated with the apologetic approach if sincerity means a *pure* search for truth.

That's a rather idiosyncratic definition of sincerity, so far as I can see.

But I'll let that pass. Do you believe that non-apologists pursue the truth in complete purity and objectivity, without presuppositions, loyalties, or preferences? Do you believe that complete objectivity is possible? Do you believe it desirable? How would you suggest that a purely objective historian, for example, go about her work?

[ruski_canuk]

That's a rather idiosyncratic definition of sincerity, so far as I can see.

But I'll let that pass. Do you believe that non-apologists pursue the truth in complete purity and objectivity, without presuppositions, loyalties, or preferences? Do you believe that complete objectivity is possible? Do you believe it desirable? How would you suggest that a purely objective historian, for example, go about her work?

Of course everyone's motivations are affected by the implications to some degree. I suppose the degree to which the implications affect your reasoning would be the best measure of whether your pursuit of truth is sincere.

I agree that everyone is affected by the implications, I said as much. I'm working with someone right now closely who did a lot of work about a year ago on an economic-climatic model. His work was really useful and laid the groundwork for what I am now doing but I am finding some significant problems with some of the details. It is obvious that these problems will undermine some of his earlier work and I can sense / feel his anxiety when I approach those areas while in discussions.

In his case, a sincere pursuit of truth would mean not letting his reputation and ego get in the way of the findings.

You are right, everyone feels the tug of implications to some extent. However, apologetics does this by definition, rather than resulting from individual character weakness. It is obvious that the ideal solution would be for him to honestly search for the best, most truthful, result and embrace that truth regardless. We are human and I empathize and understand the causes of letting the implications in to train your reasoning but I think it is something that we should strive to avoid. It is a virtue to pursue truth blind of the implications and it is this approach that apologetics systematically violates.

[ruski_canuk]

I agree that everyone is affected by expectations, I said as much. I'm working with someone right now closely who did a lot of work about a year ago on an economic-climatic model. His work was really useful and laid the groundwork for what I am now doing but I am finding some significant problems with some of the details. It is obvious that these problems will undermine some of his earlier work and I can sense / feel his anxiety when I approach those areas while in discussions.

In his case, a sincere pursuit of truth would mean not letting his reputation and ego get in the way of the findings.

You are right, everyone feels the tug of implications to some extent. However, apologetics does this by definition, rather than resulting from individual character weakness. It is obvious that the ideal solution would be for him to honestly search for the best, most truthful, result and embrace that truth regardless. We are human and I empathize and understand the causes of letting the implications in to train your reasoning but I think it is something that we should strive to avoid. It is a virtue to pursue truth blind of the implications and it is this approach that apologetics systematically violates.

The problem with a historian is that they can be objective but fail to do so in their writings simply because of information barriers. Again, the sincerity is all about the intent and the role of implications. If the historian is trying to defend or support a particular position first and foremost (rather than let evidence mold their beliefs) then indeed they aren't being objective nor sincere. If they, however, hold strong to a particular belief under the evidence that they have uncovered and then happen across new evidence which casts doubt or diminishes the original position, the test of sincerity would be how they deal with the new evidence in terms of their presentation of history. Of course, this is all very vague without a concrete example to talk about.

[The Dude]

That's a rather idiosyncratic definition of sincerity, so far as I can see.

But I'll let that pass. Do you believe that non-apologists pursue the truth in complete purity and objectivity, without presuppositions, loyalties, or preferences? Do you believe that complete objectivity is possible? Do you believe it desirable? How would you suggest that a purely objective historian, for example, go about her work?

Are you maybe mixing up sincerity with objectivity? I tried to make the point that a 100% sincere person may not care at all about objectivity. The two qualities don't have much to do with each other, really.

Complete objectivity is impossible. Complete sincerity is possible.

[Daniel Peterson]

You are right, everyone feels the tug of implications to some extent. However, apologetics does this by definition, rather than resulting from individual character weakness.

Do you think?

