Is Apologetics Insincere?

[Pahoran]

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.

Er, Ruski? Amantha's self-defeating argument is the topic. If s/he has become a "proxy" for the usual suspects, it is because the usual suspects have been so eager to leap to his/her defense. Or, more precisely, to join him/her in attacking and vilifying all "apologists" everywhere.

Make no mistake, Ruski, because we surely will not: Amantha is the attacker here. It seems, um, "insincere" to try to pretend otherwise. And you won't fool anybody.

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.

And an "extreme critic" could easily be defined, for the purposes of this discussion, as anyone too dense or too emotionally committed to the myth of their own ideological purity to grasp the fact that everyone who is arguing in this forum--yes, Ruski, including Amantha and you--is an "apologist" for their own POV. If there is anything inherently wrong or wicked about apologetics, then it is as wrong or wicked about your apologetics as it is about ours.

The standard polemical trick of accusing "Mormon apologists" of doing something uniquely dirty and dishonest is a dirty and dishonest one.

Do you get it yet?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Uncle Dale]

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

What I am "defending" is not easily put into words, but might be expressed as "we are all connected;"

or as "God is being;" or maybe just as "love conquers all."

Since it is an existential realization it is not easily communicated by intellectual argument -- except perhaps

by directing peoples' attention to truths that are embodied in all the world religions.

My main purpose is to make people think -- on their own -- without the support of published creeds

or lists of doctrinal statements from "higher authorities." On this MB, that's a challenge, but I keep

plugging away. The encounter of diverse minds/viewpoint can serve as a beginning point.

Beyond that, I would encourage at least a few people to go beyond intellectualization or dependence

upon the reflective mind ---- to comprehend "beyond rational thought."

With Mormons I defend that sort of process or realization, along with some wisdom passed on to us

by various mystical poets and sages (including Jesus the son of Mary).

Uncle Dale

.

[aka]

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

Hereâ??s trying a little harder. I'm reminded of Sarah Pratt's response to the proposal to take a second husband. She gave the matter deep thought before responding "NO"! She was definitely very bright.

[Dan Vogel]

Amantha,

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.

So far you haven't engaged my arguments. How sincere is that? You have not simply expressed an opinion, but have presented arguments that need defending. You seem to have a rather naive purist view of faith as something that is irrational and indefensible. I don't think the believers whom you are criticizing have that definition.

You brought up some points with Dan P. that I wish to respond to.

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."

And that's not a tautological definition? You have defined apologetics ins such a way that the definition does all the work. That's a question-begging definition fallacy.

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.

Are you claiming an apologists has never changed his/her mind? You are aware that there are some former Mormon apologists who lurk and sometimes post here?

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 your description of apologetic behavior is accurate. In fact, if an apologist resorts to using testimony instead of argumentation and evidence, he/she is no longer an apologist, but a minister. Of course, the apologists' beliefs lurk in the background and influences the selection of evidence and arguments, just as naturalism does mine, but such things are irrelevant to the validity of the arguments and evidence presented.

[Daniel Peterson]

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

No. You're to conclude that other people have lives and that they respond when they can and when they have the inclination. I noticed your post, and will probably respond to it.

As it is, though, I'm trying to finish a book manuscript before I leave for Europe on 6 September, as well as putting the final touches on the manuscript of a chapter of a book that will soon be published by Oxford University Press, as well as preparing four lectures for Europe and four new lectures for BYU Education Week, as well as taking over a new ward in which I know absolutely nobody and in which 80% of the members will change at the beginning of the new semester later this month.

Your post, though important, will have to take its turn. I apologize.

[Daniel Peterson]

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

That is one of the most absurd statements I've ever encountered. Anywhere. At any time.

I regret that the discussion has devolved into the usual strawman attack with amantha acting as proxy.

This thread was launched to discuss a claim made by Amantha.

I know, because I'm the one who started the thread.

The title comes from Amantha.

The subtitle comes from Amantha.

It is not a deviation from the subject of the thread to talk about Amantha's claim, because the thread was launched to do precisely that.

Okay?

[Maidservant]

Actually Uncle Dale, when I read your first post in this thread, the initial reaction I had to it was: "Sweet."

