Is Apologetics Insincere?

[LifeOnaPlate]

? 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.

Hmm, so my approach to science is problematic. Interesting.

[Daniel Peterson]

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

Finally!

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."

Thomas Aquinas wrote voluminously in defense of his faith. Would you care to identify a single passage in either the massive Summa theologica or the equally massive Summa contra gentiles where he makes that argument or any analogous argument?

Or, failing that, could you identify any passage in anything by, say, Alvin Plantinga or William Lane Craig or Richard Swinburne where that argument or any argument like it is made?

Or, failing that, could you identify any passage in anything I've ever written where I make that argument or any argument like thereunto?

Or, failing that, could you identify any passage from any serious "apologist" who has ever made any such argument?

[Scottie]

Finally!

Thomas Aquinas wrote voluminously in defense of his faith. Would you care to identify a single passage in either the massive Summa theologica or the equally massive Summa contra gentiles where he makes that argument or any analogous argument?

Or, failing that, could you identify any passage in anything by, say, Alvin Plantinga or William Lane Craig or Richard Swinburne where that argument or any argument like it is made?

Or, failing that, could you identify any passage in anything I've ever written where I make that argument or any argument like thereunto?

Or, failing that, could you identify any passage from any serious "apologist" who has ever made any such argument?

Are you denying that what Amantha said is true? Do you NOT believe that "God exists therefore the Bible is His Word because God said so through His prophets"?

[Scottie]

I think if I understand what Amantha is trying to say, with apologetics, the conclusion has already been made. The apologist is not seeking truth, but rather a unalterable defense of the subject.

Assuming we're talking about LDS apologists, lets say that a new diary was found that held some kind of incriminating evidence against JS. What would the apologist do? Would he carefully weigh this new evidence and re-evaluate his views on the validity of the church, or would he start scrambling his brain on how he could make this new evidence fit into the already solidified world view of The Church is True?

My guess would be the latter. That is why it is insincere.

I don't hold this to only religion, either. Any apologist for any subject that holds a "defend at all costs no matter what evidence is thrown our way" attitude is insincere.

[Daniel Peterson]

Are you denying that what Amantha said is true?

Yes. I'm denying what Amantha said.

Do you NOT believe that "God exists therefore the Bible is His Word because God said so through His prophets"?

No. I do NOT believe that "God exists therefore the Bible is His Word because God said so through His prophets."

The existence of God, as such, is perfectly compatible with the truth of the Qurâ??an rather than of the Bible, or with the truth of the Bhagavad Gita rather than of the Qurâ??an, or with the truth of no particular written scripture.

I believe that God exists. I believe that the line of prophets described in the Bible spoke for God. Therefore, I believe that the Bible is God's word.

The third proposition follows from the second, but the second doesn't follow from the first, and the third doesn't follow from the first.

Moreover, I've never made any argument even remotely approximating this one in anything I've ever written or published.

[Daniel Peterson]

I think if I understand what Amantha is trying to say, with apologetics, the conclusion has already been made. The apologist is not seeking truth, but rather a unalterable defense of the subject.

That may well have been what Amantha was trying to say. However, since Amantha clearly finds the notion of presenting evidence for claims a troubling one, there's very little in what s/he says that can really be discussed.

Assuming we're talking about LDS apologists, lets say that a new diary was found that held some kind of incriminating evidence against JS. What would the apologist do? Would he carefully weigh this new evidence and re-evaluate his views on the validity of the church, or would he start scrambling his brain on how he could make this new evidence fit into the already solidified world view of The Church is True?

My guess would be the latter. That is why it is insincere.

When guesses about hypothetical future actions under vague hypothetical future circumstances begin counting as real evidence for anything, your guess will count for something.

I don't hold this to only religion, either. Any apologist for any subject that holds a "defend at all costs no matter what evidence is thrown our way" attitude is insincere.

Such behavior would obviously be problematic, even if insincere is a slightly odd word choice for it.

But remember that Amantha's claim is that all apologetics -- the two Summas of Aquinas, al-Ghazali's Tahafut al-Falasifa, Plantinga's Oxford University Press books on religious belief and "proper warrant," Swinburne's Oxford books on the justification of theistic belief, etc., etc. -- inescapably and necessarily fall under that condemnation.

This is a claim for which lesser minds typically require something called "evidence."

[TrespassersW]

I think if I understand what Amantha is trying to say, with apologetics, the conclusion has already been made. The apologist is not seeking truth, but rather a unalterable defense of the subject.