Do you restrict application of the term apologetics to areas like religion? What if a person adheres to, say, monetarist economic theories, or the notion of punctuated equilibrium in evolutionary history, or Stratfordian authorship of Shakespeare's plays, or Freudian psychoanalytic therapies, or an economic interpretation of the fall of Rome, or the "minimalist" view of pre-exilic Palestinian history, or some other such academic position? Would it be intrinsically insincere to defend one's views on such matters against critics? Or does insincerity arise only in connection with defenses of religious positions?

It is a virtue to pursue truth blind of the implications and it is this approach that apologetics systematically violates.

Is this a faith position regarding all apologetics, or do you have specific data and examples to support this claim?

The problem with a historian is that they can be objective but fail to do so in their writings simply because of information barriers.

I hope it won't offend you when I say that I believe objectivity in historical writing to be both impossible and undesirable.

A historian without prejudgments, hypotheses, interests, and aesthetic preferences would be utterly incapable of even beginning to write or research. She would simply stand before a vast mountain of data, unable to decide which facts were most important and most relevant.

The classic treatment of this subject is Peter Novick's 1988 Cambridge University Press book That Noble Dream: The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession. I recommend it to anybody interested in the matter.

Again, the sincerity is all about the intent and the role of implications. If the historian is trying to defend or support a particular position first and foremost (rather than let evidence mold their beliefs) then indeed they aren't being objective nor sincere.

Then, it isn't the fact that a historian tries to defend or support a particular position that you find objectionable -- it seems inescapable and desirable that a historian do so -- but the possibility that a historian might do so to an extreme.

Presumably, you object to apologetics because apologists, as you view them, are too committed to defending a particular position. Do you think that they would agree that they are too committed to defending a particular position? If you don't think so, aren't you really saying that they are insincere because they disagree with you?

If that is your position, then it would seem that you are the first person here to agree with amantha that apologetics is intrinsically insincere. S/he will no doubt appreciate your support.

Are you maybe mixing up sincerity with objectivity?

No, I don't think so. I think that russki canuk is. That's why I characterized his view of "sincerity" as "idiosyncratic."

[jadams_4242]

[quote name=. The violation of civil discourse arises when amantha suggests that those who think in ways of which amantha does not approve do so because they lack integrity (or alternatively, as we now see, because they are effectively deranged).

[Dan Vogel]

Dan Peterson: Let me tell you how I see it.

I'm disgusted to see some people casually assume that those who view things differently than they do are insincere, acting in bad faith. Such an assumption violates the most basic principles of civil discourse, and is profoundly offensive.

Amantha: I'm disgusted to see some people casually assume that those who view apologetics differently than they do are violating the most basic principles of civil discourse.

Note that Amantha is not discussing apologetics, but apologists. That not only violates civil discourse, but is an ad hominal fallacy that requires mind reading. Who cares if apologists are sincere or not? One still has to address any valid arguments the apologists put forth. Any discussion of the apologists and their possible motives is irrelevant. The same is true for apologists who want to discuss the critics' motivations or biases. Assume those who oppose your views are sincere, and stick with the evidence, interpretations, and arguments.

[Dan Vogel]

Iâ??m not at all surprised that this conclusion is so common among those who have selected a naturalist viewpoint to define their life paradigm. LDS apologists are, by definition, attempting to defend a life paradigm that includes a presumption of the supernatural. Therefore, the only logical conclusion (for those committed to naturalistic explanations) is that seemingly intelligent persons who engage in LDS apologetics must be either dishonest or delusional.

After all, is it not an obvious given that things like visions, angels, gold plates, seer stones, and miracles are simply figments of someoneâ??s over-active imagination or outright deception? Therefore, there is no need to seriously examine the specific arguments of an apologist whose arguments are designed to defend the indefensible reality of the supernatural.

Of course, those who claim supernatural experiences should explain how one distinguishes between theoretically real experiences and those that are imaginary or delusional, the latter of which we are quite certain happens.

However, I think you misrepresent the naturalists as not wanting to engage specific arguments and evidence. There is a whole world of skeptical literature out there that does engage claims of the supernatural. Skeptics won't bother with subjective or faith statements, but genuine arguments and presentation of evidence for the supernatural is a different matter.

