Is Apologetics Insincere?

[amantha]

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

I am open to altering my beliefs.

[Daniel Peterson]

I am open to altering my beliefs.

But apologists never, ever, are?

Just be sure that you don't defend your beliefs! Don't advocate them! That would be wrong, and quite insincere.

[amantha]

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.

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?

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

Why are you posting here?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.)

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

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

Mere assertion has convinced the believers--The Holy Ghost through Moroni through Joseph Smith. I offer my opinion that your call for evidence is the biggest irony of all since apologetics is simply opinion stacked upon opinion. And yes, you can take my word for it. It's illuminating to hear people who have committed their lives to defending the persuasive opinions of a nineteenth century farm boy, suggest that they require evidence.

[Daniel Peterson]

Mere assertion has convinced the believers--The Holy Ghost through Moroni through Joseph Smith.

But Joseph had Witnesses. Why?

Parley Pratt and Orson Pratt and others wrote pamphlets making a scriptural case for Mormonism. Why?

Missionaries have always pointed to verses like 1 Corinthians 15:29 to support doctrines like baptism for the dead. But why? Why didn't they just say "God has ordained baptism for the dead. Believe it!"

I offer my opinion that your call for evidence is the biggest irony of all since apologetics is simply opinion stacked upon opinion.

Unlike your claims?

Do apologists ever offer any facts in support of what they're saying? Is it insincere to offer facts to justify one's claims? Have you ever offered any facts to justify your claims? Were you acting insincerely when you did so?

And yes, you can take my word for it.

Typical exchanges in Amanthaworld:

-A-

"He committed murder!"

"No he didn't!"

"Yes he did!"

"No he didn't."

"Yes he did! Believe me!"

"Alright! Yes he did!"

-B-

"Vote for Senator Bilbo! His views are correct!"

"No they're not!"

"Yes they are! Vote for him!"

"Show me that they're correct!"

"No! Never! That would be wasteful, fanatical, prideful, dangerous, pushy, insincere, and very, very bad!"

"Okay! You've persuaded me! I'll vote for Senator Bilbo!"

It's illuminating to hear people who have committed their lives to defending the persuasive opinions of a nineteenth century farm boy, suggest that they require evidence.

Again, who has suggested that secular apologetic evidence is required for salvation? Can you actually name anybody who has? (Or would providing such information compromise you, morally?)

[Dan Vogel]

Amantha,

No I am discussing apologetics,

No, you are definitely discussing the motives of apologists.

the act of defending a position from attack.

That would make you an apologist. Should I assume you are disingenuously holding to your position. Can you prove to me that you are sincerely arguing what you believe? Not easy, right?

Apologetics is divisive.

And the alternative is conceding to another's apologetics? Welcome to the real world. But I'm more concerned with the accusation that all apologetics is disingenuous.

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.

And that's what your opponents wish for your truth claims. Yet you "stubbornly" hold to them. I think your problem might be that you are applying a scientific model to a metaphysical issue.

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.

I disagree. Sure, there is resistence. But I think the apologists have changed over time, because they, like the critics, are looking for better arguments and more defensible positions.

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.

In your world view, is it impossible to believe that the apologists think the same thing about you? Can't you see how your subjective perception of things is relative to your position?

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.

Why is your goal to change fundamental belief? That's too ambitious. No wonder you are frustrated and lashing out at those who won't give you satisfaction. Set your goals lower. Like coming up with lucid and compelling responses to the apologists' evidence. If you can't do THAT, don't resort to ad hominem, because that IS insincere.

[amantha]

Amantha,

No, you are definitely discussing the motives of apologists.

That would make you an apologist. Should I assume you are disingenuously holding to your position. Can you prove to me that you are sincerely arguing what you believe? Not easy, right?

And the alternative is conceding to another's apologetics? Welcome to the real world. But I'm more concerned with the accusation that all apologetics is disingenuous.