Assuming we're talking about LDS apologists, lets say that a new diary was found that held some kind of incriminating evidence against JS. What would the apologist do? Would he carefully weigh this new evidence and re-evaluate his views on the validity of the church, or would he start scrambling his brain on how he could make this new evidence fit into the already solidified world view of The Church is True?

My guess would be the latter. That is why it is insincere.

I don't hold this to only religion, either. Any apologist for any subject that holds a "defend at all costs no matter what evidence is thrown our way" attitude is insincere.

Do you not see the rather enormous assumption being made here? You are, essentially, assuming dishonesty on the part of the apologists and then using your assumption as evidence that apologists are, in fact, dishonest. That seems like it would be easy to do with anybody, including yourself. If you were faced with incontrovertible evidence that you were wrong, would you change your position? If I assume that you wouldn't, should that count against you and justify my labeling you as insincere?

I am a curious person. I like to understand things. When I become interested in a topic, I study it. Now, if, hypothetically, I meet a critic who presents to me an argument about why my beliefs are wrong, and it just so happens that in my studies I have come across information that either severely undermines or outright disproves his argument, what should I do? If I present the evidence to him, haven't I just crossed the line and become an insincere apologist? Is this not acceptable? Must I simply concede that he must be right and make no effort to inform him of the evidence that he seems to have missed?

Or is my hypothetical not even possible? Is it impossible for me to come across evidence that any critic, anywhere, at any time, might be wrong? Is the very idea that, because I am Mormon, I might actually have a case to make simply not a realistic option in your mind?

That seems ridiculous, and I don't imagine that you actually believe that. But from your post above, I have trouble seeing any other option.

[cksalmon]

(1) I recently had someone claim that my solution to one of their "issues" was ad hoc, which is another term for dishonest. I responded that I had espoused that view for several years, but I can see why they were so upset over a very simple answer to one of their "killer arguments".

If you cannot address the issue, you are left with impuning the integrity of the respondent.

(1) That would be me responding to Charles here. You suggest that ad hoc "is another term for dishonest." No, it manifestly is no such thing, Charles. Perhaps that is how you personally use the term, but, frankly, you shouldn't.

I explained to you why I thought your comments:

Interesting paradox, but no big deal == it only proves there is more than one bucket. As one universe gets "filled up", a new one is created. Each creation begins with finding new room for the creation process.

seemed ad hoc to me:

This seems rather an ad hoc solution to my mind. The above reads as if you're capitulating to the force of the Olbers' Paradox, but using its conclusion as the basis for your belief in multiple universes. In other words, it seems that your proposal of multiple universes is tailor-made to account for Olbers' Paradox. Nothing has been proven; you've just wiggled out of a tight spot (it seems) by positing an ad hoc solution.

Note the thrice-repeated use of "seems" [to me].

You responded by suggesting that I was guilty of ad hominem argumentation. I manifestly wasn't. And that my response was "intellectually insulting." And that I was personally attacking you and should instead offer something substantive to the thread. Now, who's impugning whose motives here, exactly?

My response:

Goodness, get over it, Charles. My post was not a personal attack nor did it employ anything even remotely resembling an ad hominem fallacy.

A reasonable response might have been: "You're incorrect. My positing of multiple universes predates my learning of Olbers' paradox." Or something like that.

Oddly, there was no response from you on those points.

Please don't misrepresent me, even if you choose to do so with revealing my screen name.

CKS

[ruski_canuk]

Finally!

Thomas Aquinas wrote voluminously in defense of his faith. Would you care to identify a single passage in either the massive Summa theologica or the equally massive Summa contra gentiles where he makes that argument or any analogous argument?

Or, failing that, could you identify any passage in anything by, say, Alvin Plantinga or William Lane Craig or Richard Swinburne where that argument or any argument like it is made?

Or, failing that, could you identify any passage in anything I've ever written where I make that argument or any argument like thereunto?

Or, failing that, could you identify any passage from any serious "apologist" who has ever made any such argument?

Am I to conclude concurrence with my last post from silence ?

[amantha]

Many of you will find the following offensive, but it reveals accurately how I view this discussion of the need for evidence. If Mormon missionaries went out and asked people to go out and get the evidence that the Church was true, I might change my mind about what I have said, but they don't. They tell investigators that all they need is to ask and that God will tell them. Do these investigators not require more evidence? Yes or no? Is it up to each person to decide? If so, then it is all a matter of opinion anyway.

Those of you who need evidence that my opinion is true should:

1. Read this entire thread.

2. Ask in faith, with the utmost sincere and true intent. You must not disbelieve in my method or think that it might not be the true method for discovering the truth of my sayings.