[solomarineris]

This is an important issue -- I think the position referenced above is misguided, incidentally -- but it's not the topic of the thread.

I'm particularly interested in having amantha explain why s/he regards (Mormon?) apologetics as intrinsically insincere.

Well, Bro DP, since you asked I will put my zwei pfennig into this discussion.

For a critic/anti (whatever you call them), an apologetic is an easy piece of meal from the standpoint that whatever they defend falls flat in the face of reality.

They just ask, ....How the heck apologetics can defend BoA, BoM when the real world regards them by not paying attention to it?

I guess there's gotta be a catch which real world failed to grasp. I'm not trying to imply that you live in your own planet, but, heck...It helps to catch up.

[Pahoran]

In terms of ideological motivation, I would not agree that secularism is equivalent to Mormonism or evangelicism. It can be if taken to extremes -- my example of this was marxism -- but generally no.

So a secularist has to reach the very extremes before he could possibly be as "ideologically motivated" as a Latter-day Saint. Got it.

On the other hand, various theists can be quite as objective as a secularist,

Quite as objective as a secularist? What a compliment!

So secularists are the gold standard for objectivity, and some rare believers can actually rise to that standard!

Wow!

The Dude, your idolising of your fellow secularists is touching; especially these days when so many people have no god at all.

The fact, though, is that as soon as someone adopts "secularist" as an ideological label, they are committing themselves to an ideological position, no less than someone who chooses to adopt "Latter-day Saint" or "Evangelical" or "Buddhist" or any other label.

and can honestly reach different conclusions based on the same data. I don't mean to say a person cannot be both objective/honest and a theist. So I agree with Bach from the earlier page: LDS apologetics is not necessarily dishonest, but it can be.

While, OTOH, anti-Mormon polemics is not necessarily dishonest either; it just usually seems to work out that way.

But wait a second: I never said anything about objectivity, did I? The dishonesty I spoke of was for those who don't really care about objectivity; they knowingly distort and misrepresent in order to serve a greater good. They might try to look objective, to gain credibility. Aside from shortsighted careerists, I just don't see why mere secularists would do such a thing like ideological Mormons/Evangelials/Marxists might do it.

And yet it is my observation that those who defend a belief are inclined to want to defend what it is, whereas those who are attacking it are frequently if not usually prepared to caricature it beyond recognition in order to make it easier to attack; and that this is the SOP for most anti-Mormons, regardless of their religious world view.

For instance, the two most thoroughly dishonest people I have ever had anything to do with are both anti-Mormon propagandists. Neither of them are posters here, but both of them would certainly describe themselves as "secularists." One is an academic type here in New Zealand, and the other is an American.

And I'm quite prepared to name names, provided MA&DB is not thus exposed to legal liability.

Regards,

Pahoran

[amantha]

Note that Amantha is not discussing apologetics, but apologists. That not only violates civil discourse, but is an ad hominal fallacy that requires mind reading. Who cares if apologists are sincere or not? One still has to address any valid arguments the apologists put forth. Any discussion of the apologists and their possible motives is irrelevant. The same is true for apologists who want to discuss the critics' motivations or biases. Assume those who oppose your views are sincere, and stick with the evidence, interpretations, and arguments.

"To be ignorant and simple now--not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground--would be to throw down our weapons and betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered." â?? C.S. Lewis

No I am discussing apologetics, the act of defending a position from attack. The apologist, as C.S. Lewis claims, is there to defend the uneducated. What does my education have to do with my personal witness? Is the witness of the Holy Ghost or a witness of Christ or Allah unavailable to the uneducated? Is the personal witness insufficient? Of course the scriptures, including James, suggests that it might be--but of course, that is the scriptures--which are to be believed on faith.

Lewis talks about his weapons. Apologists need to go to war to defend--"Onward Christian Soldiers." Beliefs should not have to be defended at the point of the sword or the pen. Apologetics is divisive.

I want truth claims to be challenged and to fall apart if they should. I don't want to insist that the emperor is wearing clothes if I have evidence that he may not be.

The wasteful exercise of apologetics is an insincere one because it will not concede the point when the evidence merits. If it did, it would cease to be apologetics.