[ruski_canuk]

No. You're to conclude that other people have lives and that they respond when they can and when they have the inclination. I noticed your post, and will probably respond to it.

As it is, though, I'm trying to finish a book manuscript before I leave for Europe on 6 September, as well as putting the final touches on the manuscript of a chapter of a book that will soon be published by Oxford University Press, as well as preparing four lectures for Europe and four new lectures for BYU Education Week, as well as taking over a new ward in which I know absolutely nobody and in which 80% of the members will change at the beginning of the new semester later this month.

Your post, though important, will have to take its turn. I apologize.

nah, you were too busy responding to non-issues which is fine. Let's just avoid that sticky methodology issue.

[ruski_canuk]

Er, Ruski? Amantha's self-defeating argument is the topic. If s/he has become a "proxy" for the usual suspects, it is because the usual suspects have been so eager to leap to his/her defense. Or, more precisely, to join him/her in attacking and vilifying all "apologists" everywhere.

Make no mistake, Ruski, because we surely will not: Amantha is the attacker here. It seems, um, "insincere" to try to pretend otherwise. And you won't fool anybody.

And an "extreme critic" could easily be defined, for the purposes of this discussion, as anyone too dense or too emotionally committed to the myth of their own ideological purity to grasp the fact that everyone who is arguing in this forum--yes, Ruski, including Amantha and you--is an "apologist" for their own POV. If there is anything inherently wrong or wicked about apologetics, then it is as wrong or wicked about your apologetics as it is about ours.

The standard polemical trick of accusing "Mormon apologists" of doing something uniquely dirty and dishonest is a dirty and dishonest one.

Do you get it yet?

Regards,

Pahoran

I really enjoy your patronizing, quite becoming actually. The usual vague nonsense - I've come to expect no less. The issue is methodology. Methodology is the way by which one can measure the sincerity of sane persons' search for truth. I don't see the use of babbling about whether or not someone actually believes in some dogma. People all over the place believe in all sorts of wacky things - who cares.

[William Schryver]

I'm in the midst of a serious personal crisis.

I'm finding myself in complete accord with almost everything Dan Vogel has said on this thread.

Coupled with the lingering love resulting from our lengthy conversation at the end of the FAIR conference, I'm not sure I'll be able to respect myself in the morning.

Still, for the moment at least, I must confess that Dan Vogel is my hero.

Dan, next time we're in the same town at the same time, dinner's on me.

[Daniel Peterson]

nah, you were too busy responding to non-issues which is fine.

I was interested in Amantha's claim. I thought it was light years over the top, and wanted to see whether s/he would back away from it. It's now clear that s/he won't. And I've grown bored with his/her reiterations of what I regard as a thoroughly vacuous position.

Let's just avoid that sticky methodology issue.

If you're going to accuse those who disagree with you, or who fail to ask "How high?" when you order them to jump, of acting in bad faith, I think I will avoid interacting with you on that topic. My patience for such incivility in dialogue is extremely limited, and you've already exceeded it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Amazing that folks like ruski here moan about the condescending attitude they see in others. Perhaps they recognize the condescension so well because they possess so much of it?

[/ad hominem]

[amantha]

Amantha,

So far you haven't engaged my arguments. How sincere is that? You have not simply expressed an opinion, but have presented arguments that need defending. You seem to have a rather naive purist view of faith as something that is irrational and indefensible. I don't think the believers whom you are criticizing have that definition.

You brought up some points with Dan P. that I wish to respond to.

And that's not a tautological definition? You have defined apologetics ins such a way that the definition does all the work. That's a question-begging definition fallacy.

Are you claiming an apologists has never changed his/her mind? You are aware that there are some former Mormon apologists who lurk and sometimes post here?

I don't think your description of apologetic behavior is accurate. In fact, if an apologist resorts to using testimony instead of argumentation and evidence, he/she is no longer an apologist, but a minister. Of course, the apologists' beliefs lurk in the background and influences the selection of evidence and arguments, just as naturalism does mine, but such things are irrelevant to the validity of the arguments and evidence presented.

Yes, they are ministers. Thank you.

I realize that you spend a lot of time refuting mormon apologetics, so for me to say that it is all a waste of time, may denegrate what you are doing.

