Is Apologetics Insincere?

[LifeOnaPlate]

It is my opinion that he had an opinion. Whether or not his opinion was right, is anybody's guess. The rightness of the opinion is to be decided by the individual.

[USU78]

To be candid--without intent for offense--your hubris is palpable.

Astonishing! Mindreading and Sophoklean insight in the same package!

USU "I gotta party with amantha" 78

[ruski_canuk]

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.

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.

Thank you for granting transparency. Where did I say that agreement was necessary for our dialog ? I only wanted to discuss methodology and its role in the search for truth. You flat out don't want to address the methodology madness in apologetics which unfortunately confirms its value.

Where did incivility come into the picture ? I wish one wouldn't just go into a rage to mask discomfort towards a subject.

[ruski_canuk]

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

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.

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.

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

I have already granted that apologists are sincere (I can't say what %, but I would guess most of them) in that they believe in what they say to be true. Almost everyone believes in what they say - I don't see how there is any value in discussing this aspect of sincerity.

A person's sincerity is not measured by someone else's arbitrary methodological rules.

This really surprises me. Do you have no regard at all for a given methodology and count them all as "arbitrary" ? Methodology is the key difference between reliable science and ESP. For any system which takes on truth, methodology is the fundamental decider of the sincerity of that system (again, not its ardent followers).

Methodologies can be sincere or otherwise, they are not "arbitrary". If someone was convicted of murder, would the methodology be a sincere search for truth if the only evidence gathered was the evidence provided by the suspect ? Clearly, methodology, or how the evidence is gathered and analyzed IS the key to validating the sincerity of the system. Do you consider the methodology used in 18th century witch hunts as arbitrary as modern courts ? How about the methodology employed by the catholic church to decide the revolution of the planets with respect to that approach taken by Copernicus or Galileo ? Do you honestly believe that a system's methodology for getting at truth doesn't define the system's actual intent to arrive at the truth ?

The original post said "apologetics" not "apologists" which implies that we are analyzing the approach apologetics sincerity not the people who hold fast to this pseudo-science.

Can "apologetics" sincerely believe in something ?

[Daniel Peterson]

You flat out don't want to address the methodology madness in apologetics which unfortunately confirms its value.

Where did incivility come into the picture ? I wish one wouldn't just go into a rage to mask discomfort towards a subject.

I didn't "go into a rage." I wasn't even mildly upset.

I had indicated that I was intending to reply to your post (which indeed raised substantive issues) but that I was under time constraints and would probably get to it later. You responded by suggesting that I'm scared of the topic. That is not even remotely true. More relevantly here, it was uncalled for, and uncivil. Which is why I decided not to reply to you. It is very bad form to claim (especially right off the bat, or, even, before a discussion has actually gotten underway) that one's conversation partner is acting in bad faith, insincerely.

That is what amantha does, and, since I found it difficult to believe that s/he was really intending to level a blanket charge of insincerity against essentially every religious thinker who has ever lived, I hoped to give him/her a chance to reconsider or rephrase what s/he had said. It turns out, however, that that is precisely what s/he intended to say, and that s/he persists in his/her (seemingly wholly ungrounded) opinion. I consider such a position sheer madness, of course, but I also consider it a conversation-killer, which is why I've decided to waste no more time discussing the matter with him/her.

In your own way, you have made an analogous insinuation, which is why I'm not interested in conversing with you, either. And now you suggest that I'm disingenuously feigning "rage" in order to hide from you and your apparently unanswerable questions. You're certainly free to imagine that I'm in some sort of irrational "rage," but the actual truth is that I prefer not to converse with people who casually practice what John Henry Newman famously called "poisoning the well of discourse." And the more you accuse me of disingenuousness, the less likely it is that I'll ever want to have anything to do with you.

Have a wonderful day.

[ruski_canuk]

I didn't "go into a rage." I wasn't even mildly upset.

I had indicated that I was intending to reply to your post (which indeed raised substantive issues) but that I was under time constraints and would probably get to it later. You responded by suggesting that I'm scared of the topic. That is not even remotely true. More relevantly here, it was uncalled for, and uncivil. Which is why I decided not to reply to you. It is very bad form to claim (especially right off the bat, or, even, before a discussion has actually gotten underway) that one's conversation partner is acting in bad faith, insincerely.

That is what amantha does, and, since I found it difficult to believe that s/he was really intending to level a blanket charge of insincerity against essentially every religious thinker who has ever lived, I hoped to give him/her a chance to reconsider or rephrase what s/he had said. It turns out, however, that that is precisely what s/he intended to say, and that s/he persists in his/her (seemingly wholly ungrounded) opinion. I consider such a position sheer madness, of course, but I also consider it a conversation-killer, which is why I've decided to waste no more time discussing the matter with him/her.