There is a big difference between holding a belief with the willingness to change that belief and holding a belief while being unwilling to change it. The latter strikes me as fanatical, prideful and dangerous.

If you want to redefine apologetics to mean that it is open to a change of the fundamental belief, then you are just engaging in apologetics--which is pushy and insincere.

[Pahoran]

Well, Bro DP, since you asked I will put my zwei pfennig into this discussion.

For a critic/anti (whatever you call them), an apologetic is an easy piece of meal from the standpoint that whatever they defend falls flat in the face of reality.

They just ask, ....How the heck apologetics can defend BoA, BoM when the real world regards them by not paying attention to it?

I guess there's gotta be a catch which real world failed to grasp. I'm not trying to imply that you live in your own planet, but, heck...It helps to catch up.

So your position is that truth is established by opinion poll; that a majority uninformed assumption is of more value than a minority informed opinion; and that intentional ignorance of a subject by some or many is actual information about its value or meaning?

Sorry Lone Sailor, but if ever you wanted to demonstrate that you have nothing to say, you could not have done it better. The fact is that all of the most important knowledge in the world is increasingly being held by specialists. Organic chemistry must, by your pathetic appeal to public ignorance, fall flat in the face of reality. The real world pays no attention to astrophysics, so how the heck can anyone defend it? Abstract mathematicians and theoretical physicsts need to "catch up" with the fact that their subjects are an easy piece of meal for critics. Only those who've turned their back on reality to waste years studying these subjects know anything about them, so they must be worthless, right?

After all, if Joe Sixpack doesn't know it, it can't possibly be worth knowing!

Right?

Regards,

Pahoran

[solomarineris]

So your position is that truth is established by opinion poll; that a majority uninformed assumption is of more value than a minority informed opinion; and that intentional ignorance of a subject by some or many is actual information about its value or meaning?

Sorry Lone Sailor, but if ever you wanted to demonstrate that you have nothing to say, you could not have done it better. The fact is that all of the most important knowledge in the world is increasingly being held by specialists. Organic chemistry must, by your pathetic appeal to public ignorance, fall flat in the face of reality. The real world pays no attention to astrophysics, so how the heck can anyone defend it? Abstract mathematicians and theoretical physicsts need to "catch up" with the fact that their subjects are an easy piece of meal for critics. Only those who've turned their back on reality to waste years studying these subjects know anything about them, so they must be worthless, right?

After all, if Joe Sixpack doesn't know it, it can't possibly be worth knowing!

Right?

Regards,

Pahoran

I'm soo glad that we can have a civilized discussion here. So, you think I have nothing to say of substance.

You're right; There's no substance! After 35yrs of search I've found none and you fail to show me.

I never said it is worthless of any thing that sort.

It is just that Apologetics fail to back up of their claims.

That's all.

[Pahoran]

I'm soo glad that we can have a civilized discussion here.

Me too.

So, you think I have nothing to say of substance.

Let's see.

You argue that all LDS "apologetics" should be dismissed without discussion simply because something you call "the real world," and which you violently and arbitrarily assume excludes all believing Latter-day Saints, is ignorant of it.

Would you do that if you had anything of substance to argue?

I trow not!

Your entire argument was a fallacious appeal to popular ignorance. I demonstrated the fallacy thereof quite effectively. Can you respond? Is there ever a case where an appeal to popular ignorance is not a fallacy?

If you cannot respond, then my argument stands unrefuted.

You're right; There's no substance! After 35yrs of search I've found none and you fail to show me.

And you have failed to show that you could recognise a substantive argument, or even that you have the attention span to take seriously any argument that the "real world" is ignorant of.

I never said it is worthless of any thing that sort.

It is just that Apologetics fail to back up of their claims.

That's all.

But Solo, that's not what you said.

Shall I repeat your astonishing argument again, or have you the wisdom to be embarrassed by it?

Because if you now wish to resile from that utterly ridiculous position, I won't be so uncharitable as to hold you to it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[amantha]

This is an important issue -- I think the position referenced above is misguided, incidentally -- but it's not the topic of the thread.