And that's what your opponents wish for your truth claims. Yet you "stubbornly" hold to them. I think your problem might be that you are applying a scientific model to a metaphysical issue.

I disagree. Sure, there is resistence. But I think the apologists have changed over time, because they, like the critics, are looking for better arguments and more defensible positions.

In your world view, is it impossible to believe that the apologists think the same thing about you? Can't you see how your subjective perception of things is relative to your position?

Why is your goal to change fundamental belief? That's too ambitious. No wonder you are frustrated and lashing out at those who won't give you satisfaction. Set your goals lower. Like coming up with lucid and compelling responses to the apologists' evidence. If you can't do THAT, don't resort to ad hominem, because that IS insincere.

Dan and Dan,

I offer what I believe because that is all I can offer, while I am willing to say that it is just belief and not fact.

I am not trying to prove any positive belief only that the apologetic way of rationalizing faith is superficial and smells of trying too hard. Any person of any religion can say to me that they have a belief and that it is due to their faith. I have no issue with that. When people attempt to take faith and pretend that it is science I call it for what I see it--a masquerade.

Dan V,

I know you enjoy and are good at picking apart the bite-size issues of Mormon belief. I'm glad you enjoy it. I just don't believe that apologetics is a sincere endeavor. I see all religion as trying too hard, not just Mormonism.

This is why I only offer opinion and not truth. I am not making truth claims. I see that most people here are at odds with my opinion. So be it.

Dan P,

You have evidence that the LDS church is true. The evidence you present is opinion to me. The opinion of the witnesses. I agree with Samuel Clemens on the witness issue that it wouldn't make more sense if the whole Whitmer family had testified. I have the opinion of one Moroni as to how I should discover the truth. What evidence is there that his opinion is truth? There is the opinion that Jesus is a resurrected being. There is the opinion that FARMS is a real peer reviewed journal.

One man's garbage is another man's treasure.

So when you ask me for evidence I have to wonder what that means. If you mean scientific evidence, then I have to wonder why asking for scientific evidence, when the bottom drops out and everyone flees to their personal witness, is out of play. It's a double standard and it is insincere. Please remember, before you criticize me of doing the same thing, that I only offer my opinion and not a truth claim. Can you say you do the same?

[Abulafia]

Amantha,

I agree with Bach also. An apologist can sincerely believe in something that is irrational/unbelievable/untestable.

If I interpret you correctly you feel that apologetics is futile since faith should stand alone. That is partly true of some religious fundamentalists who appeal to the divine authority of scripture for instance or of the divine experience of themselves or others (just as scientific naturalists would appeal to the authority of reason through empirical investigation) and I'm pretty sure that kind of position has a firm place in Mormon Theology.

However many religions allow room for investigation, questioning and defence through apologetics.

This link on faith and reason might be helpful.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/faith-re.htm

Regards

Mary

[PacMan]

amantha,

So when people have legitimate doubts or questions, how do you help them overcome them? NOT by opening the scriptures to them and giving evidence of what you are talking about?

What you are suggesting is the following:

Witnesser: "I know Jesus died for our sins."

Friend: "But, how can I learn about it myself?"

Witnesser: "I canâ??t show you the versus in the Bible because that'd would be insincere apologetics. You just have to take my word for it."

Friend: "Well, if you can't at least walk me through it, I'm certainly not going to take your word for it."

Witnesser: "No, you shouldnâ??t take my word for it."

Friend: "Then how can I study about it and get my questions answered?"

Witnesser: "I'm not going to tell you, because I'm not an insincere apologist.

Think what you will, but with all respect, the above is stupid...a result of the sweeping absurdity of some of your statements.

PacMan

[PacMan]

amantha,

Moreover, why the he-- are you coming to an apologetics forum to rail on apologetics and apologists? Don't you have anything better to do than pick absolutely ridiculous battles that are not only meaningless, but raised only to stir the waters? Are you that nosy neighbor that feels compelled to spy and eavesdrop on others, then complain with dissatisfaction as to the rug they finally decide to privately purchase because you don't like style? If apologetics really gets to you (as it obviously does), why don't you just go away? Better yet, why did you even come? No one here really cares about your ridiculousness...nor does your opinion hold anything as to the salvation of apologists. Considering you've nothing to gain, the masochism raises questions of your reasonableness.