In your own way, you have made an analogous insinuation, which is why I'm not interested in conversing with you, either. And now you suggest that I'm disingenuously feigning "rage" in order to hide from you and your apparently unanswerable questions. You're certainly free to imagine that I'm in some sort of irrational "rage," but the actual truth is that I prefer not to converse with people who casually practice what John Henry Newman famously called "poisoning the well of discourse." And the more you accuse me of disingenuousness, the less likely it is that I'll ever want to have anything to do with you.

Have a wonderful day.

I'm sorry if my manner of trying to get you to discuss these things offends. I have discussed similar topics like this where as soon as this topic of methodology comes into the radar screen, the apologists find some out. Given the context of this thread you are right, and I am sorry for assuming that you were side-stepping. I did so prematurely.

Anyways, like yours, my patience for waiting to discuss sincere methodology is through. It seems whether subtly or directly, trying to discuss methodology with apologists is near impossible.

[Homestar Runner]

I belive this thread has value. It's not found in the subject of the thread, or in the awful attempts of people to support the notion, but it's in learning a tasty tidbit about Dr. Peterson:

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.

Do I read this right? Do we need to start referring to Herr Brother Doctor Peterson as Herr Bishop Doctor Peterson?

Man - this news just opened whole new avenues for personal attacks. We thought assisting the SCMC was big - but wow!

HSR

[Edit - I see there is a thread dedicated to shouting this news from the rooftops.]

[LifeOnaPlate]

I belive this thread has value. It's not found in the subject of the thread, or in the awful attempts of people to support the notion, but it's in learning a tasty tidbit about Dr. Peterson:

Do I read this right? Do we need to start referring to Herr Brother Doctor Peterson as Herr Bishop Doctor Peterson?

Man - this news just opened whole new avenues for personal attacks. We thought assisting the SCMC was big - but wow!

HSR

Aye, but this revelation was given in an earlier thread.

[lynnr]

Amantha writes,

"...I don't like scenarios where people start experiments with their minds already made up as to what the result should be..."

An investigation can be fair or unfair. It can be â??riggedâ? from the start.

Josh McDowell, contemporary evangelical apologist, in his excellent book Evidence That Demands A Verdict, speaks of two kinds of research (p.9). One is valid, one is not. One kind of research starts with a set of preconceived notions and adjusts conclusions to its own liking. Another kind reproduces the best evidence it can and lets the evidence speak for itself. The latter is fair research, the former is not. It is â??riggedâ? from the get-go.

Lynn

[Daniel Peterson]

My introductions to the last two issues of the FARMS Review have actually been relevant to some of the issues raised here.

Trouble is, both essays are (by definition) insincere.

Never mind.

[ruski_canuk]

My introductions to the last two issues of the FARMS Review have actually been relevant to some of the issues raised here.

Trouble is, both essays are (by definition) insincere.

Never mind.

Can I have a link to the methodology aspect ?

I haven't looked at farms review since I read an attack on Ritner's credibility which had nothing to do with the substantive issues regarding the BoA. But if there is something on methodology, I'd love to read it.

[TrespassersW]

Thank you, Scottie. That clears things up quite a bit.

However, on the flip side, I think that the "horses were tapirs" defense for example is an apologetic argument bordering on the absurd. IMO, this is taking a world view and grasping at ANY remotely plausible defense, no matter how improbable.

Though I'm not really an advocate of the argument you refer to, I have to disagree. There are numerous examples of ancient cultures renaming species in very similar ways, so I think the argument makes a legitimate point. I don't agree that that is what happened in the case of the Book of Mormon, but I certainly don't consider it absurd. And I don't consider it either desperate or disingenuous.

The question of the BoM NOT being historical is not even considered.

Again, I disagree. Obviously some apologetic material is worse than others, but many, many of the apologetic pieces I've read actually are considering the question of the Bood of Mormon NOT being historical. Specifically, they consider arguments that the Book of Mormon is not historical, and they evaluate the strengths or weaknesses of the arguments. That IS considering the question of historicity. Isn't it?

The apologists are not seriously looking to modify their opinions based on this.

And are scientific journals seriously looking to modify their opinions about whether the world is flat? If not, are they insincere? Or do they simply believe that they are right? And when someone tells them they are wrong, they point out what is wrong with that person's argument. Right or wrong, I don't see the insincerity.

They MUST come up with something to explain it away. THAT is insincere.

Again, I can't help but think that you are simply assuming that this is the case, and then criticizing based on your assumption. How do you know that <name your favorite apologist> isn't actually sincere? How do you know that they haven't really evaluated the question?