I'm particularly interested in having amantha explain why s/he regards (Mormon?) apologetics as intrinsically insincere.

It is my opinion that the act of apologizing for one's beliefs, by way of rationalistic polemics, demonstrates that personal faith is insufficient. If I need reasons to have faith, then I don't have faith and I might as well exercise my reason and leave the faith out of it. The insincerity arises when those who profess to believe, on the basis of a personal witness which transcends all other evidence, try to suggest that some kinds of evidence, other than this personal witness, is necessary for faith. This is insincere. You cannot fall back on your personal witness as the ultimate evidence and then suggest that it may not be enough. This is insincere.

I wouldn't mind, too, if amantha would explain whether s/he really regards those religious believers who are not flatly dishonest as, by definition, intellectually incapacitated.

The opium to which I refer may be very important for human survival. I am not an apologist for this idea but uncertainty in its varying degrees may be overwhelming for some if not all of us. Thus enters the possible necessity of the pious lie -- a kind of insincerity. Apologetics, whether it is for the purposes of the potential necessity of the pious lie or the outright propaganda of winning over the minds of hopeful believers is insincere and also, quite possibly, paradoxically prophylactic.

I happen to believe that people will be better off if they allow their faith to evolve beyond dogmatic belief.

[Gillebre]

amantha, you said that apologetics is wasteful because apologists won't concede the point when it is warranted.

My beef with that is this: You're definition and classification of when the point should be conceded is COMPLETELY based on your personal bias and perspective.

There is no point to concede, when there is no evidence against it.

They say there is "all the evidence in the world against Mormonism", well, ya know what? There is all the evidence in the world FOR IT, irrelevant of anything that any MORTAL/MAN thinks he knows.

Truth is truth, but truth becomes baked in distorted speculations and interpretations unless someone has a solid and pure standard with which to hold truth to.

That standard is the Holy Ghost. There could be all the "evidence" against it, as some claim there exists, and it wouldn't matter at all, because the Holy Ghost is the only real evidence that matters.

Blessed are those who see and believe, but more blessed are those who do not see, and yet believe.

We hold our beliefs with a willingness to change them when the all-confirming, comforting standard known as the Holy Ghost directs us to do so, as we journey on our path.

You may claim "we are stubborn", or "will not change, even with the facts right in our face", but that is just that - YOUR claim. We change when we are inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so, and not an instant before.

And it is my opinion that without the effort of those involved in Apologetics, many good and honest faiths would be slandered, spat upon, and preyed upon by the wicked.

Were there not LDS Apologists to rebuke "antis" in their "evidences", many people would never hear the truth because someone colored it for them.

Because someone thought we were wrong, and pointed out every supposed "negativity" that could ever possibly exist, someone will never hear the Father's voice, their mind clouded, and their heart confused.

Let them hear for themselves, not of those who are critical of doctrines, theologies, or anything in between.

If everyone would just do that, Apologists would be out of work.

[Cold Steel]

The violation of civil discourse arises when amantha suggests that those who think in ways of which amantha does not approve do so because they lack integrity (or alternatively, as we now see, because they are effectively deranged).

I think apologists are willing to engage bigots like amantha while those of us who are not would dismiss him without comment. When all is said and done, I also believe apologists are not quite as cynical as they sometimes let on, for there seems to be just a flicker of hope that some ray of errant light will pierce the mindnumbing darkness that dwells within the cranial cavities of their critics.

[amantha]

amantha, you said that apologetics is wasteful because apologists won't concede the point when it is warranted.

My beef with that is this: You're definition and classification of when the point should be conceded is COMPLETELY based on your personal bias and perspective.

There is no point to concede, when there is no evidence against it.

They say there is "all the evidence in the world against Mormonism", well, ya know what? There is all the evidence in the world FOR IT, irrelevant of anything that any MORTAL/MAN thinks he knows.

Truth is truth, but truth becomes baked in distorted speculations and interpretations unless someone has a solid and pure standard with which to hold truth to.

That standard is the Holy Ghost. There could be all the "evidence" against it, as some claim there exists, and it wouldn't matter at all, because the Holy Ghost is the only real evidence that matters.