PacMan

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

I completely agree, Dan. Mind reading is very sticky territory. Especially attempting to mindread someone who has been dead for +200 years...

I enjoyed your comments as found in the recent FARMS review, by the way.

[Dan Vogel]

Amantha,

Dan and Dan,

I offer what I believe because that is all I can offer, while I am willing to say that it is just belief and not fact.

I am not trying to prove any positive belief only that the apologetic way of rationalizing faith is superficial and smells of trying too hard. Any person of any religion can say to me that they have a belief and that it is due to their faith. I have no issue with that. When people attempt to take faith and pretend that it is science I call it for what I see it--a masquerade.

Dan V,

I know you enjoy and are good at picking apart the bite-size issues of Mormon belief. I'm glad you enjoy it. I just don't believe that apologetics is a sincere endeavor. I see all religion as trying too hard, not just Mormonism.

This is why I only offer opinion and not truth. I am not making truth claims. I see that most people here are at odds with my opinion. So be it.

You are not just offering opinion. You are also offering an implied argument and an accusation. Sort of like saying: "It is my opinion that you are disingenuous, so I don't have to respond to your arguments and evidence." You are not just expressing your opinion, you are making some rather broad and sweeping truth claims yourself about apologetics.

You argue: "When people attempt to take faith and pretend that it is science I call it for what I see it--a masquerade." That's not just an opinion; it's an argument that needs defending.

You are right about not having to respond faith claims. The same is true about opinions. So focus on arguments and evidence. Discussions about BOM and BOA historicity won't necessarily destroy faith, but it can potentially change the nature of the truth claims.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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

Yikes. Pahoran, this was concise and excellent.

[John Williams]

But I'm also struck by amantha's insinuation here that believers are in the intellectual equivalent of a drug-induced stupor. This seems to suggest that there may be a second explanation for failure to agree with amantha on religious issues: While some proportion or other of those who differ from amantha may do so because they're dishonest, it's also possible to differ from amantha because one is (temporarily or permanently) incapable of rational thinking. Disagreement with amantha results either from character flaw or mental defect.

Of course not. 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).

My position hasn't changed since the days when I was an apologist here. People believe what they do for a variety of reasons, and it's unfair to say that one side or the other is disingenuous or unprincipled.

The main difference I see between critics and apologists is simply that they have examined the same evidence and reached different conclusions. It's puzzling to me that so many people on both sides make assumptions about people's intellectual capacity or honesty based on the conclusions they've reached about the LDS church. Years ago I was told I was a shill for Joseph Smith and I was going to hell because I knew I was promoting lies in my defense of Mormonism. More recently I was told that I'm a wolf in sheep's clothing, a "smooth-tongued viper" because I am open in my unbelief. What's changed? Not much but my conclusions.

[urroner]

My position hasn't changed since the days when I was an apologist here. People believe what they do for a variety of reasons, and it's unfair to say that one side or the other is disingenuous or unprincipled.

The main difference I see between critics and apologists is simply that they have examined the same evidence and reached different conclusions. It's puzzling to me that so many people on both sides make assumptions about people's intellectual capacity or honesty based on the conclusions they've reached about the LDS church. Years ago I was told I was a shill for Joseph Smith and I was going to hell because I knew I was promoting lies in my defense of Mormonism. More recently I was told that I'm a wolf in sheep's clothing, a "smooth-tongued viper" because I am open in my unbelief. What's changed? Not much but my conclusions.