Here's an example. Just the other night I watched a show called "Origins" about why evolutionists are wrong about the age of the earth. Then I read an online article responding to the arguments made in the show. The scientist responding (functioning as an apologist for the current theories, who, we should point out, would likely lose his job if he actually allowed a creationist to convince him of young earth theory) did not stop to seriously consider whether or not the earth was truly only 6000 years old. He didn't run through all the reasons why we believe it is more ancient than that. What he did do, was evaluate the argument being made and point out its weaknesses. And he did so rather effectively, IMO (even though he may, or may not, have had some personal interest in whether or not the creationist was right). I'm not sure I see how that is different from what FARMS Review does. No, I don't expect many apologists really do a lot of soul searching every time some critic makes (what they consider to be) an obviously flawed argument against the church. They simply point out the obvious flaws, as they see them.

Now, as I watched the show, I noticed that many of the guest speaker's (the man arguing for a young earth) arguments were extremely bad, even nonsensical at times. But it honestly never occurred to me to infer that he was being insincere about them. I have no trouble believing that there are some very intelligent and highly educated people out there who honestly believe things that I find utterly unconvincing.

*shrug*

[Hawkmoon]

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.

I think this says it all-- you feel you are the Master, and all we need to do is hear your call. The hubris borders on delusional.

[Hawkmoon]

Perhaps "dumb" is the operative word here.

At least in your case-- I suppose.

[Hawkmoon]

To be candid--without intent for offense--your hubris is palpable.

And to be honest, I don't understand the discipline of apologetics. It has never made sense to me and probably never will. It strikes me as very, very insincere. I don't like scenarios where people start experiments with their minds already made up as to what the result should be.

You have an opinion about reality and you want to defend it with "facts." You believe those facts support your opinion of reality and yet all you have is opinions and, as you so perfectly stated, the particular opinion that apologetics is best used as "pre-evangelism." Isn't that another name for "witnessing?" So apologetics leads to the giving of a personal witness. No surprise there.

To be candid I don't really understand your idea of apologetics, and probably never will, but it strikes me as very, very insincere. I don't like posts where people start debating issues they clearly don't have any clue about; yet, their mind is already made up as to what the result should be.

[Dan Vogel]

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.

Sorry, Will, no matter how much you sweet-talk me, I won't submit to an interview by you. But we can still be friends, O.K.?

[William Schryver]

Sorry, Will, no matter how much you sweet-talk me, I won't submit to an interview by you. But we can still be friends, O.K.?

Dan,

I honestly wasn't even thinking about an interview anymore. I had accepted your answer as "final." And I'm fine with that. Besides, since I've already interviewed Kevin Barney, and I'll soon be talking with David Bokovoy, Brian Hauglid, Blake Ostler, and John Gee, it just wouldn't be in my best interest to put you in along with those guys. They're all so dorky-looking and you're such a debonair, George Clooney-type. It would needlessly reflect poorly on the apologists to have the critic outshine them in the looks department.

Still, my offer of buying dinner some time in the future still stands.

[Scottie]

Thank you, Scottie. That clears things up quite a bit.

Though I'm not really an advocate of the argument you refer to, I have to disagree. There are numerous examples of ancient cultures renaming species in very similar ways, so I think the argument makes a legitimate point. I don't agree that that is what happened in the case of the Book of Mormon, but I certainly don't consider it absurd. And I don't consider it either desperate or disingenuous.

This is why I said it's remotely plausible. Yes, it has happened before in the past, which means it COULD have happened in the case of the BoM. There are other supporting evidences that make it even harder to believe though, such as tight/loose translation theories and the fact that tapir's couldn't be used to pull a chariot, etc. But lets not get into the specifics of the argument itself. As your next statement claims, obviously some apologetic material is worse than others. This is the point I was trying to make.

Again, I disagree. Obviously some apologetic material is worse than others, but many, many of the apologetic pieces I've read actually are considering the question of the Bood of Mormon NOT being historical. Specifically, they consider arguments that the Book of Mormon is not historical, and they evaluate the strengths or weaknesses of the arguments. That IS considering the question of historicity. Isn't it?

CFR on these articles that give equal weight to these strengths and weaknesses. I've never seen them, on either side.

And are scientific journals seriously looking to modify their opinions about whether the world is flat? If not, are they insincere?

If they have their mind made up that the earth is flat and are not looking for the truth, but to simply defend their position, then yes, they are insincere.

Or do they simply believe that they are right? And when someone tells them they are wrong, they point out what is wrong with that person's argument. Right or wrong, I don't see the insincerity.

If there is actually something wrong with the argument, then yes, by all means defend your position. But you have to be willing to change your viewpoint. You can't just defy the argument simply because it goes against what you believe. You must be willing to truthfully examine the evidence and be prepared to shift your viewpoint if the evidence goes against what you believe. If you are not willing to do this, then you are insincere.

Again, I can't help but think that you are simply assuming that this is the case, and then criticizing based on your assumption. How do you know that <name your favorite apologist> isn't actually sincere? How do you know that they haven't really evaluated the question?