3. Ask in the name of ___________ (list your most credible religious leader, demigod or God).

4. Know without a doubt that this method for discovering the truth of my posts is sanctioned by God.

5. You should not waiver in your belief that you will come to know that what I say is true, for if you do you will not get the true answer--which is that my views are true and sanctioned by God.

6. Ask if these things are not true.

7. If you do all of the above, exactly as I have instructed, you will know that what I say is true, by the power of the (name your most credible spiritual intermediary). If you do not get the right answer, you will need to keep using this method until you get it right.

8. There is no other method for identifying the truth of my statements. There may be evidence to support my statements and there may be evidence against, but, in the end, all that matters is your personal witness that what I say is true.

The above process is all you need--to know the truth of my statements. And if you know the truth of my statements, you will know that apologetics is insincere. If you refute this process then you simply are not exercising enough faith. If you require more evidence than this from me, then you are seeking signs and you are therefore without faith and you will likely not receive all of the glory and blessings that are reserved for those who can use my method successfully. Sorry about that one, but that's just the way it is. The writings to which I refer are right here on this internet site. They have not been taken up into heaven yet.

[Pahoran]

Phoran;

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

And their ignorance says what, exactly, about the value of those claims?

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

Really?

Have you actually bothered to inform yourself about these issues at all, or are you setting the example you wish us to emulate, by surrendering to the triumphant ignorance of the uninformed?

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

How would you know, without actually investigating the issues?

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

No it isn't.

The utterly ridiculous position I am talking about is the utterly ridiculous position that mass ignorance of a subject somehow constitutes useful information about that subject. A position best expressed by the aphorism, Vox populi, vox cretin.

We, the Latter-day Saints, are perfectly well aware that ours is not the majority opinion about the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ. But it is the majority informed opinion. Demanding that we simply acquiesce to the uninformed assumptions of those who know nothing because there are more of them has to be the most idiotic suggestion I've ever read.

Nevertheless, I want you to know that we appreciate you, Solo. If not for you, we wouldn't be able to call this forum a village.

Regards,

Pahoran

[juliann]

The above process is all you need--to know the truth of my statements. And if you know the truth of my statements, you will know that apologetics is insincere. If you refute this process then you simply are not exercising enough faith. If you require more evidence than this from me, than you are without faith and you will likely not receive all of the glory and blessings that are reserved for those who can use my method successfully. The writings to which I refer are right here on this internet site. They have not been taken up into heaven yet.

There is an important element to proselyting. You have to try really, really hard to not sound more crazy than what you are trying to replace.

[amantha]

There is an important element to proselyting. You have to try really, really hard to not sound more crazy than what you are trying to replace.

LOL. Thanks.

[Uncle Dale]

...

The above process is all you need--to know the truth of my statements. And if you know the

truth of my statements, you will know that apologetics is insincere...

I've added a few remarks to this thread, but they seem to have bypassed your radar screen.

In some ways I might be correctly identified an "an apologist," though not for the particular religious

views most generally encountered on this MB.

So, I am trying to think back to some episode where my apologetics have been "insincere." And the

best I can come up with, are a few examples in which I really did not care whether or not I won anybody

over to a certain point of view -- but, where I was just dialoguing with the hopes of "drawing out" some

other person's thoughts, (or making a small attempt at being humorous).

Other than that, what I say -- what I defend or articulate -- is done with sincerity.

I know very little by way of "faith," but life experience has strengthened that faith over time.

It may sound delusional -- but what I profess comes by way of experience. A little knowledge helps me

articulate what I want to say -- a theological training gives me some useful metaphysical background.

But what I profess comes from a sincere desire to mediate in helping others to that same experience.

None of which probably "speaks" to the topic as you see it.

Uncle Dale

.

[Pahoran]

Many of you will find the following offensive,

Of course. You intend them to.

but it reveals accurately how I view this discussion of the need for evidence.

Accurately? A ham-fisted caricature of the truth claims of a religion you loathe and despise is an accurate exposition of your views?

Okay Amantha. You've convinced me.

Apologetics is necessarily insincere.

At least, it is when you are practicing it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[amantha]

Amantha,

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.

Dan,

If I bring evidence to defend my opinion, I instantly refute it.

How do you break a circle? You start by acknowledging that it is one. Religious apologetics is a circle that has no beginning or end, when you start requiring evidence beyond faith. In order to end it, you have to not begin it. Those who have to ears to hear, will.

[amantha]

I've added a few remarks to this thread, but they seem to have bypassed your radar screen.