Doctor Dapper Dan most recent article in the FARMS Review talks about this very thing in ways I couldn't because to do so. Here is a link to the article, it's a good read: Editor's Introduction: Reflections on the Reactions to Rough Stone Rolling and Related Matters

A brief snippet:

Duffy continues by pointing out that, "in the non-Mormon academy, [Terryl Givens's] By the Hand of Mormon has been essentially ignored, a . . . sign of faithful scholarship's detachment from academic conversation."21 Of course, the "detachment," if his claim is true (and I have not verified it), is on the side of the secular or, at any rate, the non-Mormon academy, rather than on that of "faithful scholarship." Publishing a sympathetic reading of the Book of Mormon and attendant issues with Oxford University Pressâ??arguably the most prestigious academic press in the English-speaking worldâ??hardly suggests any effort on the part of Terryl Givens to avoid the gaze of the scholarly mainstream. Whether the scholarly mainstream takes notice or not is beyond his (or our) power to control.

While faithful perspectives on Mormon claims may, thus far, not attract the attention of large numbers of non-LDS academics, Mormonism is not entirely ignored in scholarly writing and publishing. However, when it is mentioned, its truth claims are either passed over in silence or implicitly assumed (or expressly declared) to be false. As Duffy correctly notes with respect to academic protocol and convention, "A lack of symmetry exists: scholars may openly argue against the orthodox account of the Book of Mormon but faithful scholars may not openly argue for it."22

This seems to have been the case even in the Public Broadcasting System documentary The Mormons that was aired throughout the United States on 30 April and 1 May 2007. Among its several grave and conspicuous flaws, the film allowed several of its non-LDS and ex-LDS interviewees to assert Mormonism's alleged falsity and lack of supporting evidence, but no believing Latter-day Saint was allowed (on screen, anyway) to affirm the contrary, let alone to provide a substantial rebuttal to those assertions. (As one of those who appeared in both parts of the film, I can definitively state that at least one interviewee would have been willing to do just that. Indeed, although the vast bulk of my lengthy interviews with Helen Whitney obviously ended up on the cutting-room floor, I seem to recall speaking to those very topics.)23 The sense given by the film, and probably the presumption shared by its producers and authors, is that, while Mormonism may well give meaning and comfort to those who believe in it and are capable of living by its standards, those believers are, in the end, mistaken or irrational. The question of Mormon truth claims has already been answered, and in the negative. It requires no actual attention.

Now, admittedly, the academic mainstream and the leadership of PBS probably don't regard Mormon belief as substantially more irrational than most other religious belief. The Mormons more than once observed that other faiths, mainstream Christianity among them, have had to grow beyond their founding stories, and suggested that, if Mormonism is to survive, it too will have to reinterpret or even jettison its original claims.24 In any case, vocal advocacy of such claims as nonmetaphorical is considered by many in the academic and journalistic elite to be, at a minimum, in very poor taste and rather embarrassing (while skepticism about them would surely not be). And this is not true only with regard to Mormonism.25

Quite a few years ago, returning from the annual joint national meeting of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature, I found myself seated on a flight (from Boston, if I recall correctly) next to the then-president of the Evangelical Theological Society. As our conversation proceeded, he mentioned that, in one of the conference sessions he had attended, an adherent of Wicca (a modern and, in my opinion, quite inauthentic and ahistorical version of "witchcraft") had borne a kind of testimony from the podium, as part of her academic presentation. She found her religious preference liberating, empowering, satisfying. The audience, even the non-Wiccans among them, appeared to take her comments completely in stride. However, my evangelical seatmate speculated that, by contrast, if he ever chose to affirm his faith and to speak of his trust in Jesus as his personal savior before such an academic gathering, his remarks would be considered a gross breach of scholarly protocol.