I haven't named any names because I don't know anybody that actually practices this. I have made this as a general statement against anybody that goes in with the answer already determined and must make the evidence twist to fit that world view. I'm sure there are those that do it in all apologetic fields, just as I'm sure there are those that take a real critical look at evidences and shift their views accordingly.

Here's an example. Just the other night I watched a show called "Origins" about why evolutionists are wrong about the age of the earth. Then I read an online article responding to the arguments made in the show. The scientist responding (functioning as an apologist for the current theories, who, we should point out, would likely lose his job if he actually allowed a creationist to convince him of young earth theory) did not stop to seriously consider whether or not the earth was truly only 6000 years old. He didn't run through all the reasons why we believe it is more ancient than that. What he did do, was evaluate the argument being made and point out its weaknesses. And he did so rather effectively, IMO (even though he may, or may not, have had some personal interest in whether or not the creationist was right). I'm not sure I see how that is different from what FARMS Review does. No, I don't expect many apologists really do a lot of soul searching every time some critic makes (what they consider to be) an obviously flawed argument against the church. They simply point out the obvious flaws, as they see them.

Now, as I watched the show, I noticed that many of the guest speaker's (the man arguing for a young earth) arguments were extremely bad, even nonsensical at times. But it honestly never occurred to me to infer that he was being insincere about them. I have no trouble believing that there are some very intelligent and highly educated people out there who honestly believe things that I find utterly unconvincing.

And many people feel this way about Mormonism. If this man was afraid that changing his viewpoint would cost him his job, with absolutely no intention of changing his viewpoint, and twisting the evidence to fit his viewpoint, then he is insincere. If he were sincere, then he would be open to the option of the evidence swaying his viewpoint. It didn't sound like he was open to this option.

[TrespassersW]

CFR on these articles that give equal weight to these strengths and weaknesses. I've never seen them, on either side.

I never claimed that strengths and weaknesses were given "equal weight." If an article makes an argument that is particularly weak, then I don't see why whatever little strengths it might possess must be given equal weight before any criticism of it is valid.

If however, your point is that both critics and apologists largely fail to thoroughly present the other side, then I have to agree with you. I do not, however, see this as automatically dishonest (though at times I think it certainly is). While often I think both critics and apologists simply assume that the reader is already familiar with the bulk of the material, when the intended audience is clearly an uninformed audience, then I think such omissions can certainly be dishonest.

If they have their mind made up that the earth is flat and are not looking for the truth, but to simply defend their position, then yes, they are insincere.

I wasn't talking about flat earth advocates. I was talking about modern scientists who are extremely comfortable in their knowledge that the earth is round. Are they willing to change their minds? Are they going to give serious attention to every crackpot who puts up a web site? Of course not. They have better things to do. And when they do respond to one, do they sit down and honestly rethink their position of global roundness? Or do they simply point out the glaring holes in the flat earth argument and call it a day?

If there is actually something wrong with the argument, then yes, by all means defend your position. But you have to be willing to change your viewpoint. You can't just defy the argument simply because it goes against what you believe. You must be willing to truthfully examine the evidence and be prepared to shift your viewpoint if the evidence goes against what you believe. If you are not willing to do this, then you are insincere.

Of course I agree that a closed mind is generally a tragic thing (though I'm not certain that I would always categorize it as 'insincere'). But on what basis can you (who are not me) judge whether or not I (who am not you) am willing to change my viewpoint? I don't see how such a thing can be determined just from watching me point out the flaws of someone else's argument.

I haven't named any names because I don't know anybody that actually practices this. I have made this as a general statement against anybody that goes in with the answer already determined and must make the evidence twist to fit that world view.

Very well. And if you had left it at that I probably wouldn't have seen any need to respond. But you said "the apologists are not seriously looking to modify their opinions," and "the question of the BoM NOT being historical is not even considered." This sounded to me like you had determined that someone "actually practices this," and what's more, that it was LDS apologists doing so.

I think I'm catching the gist of what you are saying, and I don't think I completely disagree. But I think it's important to bear in mind the difference between someone being willing to change their mind (if the evidence warrants doing so) and someone actually considering doing so. In the case of the scientist I mentioned, I have no reason to believe that he actually considered changing his mind in the face of the young earth guy's ridiculous arguments, but that doesn't mean that he wouldn't have been willing to do so had a genuine, strong argument been presented to him that the earth was, indeed, only 6000 years old.

But, even if a genuine, strong argument were presented to him, though, I suspect he would still be hesitant to simply swallow such a radical change immediately. First, he would almost certainly try to poke holes in it to verify that it was, in fact, as strong as it appeared. I don't see that as insincere. Just as a little skeptical, and not necessarily inappropriately so.