Blessed are those who see and believe, but more blessed are those who do not see, and yet believe.

We hold our beliefs with a willingness to change them when the all-confirming, comforting standard known as the Holy Ghost directs us to do so, as we journey on our path.

You may claim "we are stubborn", or "will not change, even with the facts right in our face", but that is just that - YOUR claim. We change when we are inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so, and not an instant before.

And it is my opinion that without the effort of those involved in Apologetics, many good and honest faiths would be slandered, spat upon, and preyed upon by the wicked.

Were there not LDS Apologists to rebuke "antis" in their "evidences", many people would never hear the truth because someone colored it for them.

Because someone thought we were wrong, and pointed out every supposed "negativity" that could ever possibly exist, someone will never hear the Father's voice, their mind clouded, and their heart confused.

Let them hear for themselves, not of those who are critical of doctrines, theologies, or anything in between.

If everyone would just do that, Apologists would be out of work.

You're right. These are just my opinions, but they are mine.

[Pahoran]

You're right. These are just my opinions, but they are mine.

And you are fully entitled to hold them, and even--as you have on this thread--defend them against criticism.

IOW, to be an apologist for them.

But it has occurred to none of us that that ipso facto makes you insincere.

Although it seems that you, to be consistent, must so conclude.

Regards,

Pahoran

[urroner]

You're right. These are just my opinions, but they are mine.

If they are opinions, then why do you state them as facts?

[The Dude]

Hey Pahoran. Aren't there some small animals running around your place that need to be exterminated? It would keep you busy, and probably put a smile on your face.

No personal jabs. = mods

[Daniel Peterson]

Note that Amantha is not discussing apologetics, but apologists. That not only violates civil discourse, but is an ad hominal fallacy that requires mind reading. Who cares if apologists are sincere or not? One still has to address any valid arguments the apologists put forth. Any discussion of the apologists and their possible motives is irrelevant. The same is true for apologists who want to discuss the critics' motivations or biases. Assume those who oppose your views are sincere, and stick with the evidence, interpretations, and arguments.

As I've said before, Dan (what a great name, by the way), for all our disagreements, and for all the fun I have needling you in print, you're often fair-minded in ways that many critics simply can't seem to muster.

For instance, the two most thoroughly dishonest people I have ever had anything to do with are both anti-Mormon propagandists. Neither of them are posters here, but both of them would certainly describe themselves as "secularists." One is an academic type here in New Zealand, and the other is an American.

And I'm quite prepared to name names, provided MA&DB is not thus exposed to legal liability.

I expect that I already know the name of the Kiwi, and where he works. I'm thinking of writing a general evaluation of his publications on Mormonism, but I first need to collect as many of them as I can and as many news clippings, and so on, as I can get my vile and insincere hands on. Has anybody been collecting any of that stuff?

Beliefs should not have to be defended at the point of the sword or the pen.

So you're against defending any and all beliefs against criticism or contrary views?

Why are you posting here?

Apologetics is divisive.

I want to get this right: Are you suggesting that attacking a belief is a good thing, but that defending it is a bad thing? Please advise.

I want truth claims to be challenged and to fall apart if they should.

But, if I understand you correctly, you don't think truth claims should be defended.

The wasteful exercise of apologetics is an insincere one because it will not concede the point when the evidence merits. If it did, it would cease to be apologetics.

Again, is this true of all defenses of positions, or merely of defenses of religious positions, or, even, merely of defenses of Mormonism?

Is it true universally and in principle, or does it just happen to be true of all, most, or many efforts to defend a position against criticism?

I'm puzzled.

There is a big difference between holding a belief with the willingness to change that belief and holding a belief while being unwilling to change it. The latter strikes me as fanatical, prideful and dangerous.

Okay. I'm trying to keep up, and I hope I haven't missed anything: Thus far, if I'm up to date, apologetics is insincere, wasteful, fanatical, prideful, and dangerous. (Have I omitted anything?)