I concurred, and told him so. Why the difference? I suppose that it's because few in the academy take Wicca seriously as a theology. And, in fact, many of its adherents probably don't take its doctrinal assertions about "the Goddess" as more than metaphor and poetic symbol, either. Yet theologically and politically liberal non-Wiccans in academia are inclined to approve of it, or at least to tolerate it benignly, as feminist, progressive, and subversive of conservative male hegemony, capitalism, and who knows what else. Christianity, however, represents the "Establishment," the dominant influence in Western culture for nearly the past two thousand yearsâ??a force that is itself, quite absurdly, often held to be responsible for nearly all the evil, oppression, sexism, injustice, violence, and environmental degradation that has occurred on the planet.26 Its disciples, particularly in the growing and vocal evangelical wing of the Protestant movement and in the powerful, hierarchical Roman Catholic Church, tend to take its claims as literally true rather than merely poetically symbolic. The American cultural and intellectual elite are far more frightened of what they believe to be a looming Christian theocracy than of a resurgence of "witchcraft."

How does Mormonism fit into this? While evangelical detractors of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints insist that it is non-Christian, even pagan, secularists (who pay no attention to evangelical polemicists in any case) are not fooled. A hierarchical, corporate, powerful, patriarchal, literalizing, aggressively missionizing movement like Mormonism represents everything they fear and despise in Christianity generallyâ??but in a much more concentrated form than usual. Moreover, the recent historical origins of Mormonism and the tangibility of Mormon claims force the issue of truth or falsity far more acutely than happens, say, with the ancient and historically irretrievable origins of Christianity itself.

To cite a recent example: Writing in Slateâ??a daily online magazine "offering analysis and commentary about politics, news, and culture"â??in December 2006, Jacob Weisberg argued that Mitt Romney should be rejected as a candidate for the United States presidency on religious grounds. Anybody who believes "the founding whoppers of Mormonism" is, he suggested, manifestly unqualified to lead the nation. The Mormon prophet Joseph Smith, Weisberg wrote, "was an obvious con man. Romney has every right to believe in con men, but I want to know if he does, and if so, I don't want him running the country." From the perspective of a devout secularist like Weisberg, though, ideas like the resurrection and the miraculous parting of the Red Sea are no less absurd than Joseph Smith's golden plates. Weisberg views reliance upon religious faith in general, not merely Mormonism, "as an alternative to rational understanding of complex issues." (He offers George Bush's Methodism as another example of frightening religious fanaticism.) Weisberg regards all religious doctrines as "dogmatic, irrational, and absurd. By holding them, someone indicates a basic failure to think for himself or see the world as it is." More commonly held creeds have simply been granted an unmerited patina of respectability by the sheer passage of time. "Perhaps Christianity and Judaism are merely more venerable and poetic versions of the same. But a few eons makes a big difference."27

[ruski_canuk]

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?

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

The fundamental difference between defending a belief driven by the evidence and defending a belief driven by the implications. Methodology here is everything. Take a truly controversial discussion like the relative role of humans in climate change. I believe given the information that I have now that both positions have strong intellectual arguments (critics and proponents of a strong anthropogenic connection to climate change). Let's assume my belief is correct. Now take a person who has decided to participate through research, etc, in the debate. He has little prior knowledge of the subject. His family, cousins and social group all adhere to, lets say, the position that humans are to blame and that they are destroying the earth. This hypothetical researcher thus could take two approaches:

1) gather the evidence as impartially as possible (from both pro and against, research the sources, match with claims, etc)

2) form a belief based on the evidence

OR

1) gather evidence which supports the preferred position (in this case for climate alarmism).

Given the uncertainty of the subject, there is ample room to take any position and fundamentally I don't disagree with someone directly for holding either opinion.

It is NOT whether or not I disagree that makes someone a insincere seeker of truth, it is how they employ methodology. People deal differently with uncertainty, emotions, etc which leaves ample space for various, conflicting, and sincere, beliefs. Beliefs which were formed following proper striving to gather evidence and blind (or as blind as possible) of the implications. Again, I agree that it is hard to do this approach in its purest form but it is exactly the ideal that should be striven for. What I have seen in Mormon Apologetics is a direct violation, silent approval even, of the implications-motivated research.