In some ways I might be correctly identified an "an apologist," though not for the particular religious

views most generally encountered on this MB.

So, I am trying to think back to some episode where my apologetics have been "insincere." And the

best I can come up with, are a few examples in which I really did not care whether or not I won anybody

over to a certain point of view -- but, where I was just dialoguing with the hopes of "drawing out" some

other person's thoughts, (or making a small attempt at being humorous).

Other than that, what I say -- what I defend or articulate -- is done with sincerity.

I know very little by way of "faith," but life experience has strengthened that faith over time.

It may sound delusional -- but what I profess comes by way of experience. A little knowledge helps me

articulate what I want to say -- a theological training gives me some useful metaphysical background.

But what I profess comes from a sincere desire to mediate in helping others to that same experience.

None of which probably "speaks" to the topic as you see it.

Uncle Dale

.

What are you defending? Are you unwilling to change your mind on what you are defending--no matter what?

[juliann]

What are you defending? Are you unwilling to change your mind on what you are defending--no matter what?

Are you?

[aka]

I think apologetics is operating at the highest levels when rationalizing polyandry in a situation where the wife of a faithful member of the church is presented to a prophet as a marriage partner by her husband.

I know such arrangements are explained away by apologists as nothing to wonder about or be puzzled about the claimed divine nature of the situation. At the least I wonder about a God who appears to sanction passing women around like mere property by the men. Apologists (maybe they are usually men) do not appear to be fazed in the slightest.

The ability and intellect to justify such is awe inspiring.

The awe level is even higher when the apologist easily justifies a case when the marriage occurs during a time when the husband is serving a mission.

[juliann]

I think apologetics is operating at the highest levels when rationalizing polyandry in a situation where the wife of a faithful member of the church is presented to a prophet as a marriage partner by her husband.

I know such arrangements are explained away by apologists as nothing to wonder about or be puzzled about the claimed divine nature of the situation. At the least I wonder about a God who appears to sanction passing women around like mere property by the men. Apologists (maybe they are usually men) do not appear to be fazed in the slightest.

The ability and intellect to justify such is awe inspiring.

As is the ability to distort, misrepresent and vilify while stuffing a sock in the mouths of women who try to speak for themselves...as those believing women did. But there is no more noble endeavor than those who aspire to be the Defenders of Dead & Dumb Mormon Women. We salute you.

[aka]

But there is no more noble endeavor than those who aspire to be the Defenders of Dead & Dumb Mormon Women.

Perhaps "dumb" is the operative word here.

[ruski_canuk]

I regret that the discussion has devolved into the usual strawman attack with amantha acting as proxy. The methodology employed by Mormon apologists warrants a decent discussion but instead focus is given on extreme views of critics as they are easier to attack.

It reminds me of the damage done to religions' cause by the young earth creationists. It is easy for the atheist to look at that and pigeonhole the lot as delusional. All you have to do is find one extreme critic to shore up your belief that apologetic methodology represents a sincere quest for truth.

[Pahoran]

Perhaps "dumb" is the operative word here.

Perhaps if you want to pose as their heroic defender, you ought to try a little harder to dissemble your contempt for them.

Just a thought.

It is, after all, highly unlikely that (just for example) Eliza R. Snow was actually "dumber" than you are.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ruski_canuk]

I think apologetics is operating at the highest levels when rationalizing polyandry in a situation where the wife of a faithful member of the church is presented to a prophet as a marriage partner by her husband.

I know such arrangements are explained away by apologists as nothing to wonder about or be puzzled about the claimed divine nature of the situation. At the least I wonder about a God who appears to sanction passing women around like mere property by the men. Apologists (maybe they are usually men) do not appear to be fazed in the slightest.

The ability and intellect to justify such is awe inspiring.

The awe level is even higher when the apologist easily justifies a case when the marriage occurs during a time when the husband is serving a mission.

reminds me of the frog - boiling water story. To be able to justify those things, you must be *eased* into it...

[cksalmon]

To answer the questions posed by the thread title, if not explicitly by the OP itself:

(1) Is apologia anent a given worldview insincere?

I'd have to answer, most certainly not--at least, per a manifestly subjective look-around-town epistemology, in the vast majority of cases (LDS apologists included).

(2) Are apologists insincere?

See above.

Anyone can be sincere and yet be, concurrently, sincerely wrong...about virtually anything within the vast realm of informal logical discourse. In the vast majority of cases, that includes all of us posting on whatever threads pique our curiosity on MADB. Or on other MB's.

Best.

CKS