It is simply my opinion that religious faith does not require evidence. Faith is evidence of itself. Those who say they need evidence either need to drop the religion facade or suck it up and realize that what they want is to prove to others that there is evidence for their faith--so as to make it more science-like.

If you don't agree with my opinion, just say so. My opinion is only an argument if you want to argue with it, which apparently quite a few people here have wanted to do. It must have struck a chord somewhere. Dan Peterson wanted to devote a whole thread to it.

I recommend that Dan Peterson contact the GAs in charge of the missionary work and require that evidence of the kind that is being asked of me, be scripted into the missionary discussions. That would be the sincere thing to do. Otherwise missionaries are merely offering their opinions to the investigators. Maybe they should say that. That would be sincere.

[Daniel Peterson]

I recommend that Dan Peterson contact the GAs in charge of the missionary work and require that evidence of the kind that is being asked of me, be scripted into the missionary discussions. That would be the sincere thing to do. Otherwise missionaries are merely offering their opinions to the investigators. Maybe they should say that. That would be sincere.

Ridiculous tripe.

[juliann]

I recommend that Dan Peterson contact the GAs in charge of the missionary work and require that evidence of the kind that is being asked of me, be scripted into the missionary discussions.

Your recommendation will be given all the attention it deserves. Have a nice day!

Perhaps "dumb" is the operative word here.

Exactly.

[Beowulf]

Although Amantha will immediately deny it, the Scriptures (all of them, of all religious persuasions) are Evidence for God. They exist to persuade people that God exists.

This is a form of apologetic. The missionaries that Amantha so readily derides as utilizing no evidence at all, do indeed use the Scriptures to back up their assertions. They are using Evidence, which is Apologetic.

And some of the best portions of Mormon scripture arguing for the existence of God, and telling people how to go about finding out this information for themselves happens to be the very part that Amantha so ineptly parodied. Perhaps Amantha should read that part again, a little more slowly, and let it sink in.

It is one of the most remarkable discourses on how to make contact with God ever written by a member of the human race...

Beowulf

[amantha]

That is one of the most absurd statements I've ever encountered. Anywhere. At any time.

It's about as absurd as religious apologetics, I agree. That was the point. Apologists demand evidence for the claims of their critics while defending a religious faith which propounds the notion that the only true evidence is the personal witness, thereby rendering other kinds of evidence unnecessary. Do you see the circle yet?

[Pahoran]

I really enjoy your patronizing, quite becoming actually.

I addressed your argument. Do you find that "patronizing?" Who knew?

The usual vague nonsense - I've come to expect no less.

Then maybe that's why that's all you can see.

My response was to your assertions, and was neither more nor less vague than they were. If you think it was "nonsense," perhaps you'd care to demonstrate why.

The issue is methodology.

No, it is not. The issue for this thread--as defined by the thread originator--is Amantha's amazing assertion that apologetics is necessarily insincere. S/he has assiduously defended and tried to explain that position, so by definition s/he is practising apologetics. And nothing else.

And so are you.

Methodology is the way by which one can measure the sincerity of sane persons' search for truth. I don't see the use of babbling about whether or not someone actually believes in some dogma. People all over the place believe in all sorts of wacky things - who cares.

That is utter bilge. A person's sincerity is not measured by someone else's arbitrary methodological rules. It stands on its own, however wrongheaded their methodology may or may not be, or however wrongheaded someone who rejects their beliefs may assume it to be.

Regards,

Pahoran

[amantha]

Although Amantha will immediately deny it, the Scriptures (all of them, of all religious persuasions) are Evidence for God. They exist to persuade people that God exists.

This is a form of apologetic. The missionaries that Amantha so readily derides as utilizing no evidence at all, do indeed use the Scriptures to back up their assertions. They are using Evidence, which is Apologetic.

And some of the best portions of Mormon scripture arguing for the existence of God, and telling people how to go about finding out this information for themselves happens to be the very part that Amantha so ineptly parodied. Perhaps Amantha should read that part again, a little more slowly, and let it sink in.

It is one of the most remarkable discourses on how to make contact with God ever written by a member of the human race...

Beowulf

I don't think you actually used the method I put forth with sincere enough intent. You just haven't worked hard enough at it or you did something wrong. Keep trying, but make sure you really want my method to work for you. If you disbelieve the method, it won't work--which proves that I am right.