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

You don't offend me at all! Actually, I am quite interested in your take in this area, I haven't thought much about it. My initial gut reaction is that their is a range of "correct" objectivity within which any historical position. For example, WW2 can be taught from various perspectives to highlight the roles of certain countries (the country teaching about it for example). However, there is a limit when ethnocentrism becomes propaganda. If we are able to decide that some history is clearly misleading, etc, that suggests that there is some kind of ideal, non-misleading, kind of history that is more objective and desirable that the misleading version... Anyways, I am babbling.

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.

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.

I'll look into Peter's book, sounds interesting.

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.

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

I hope my first paragraph addressed this. Agreement isn't a necessary condition for sincerity. Not all topics are equal either. The *debate* over the age of the earth (6 thousand years vs. 3.5 billion) could possibly be an area where agreement is a necessary condition for sincerity.

I'm not convinced that Mormonism, as a philosophy, can be lumped in with young earth creationism where agreement is a necessary condition. Bushman, for example, could hold a position which under my current understanding would be considered sincere. However, much of what I have seen in Mormon apologetics is in constant violation of the methodology for a real truth-seeker.

If truth isn't the concern, fine, who am I to tell you what to seek in life ? But either admit it and move on or change your approach to a sincere production and analysis of the evidence rather then a constant search for any patterns or theories which might fill in problems associated with your *position* while avoiding the others.

[Daniel Peterson]

Wow. Amantha, when Dan Peterson and Dan Vogel agree against you on a matter relating to apologetics, that's probably worth serious reflection.

I am not trying to prove any positive belief only that the apologetic way of rationalizing faith is superficial and smells of trying too hard.

I could understand such a comment being made of this or that apologetic argument. What I find insupportable is your broad-brush manner of speaking as if there existed a single Platonic archetype that can be properly labeled The Apologetic Way.

To reject any and all attempts to defend a religious view -- and you still haven't clarified whether your actual objection is to any and all attempts to defend any view whatsoever -- as "superficial" and "trying too hard" is bizarre. Are you talking about Thomas Aquinas? I've never heard anybody suggest that he was "superficial." He has to have been one of the most rational and profound thinkers who have ever lived. Nor can I imagine anyone plausibly suggesting that Alvin Plantinga or al-Ghazali or Moses Maimonides or Richard Swinburne or Origen or Nicholas Wolterstorff is a shallow thinker. One might think any or all of them wrong, of course. But one would have to . . . well, I might as well risk immorality and suggest that one would have to actually make the case, wth specific evidence and analysis, rather than merely asserting it.

When people attempt to take faith and pretend that it is science I call it for what I see it--a masquerade.

Off hand, I'm aware of absolutely nobody who calls faith "science." You seem to have created a straw man of your own imagination. You then pronounce it "insincere" and bad, and, in advance, label any questioning of your straw man as insincere and bad, while at the same time declining to provide any evidence or real argument to justify your position and grandly announcing that it would be morally questionable to provide such evidence and argument. This is remarkably weird.

I just don't believe that apologetics is a sincere endeavor.

We've picked that up. Please forgive us, though. This is a discussion board -- it says so in the title -- and the mere repetition of assertions, coupled with a refusal to justify them, does virtually nothing to further discussion.

I see all religion as trying too hard, not just Mormonism.

I can only guess how many years of study of the Confucian classics, the works of the Islamic mutakallimin, Christian patristics, Kierkegaard, the Talmud, contemporary sociology of religion, scholastic philosophy, and hundreds of other vast fields must lie behind that declaration.

This is why I only offer opinion and not truth.

We agree on something.

I am not making truth claims.

Then I ask, again -- you never respond to my questions or requests, but I'll try at least once or twice more -- what are you doing here?

You have evidence that the LDS church is true. The evidence you present is opinion to me.

Which of my publications have you read? Would it compromise you morally to answer that question?

The opinion of the witnesses. I agree with Samuel Clemens on the witness issue that it wouldn't make more sense if the whole Whitmer family had testified.

Samuel Clemens was a humorist looking for a laugh. I hope that your abhorrence of reasons, evidence, and logic doesn't extend to the whole of your life.