Again, I wonder if this applies universally, to all religious apologists like St. Thomas Aquinas, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, C. S. Lewis, Origen of Alexandria, William Lane Craig, al-Ghazali, Minucius Felix, Peter Kreeft, and G. K. Chesterton, and even to defenders of secular positions (e.g., Stephen Jay Gould, Milton Friedman, etc.), or merely to defenders of Mormonism.

If you want to redefine apologetics to mean that it is open to a change of the fundamental belief, then you are just engaging in apologetics--which is pushy and insincere.

Alright. Apologetics is insincere, wasteful, fanatical, prideful, dangerous, and pushy.

Anyway, it now seems that apologetics is, by definition, very bad, and if the definition is contested, that is merely apologetics, which is very bad, and if one objects to the rigged definition that makes apologetics very bad by nature, that is apologetics, which is very bad.

And -- cue drumroll -- the conclusion is that apologetics is very bad.

It is my opinion that the act of apologizing for one's beliefs, by way of rationalistic polemics, demonstrates that personal faith is insufficient.

Would you care to demonstrate that claim in the case of the one of the following significant apologists?

Thomas Aquinas

C. S. Lewis

al-Ghazali

Moses Maimonides

William Lane Craig

Feel free to choose one of these and demonstrate that his personal faith was insufficient.

If I need reasons to have faith, then I don't have faith and I might as well exercise my reason and leave the faith out of it.

This is a very crude either/or caricature.

It seems that you may not be a believer of any kind, so I suppose that it would be useless to cite the New Testament to you, with its accumulation of witnesses of the resurrection (e.g., in the gospels and in 1 Corinthians 15:1-, or to call your attention to the statements of the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, included in every edition (so far as I'm aware) since 1830. Would you propose, for the sake of consistency, that missionaries ought not to cite scriptures to investigators in order to provide support for their claims, but simply ought to say something like "God has a body" or "God requires baptism" and then demand that investigators take their word for it? After all, the investigators shouldnt need any reasons, right?

The insincerity arises when those who profess to believe, on the basis of a personal witness which transcends all other evidence, try to suggest that some kinds of evidence, other than this personal witness, is necessary for faith. This is insincere. You cannot fall back on your personal witness as the ultimate evidence and then suggest that it may not be enough. This is insincere.

You seem to have a very odd definition of sincerity. But I'll let that pass.

Who, exactly, has said that secular evidences are "necessary for faith," that faith "isn't enough" without (say) a subscription to the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies or a set of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley? I've never heard anybody say any such thing. Could you supply a reference or two to back up this claim? (Of course, if supplying such a reference would involve you in defending your claim and, thus, in "insincerity," I absolve you in advance. No supporting evidence is necessary. Mere assertion should convince us all.)

The opium to which I refer may be very important for human survival. I am not an apologist for this idea but uncertainty in its varying degrees may be overwhelming for some if not all of us. Thus enters the possible necessity of the pious lie -- a kind of insincerity. Apologetics, whether it is for the purposes of the potential necessity of the pious lie or the outright propaganda of winning over the minds of hopeful believers is insincere and also, quite possibly, paradoxically prophylactic.

I hope you won't be offended that I find this all hopelessly incoherent and bizarre.

I happen to believe that people will be better off if they allow their faith to evolve beyond dogmatic belief.

Just be sure you never try to defend your belief. That would be wasteful, fanatical, prideful, dangerous, pushy, insincere, and very, very bad.

[Pahoran]

Hey Pahoran. Aren't there some small animals running around your place that need to be exterminated? It would keep you busy, and probably put a smile on your face.

No personal jabs. = mods

To defend The Dude: it wasn't his jab. It was originally TChild2's jab, which I have in my sig at the moment.

Credit where credit is due, and all that. The point is that I didn't take TD's use of it as a jab at me.

Regards,

Pahoran

[The Dude]

To defend The Dude: it wasn't his jab. It was originally TChild2's jab, which I have in my sig at the moment.

Credit where credit is due, and all that. The point is that I didn't take TD's use of it as a jab at me.

Regards,

Pahoran

Like Pahoran needs the moderators to defend him from personal jabs, real or imagined. Oh, that'll be the day.