Ridiculous tripe.

Well then you could just as appropriately say that your requests for evidence from me are the same.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It's about as absurd as religious apologetics, I agree. That was the point. Apologists demand evidence for the claims of their critics while defending a religious faith which propounds the notion that the only true evidence is the personal witness, thereby rendering other kinds of evidence unnecessary. Do you see the circle yet?

I think what you are missing, amantha, is that for many Latter-day Saints the spiritual witness they seek and receive is as vital as evidence discovered by the 5 senses. I agree this can seem absurd to some. The thread wasn't about that issue, though, it was about your assertion dealing with the motives and methods of apologists in general. Not your view of the absurdity of things spiritual.

[Daniel Peterson]

It's about as absurd as religious apologetics, I agree.

You haven't shown that the works of Aquinas, al-Ghazali, Wolsterstorff, Swinburne, Origen, Craig, Habermas, Plantinga, etc., are "absurd."

You haven't even given me any reason to suspect that you're familiar with their names, let alone that you know their works well enough to be qualified to pronounce judgment on them.

That was the point. Apologists demand evidence for the claims of their critics while defending a religious faith which propounds the notion that the only true evidence is the personal witness, thereby rendering other kinds of evidence unnecessary.

Who says that "the only true evidence is the personal witness"? I recognize all kinds of evidence and potential evidence, some strong and some less so. There is secular evidence as well as spiritual evidence. And the scriptures themselves, with their multiple witnesses, etc., are evidence distinct from the "personal witness" directly revealed by the Spirit.

I don't believe that knowledge of the secular evidence is necessary to a life of faith, but that doesn't mean that I don't recognize the existence of secular evidence. And I'm pretty much in the mainstream on this issue, so far as I can see.

Do you see the circle yet?

There is no circle.

You've created a straw man. We're not responsible for it.

[William Schryver]

amantha:

Apologists demand evidence for the claims of their critics while defending a religious faith which propounds the notion that the only true evidence is the personal witness, thereby rendering other kinds of evidence unnecessary.

This sentence demonstrates your fundamental misconception in terms of this discussion. LDS â??apologistsâ? do not propound â??the notion that the only true evidence is the personal witness.â? In fact, the Book of Mormon illustrates precisely the LDS conception of the relationship between â??faithâ? and â??evidence.â?

In the famous exchange between Korihor and Alma, we read:

Alma 30

37 â?¦ Alma said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God?

38 And he answered, Nay.

39 Now Alma said unto him: Will ye deny again that there is a God, and also deny the Christ? For behold, I say unto you, I know there is a God, and also that Christ shall come.

40 And now what evidence have ye that there is no God, or that Christ cometh not? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only.

[Note how Alma is drawing a definite distinction between faith and evidence.]

41 But, behold, I have all things as a testimony that these things are true; and ye also have all things as a testimony unto you that they are true; and will ye deny them? Believest thou that these things are true?

42 Behold, I know that thou believest, but thou art possessed with a lying spirit, and ye have put off the Spirit of God that it may have no place in you; but the devil has power over you, and he doth carry you about, working devices that he may destroy the children of God.

43 And now Korihor said unto Alma: If thou wilt show me a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words.

44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

Among the â??all thingsâ? to which Alma referred as being the â??evidence â?? that undergirds his â??faithâ? are specific elements of the natural world which Alma clearly understands to be â??evidenceâ? of the existence of God. It is Almaâ??s understanding and interpretation of the evidence, and his ability to articulate the nature of that interpretation, that constitutes the basis and defense of his faith.

Faith, at least as understood by Latter-day Saints, is never based on exclusively intangible elements. To the contrary, almost every faithful Latter-day Saint can quickly list several essentially tangible evidences as being the foundation of his/her faith.

So it is also with LDS apologetics. It seeks to identify and interpret those tangible evidences â?? things which are seen -- that support the belief in things which are not seen. Of course, there is often dispute between non-believers and believers as to whether or not the apologistsâ?? interpretation of the â??evidenceâ? is valid and correct. But that is another issue altogether. The fact remains that Latter-day Saints do look for and rely on â??evidenceâ? to justify their faith.

That you fail to appreciate and understand this fundamental concept is at the root of your fallacious arguments throughout this thread.