There is the opinion that Jesus is a resurrected being.

And there are really interesting discussions -- using unethical and insincere things like evidence and logical analysis -- of that topic. The famous debate between Gary Habermas and Antony Flew is a case in point, as is N. T. Wright's densely documented and closely reasoned recent book on the question. As are various publications by William Lane Craig. This isn't just a matter where free-floating and ungrounded opinions sail across the sky like fluffy clouds. But, I realize, you find the deployment of evidence and analysis "insincere," prideful, pushy, and very, very bad.

There is the opinion that FARMS is a real peer reviewed journal.

FARMS isn't a journal. FARMS is a division of the Maxwell Institute. The FARMS Review is a journal, one of two semi-annual journals that the Maxwell Institute publishes along with occasional papers and, thus far, several score books. The FARMS Review is peer reviewed beyond the typical academic standard for book reviews. This isn't a matter of opinion, like whether broccoli is delicious or not. It's a matter of fact. You may think that there are thirteen inches in a foot, or that a meter contains 116 centimeters, but such subjects are not open to rival opinions.

So when you ask me for evidence I have to wonder what that means.

In effect, it means two propositions that, taken together and arranged in syllogistic fashion, yield a conclusion. Or, if we're talking about inductive reasoning, a body of data from which a hypothesis can be derived and tested against subsequent data. In many cases, we're talking about what logicians and philosophers of science call "inference to the best explanation."

In this fallen world, most people, sadly, have come to think that evidence and logic are pretty good things.

If you mean scientific evidence, then I have to wonder why asking for scientific evidence, when the bottom drops out and everyone flees to their personal witness, is out of play. It's a double standard and it is insincere.

To be candid, I haven't a clue what you're trying to say. I haven't said that scientific evidence is "out of play." You have.

Please remember, before you criticize me of doing the same thing, that I only offer my opinion and not a truth claim. Can you say you do the same?

No, I can't. And I don't aspire to. I'm trying to get at and articulate the truth. When I wrote my recent biography of Muhammad, for example, I didn't feel free simply to express "opinions" about his life that had no grounding in the available sources. I had to read and research, and to justify what I wrote. I couldn't have him visiting Rome in 628 A.D., for example. There simply isn't any evidence, nor even the slightest hint of a rumor, indicating that he did so. I could, I suppose, have said "I feel that Muhammad went to Rome in 628, staying there for six weeks while hanging out with the Pope, but that's just my opinion, and I will not be so insincere as to offer any evidence to support my feeling, which is not a truth claim."

[solomarineris]

Me too.

Let's see.

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

Phoran;

The "Real World" I am talking about do not pay attention to most (if any) apologetic claims.

Your arguments are as futile as Horses, Chariots, Barley claims in BoM.

The substance I am talking about (rather BoM, BoA talks about) cannot be delivered.

Utterly ridicilous position you are talking about are actually the claims Apologetics so heroically try to defend.

[Homestar Runner]

[LifeOnaPlate]

Bummer of a birthmark?

[Daniel Peterson]

The "Real World" I am talking about do not pay attention to most (if any) apologetic claims.

And people who pay no attention to a subject are obviously highly qualified to pronounce judgments on it, right?

Please direct to me any questions you might have about the Brazilian commodities market or about political prospects for the current government of Romania. I pay not the slightest attention to either topic, so my opinions on them should carry a lot of weight.

Your arguments are as futile as Horses, Chariots, Barley claims in BoM.

The substance I am talking about (rather BoM, BoA talks about) cannot be delivered.

Utterly ridicilous position you are talking about are actually the claims Apologetics so heroically try to defend.

If you actually know anything about these subjects, we're not interested in your opinion. However, if, as I suspect, you don't follow the discussion, we're obviously going to have to reflect long and deeply upon anything you might have to say about them.

I can imagine you making common cause with Amantha. Amantha believes it "insincere" to offer evidence or arguments in defense of a position, and you regard it as irrelevant whether one knows anything about the relevant evidence and arguments. So, effectively, you're allies. Amantha will, I hope, be pleased.

[Bill Hamblin]

Your Episcopal Holiness,

Warning: you may be in violation of Hamblin Rule of Apologetics #1!

[amantha]

And people who pay no attention to a subject are obviously highly qualified to pronounce judgments on it, right?

Please direct to me any questions you might have about the Brazilian commodities market or about political prospects for the current government of Romania. I pay not the slightest attention to either topic, so my opinions on them should carry a lot of weight.

If you actually know anything about these subjects, we're not interested in your opinion. However, if, as I suspect, you don't follow the discussion, we're obviously going to have to reflect long and deeply upon anything you might have to say about them.

I can imagine you making common cause with Amantha. Amantha believes it "insincere" to offer evidence or arguments in defense of a position, and you regard it as irrelevant whether one knows anything about the relevant evidence and arguments. So, effectively, you're allies. Amantha will, I hope, be pleased.

Okay, let's define the apologetics that I disagree with as religious or faith-based apologetics.

All religious (faith based) apologetics is insincere, because religious apologetics are about conclusions arrived at from tautological, a priori reasoning. "God exists therefore the Bible is His Word because God said so through His prophets."

Defending a position is fine if you are willing to change your position. The religious apologetic attitude, as I see it, is to defend the viewpoint at all costs, when the biggest defense is a simple retreat to the personal witness gambit. In other words, if a personal witness can trump all other evidence, why invoke other evidence? It is superfluous.

Furthermore, and I am not speaking to you personally, to suggest that other evidence is important when all that really matters is the personal witness, i.e. faith, then that is insincere. The two things are at odds with each other. Faith does not need other evidence than itself if ultimately any evidence against the faith is brushed aside on the basis of the personal witness.

If you don't understand what I am talking about, then we are just talking past each other. My apologies.

[Hawkmoon]

Okay, let's define the apologetics that I disagree with as religious or faith-based apologetics.

All religious (faith based) apologetics is insincere, because religious apologetics are about conclusions arrived at from tautological, a priori reasoning. "God exists therefore the Bible is His Word because God said so through His prophets."

Defending a position is fine if you are willing to change your position. The religious apologetic attitude, as I see it, is to defend the viewpoint at all costs, when the biggest defense is a simple retreat to the personal witness gambit. In other words, if a personal witness can trump all other evidence, why invoke other evidence? It is superfluous.

Furthermore, and I am not speaking to you personally, to suggest that other evidence is important when all that really matters is the personal witness, i.e. faith, then that is insincere. The two things are at odds with each other. Faith does not need other evidence than itself if ultimately any evidence against the faith is brushed aside on the basis of the personal witness.

If you don't understand what I am talking about, then we are just talking past each other. My apologies.

I don't think the issue is whether Dr. Peterson understands what you are talking about, but, frankly, whether you do. My "opinion" based wholly on supposition is that you do not.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Okay, let's define the apologetics that I disagree with as religious or faith-based apologetics.

All religious (faith based) apologetics is insincere, because religious apologetics are about conclusions arrived at from tautological, a priori reasoning. "God exists therefore the Bible is His Word because God said so through His prophets."

All scientific secular (belief based) apologetics is insincere, because scientific secular apologetics are about conclusions arrived at from tautological, a priori reasoning. "This scientific principle exists therefore the schools and teachers teach these things, because science said so through its scientists."

[karl61]

All scientific secular (belief based) apologetics is insincere, because scientific secular apologetics are about conclusions arrived at from tautological, a priori reasoning. "This scientific principle exists therefore the schools and teachers teach these things, because science said so through its scientists."

? I don't know if I agree or not as anything more than a simple sentence is over my head, but science is tenative and the more you know about the science the more you know it's faults and strengths - but you get to put it up on the internet so people in iceland, brazil and england get to check it too. They may question the method but then that's another issue.