[LifeOnaPlate]

amantha:

This sentence demonstrates your fundamental misconception in terms of this discussion. LDS “apologists” do not propound “the notion that the only true evidence is the personal witness.” In fact, the Book of Mormon illustrates precisely the LDS conception of the relationship between “faith” and “evidence.”

In the famous exchange between Korihor and Alma, we read:

Among the “all things” to which Alma referred as being the “evidence “ that undergirds his “faith” are specific elements of the natural world which Alma clearly understands to be “evidence” of the existence of God. It is Alma’s understanding and interpretation of the evidence, and his ability to articulate the nature of that interpretation, that constitutes the basis and defense of his faith.

Faith, at least as understood by Latter-day Saints, is never based on exclusively intangible elements. To the contrary, almost every faithful Latter-day Saint can quickly list several essentially tangible evidences as being the foundation of his/her faith.

So it is also with LDS apologetics. It seeks to identify and interpret those tangible evidences – things which are seen -- that support the belief in things which are not seen. Of course, there is often dispute between non-believers and believers as to whether or not the apologists’ interpretation of the “evidence” is valid and correct. But that is another issue altogether. The fact remains that Latter-day Saints do look for and rely on “evidence” to justify their faith.

That you fail to appreciate and understand this fundamental concept is at the root of your fallacious arguments throughout this thread.

A good post.

I was thinking about this issue when I read Alma 5 the other day. I realized Alma began his discourse with some concrete history; this seemed to say to me that history does have a place in religion, [perhaps obviously,] and is an important part of our faith. His entire introduction to a doctrinal treatise is an examination of the recent events of history. A concrete discussion. Reminds me of some of our current missionary lessons and testimonies.

[amantha]

You haven't shown that the works of Aquinas, al-Ghazali, Wolsterstorff, Swinburne, Origen, Craig, Habermas, Plantinga, etc., are "absurd."

You haven't even given me any reason to suspect that you're familiar with their names, let alone that you know their works well enough to be qualified to pronounce judgment on them.

Who says that "the only true evidence is the personal witness"? I recognize all kinds of evidence and potential evidence, some strong and some less so. There is secular evidence as well as spiritual evidence. And the scriptures themselves, with their multiple witnesses, etc., are evidence distinct from the "personal witness" directly revealed by the Spirit.

I don't believe that knowledge of the secular evidence is necessary to a life of faith, but that doesn't mean that I don't recognize the existence of secular evidence. And I'm pretty much in the mainstream on this issue, so far as I can see.

There is no circle.

You've created a straw man. We're not responsible for it.

Dear Investigator,

Please be sure to have scholarly degrees in Aquinas, al-Ghazali, Wolsterstorff, Swinburne, Origen, Craig, Habermas, Plantinga, before you seek your personal witness, as your personal witness won't be enough.

Also, after you are a member of the church, be sure to claim, that those who leave because they don't want to have scholarly degrees in Aquinas, al-Ghazali, Wolsterstorff, Swinburne, Origen, Craig, Habermas, Plantinga AND who don't believe that the personal witness is enough, have no evidence that the Church is NOT true and that they must provide evidence before they can have that opinion and other opinions including the insincerity of religious apologetics.

Dan,

It is your opinion that I created a straw man. I'm okay with your opinion. I don't require any more evidence than that.

It is my opinion that religious apologetics seeks to defend a position at all costs, without regard to the evidence. The moment it is willing to stop defending a position no matter what, will be the day that it ceases being religious apologetics and becomes something else. Perhaps that something else will be science, perhaps not.

And...just because things are old or believed by billions or proposed by historic figures, does not mean those things are true or sincere or anything for that matter. Lots of intelligent people used to believe the world was flat.

[Daniel Peterson]

That you fail to appreciate and understand this fundamental concept is at the root of your fallacious arguments throughout this thread.

Good post.

Paul, too, cites witnesses (as in 1 Corinthians 15:1- and points to the natural world as evidence for God (e.g., at Romans 1:18-20).

Amantha's notion that religious believers -- excepting those horrible "insincere" apologists -- reject all evidence except spiritual witness and disdain the use of argument is flatly untrue.

He's invented a straw man, and is trying to blame us for it.