Where Does Apologetics Fall Short?????

[Daniel Peterson]

For every kind of argument

So, with that casual gesture, Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne and Peter Kreeft and Thomas Aquinas and John Locke and al-Ghazali and William Lane Craig and N. T. Wright and Alister McGrath are simply brushed aside.

we live in a world where mostly what we have is simply someone's interpretation. Without evidence it is all just interpretation, and then, even with evidence there is largely human interpretation going on. there is precious little truth, let alone indisputable unchanging fact to hang our hats onto.

But, of course, that doesn't apply to your claims, right?

[Kerry A. Shirts]

So, with that casual gesture, Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne and Peter Kreeft and Thomas Aquinas and John Locke and al-Ghazali and William Lane Craig and N. T. Wright and Alister McGrath are simply brushed aside.

But, of course, that doesn't apply to your claims, right?

Did I say that? Did I exclude what I interpret? Not in the least. It applies to everyone. And I am not brushing aside anyone's arguments, I am merely stating an obvious fact. With human fallibility, everything ever said and taught that does not have justifiable evidence is simply an interpretation. Can you refute that? Please do so with evidence. I find it interesting that you clipped my FULL thought short. Here is what I actually SAID "For every kind of argument, but most especially those without actual confirmable evidence that is justified AS evidence for whatever apologetic is being presented." I stand by that until refuted.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Kerry A. Shirts

[Kerry A. Shirts]

deleted

Edited February 13, 2013 by Kerry A. Shirts

[Daniel Peterson]

Did I say that? Did I exclude what I interpret?

See below:

I am merely stating an obvious fact.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

See below:

So, you can't refute the obvious fact so you derail it to me personally. The fact is, everything everyone says is an interpretation. Yet, with evidence, justifiable evidence interpretations can be made much stronger. Is this not a fact? So what is it that someone says that is NOT an interpretation?

You give similar anti-religion lectures in every thread you enter. You have been removed.

[Rivers]

The fact that apologetics is human interpretation of things does not mean it fails. For me, apologetics is not about providing perfect answers for every single little question. Apologetics, to me, is about gaining a better understanding of issues. When it comes to difficult issues, I think it is important to learn about different interpretations and perspectives. We are to walk by faith and I feel that includes being humble and accepting the fact that we don't understand e everything.

If one expects a perfectly satisfying answer for every question, of course apologetics is going to fall. A testimony built on nothing but logic is a like house built on sand. Trying to regain a testimony by only seeking logical answers is like trying to build a house on quicksand.

While organizations like FAIR do a great job of providing information on the tough questions, It ultimately comes down to choosing to have faith. For me, apologetics had provided just enough information and new perspectives to open my mind to having faith.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Rivers

[TomHagen]

So, with that casual gesture, Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne and Peter Kreeft and Thomas Aquinas and John Locke and al-Ghazali and William Lane Craig and N. T. Wright and Alister McGrath are simply brushed aside.

But, of course, that doesn't apply to your claims, right?

Dan,

The topic is about why apologetics fail in Mormonism. You have pulled a bit of a trick by trying to polarize the discussion into "Are ALL apologetics false by their very nature?" So your criticisms of Kerry are not quite fair, nor are they on point. Moreover, your attempt to lump Mormon apologists into the same group as the men you name...well, you're trying to dump oranges into the apple cart. However, I will comment on your question.

In my mind, there is a difference between philosophy and apologetics. Philosophy looks at what may be, passed through the philosopher's own interpretation and experience. In fact, when I read philosophy, I get the impression that it is very much like looking at the passing clouds and declaring what shapes you see in them. Philosophy does not insist that "X is absolutely true, and we're going to twist, ignore, and/or make up facts and evidence to prove it must be so!" Rather, philosophy says "Well, this is what I think..."

Apologetics, on the other hand, does not do this. At least not in Mormonism. Mopologists start, as Kerry said, from the conclusion that the gospel MUST be true, Joseph MUST have been the prophet of this dispensation, that the Book of Mormon MUST be correct, that the Bood of Abraham MUST be a correct translation, and on and on and on. Then it shapes, shaves, conjures, or twists what evidence there is - or is not - to prove the absolute, no matter how contorted or obviously over-labored the explanation is. I quite agree with Kerry's metaphor of the shoe. Mormon apologists insist that the shoe MUST fit, and many are willing to do anything - intellectually honest or not - to convince us all that it does fit. When someone points out that it doesn't, then many apologists try to distract the crowd from the shoe - which is, after all, the real issue - to attacks on the questioner. Not unlike what you tried to do to Kerry.

[TomHagen]

that the Bood of Abraham MUST be a correct translation,

Ugh, where is the EDIT button? I know I should proofread before I hit submit, but can't I fix typos?

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apologetics

[Stroopwafel]

The shoe doesn't fit, so chop up the foot, mash it, do anything you can to make it fit. The shoe is true, everything HAS to be forced into it. It just doesn't work is all. It has no bearing on truth...

To carry on the analogy, the apologetics would be the step-sisters and we are still waiting for Cinderella to come down the stairs and show them how it's done.

[ControlFreak]

DBMormon,

For me, it really isn't any one item. They are all issues individually, but it is really the big pictures that is so totally damning.

The fact the BoM is completely based on old world animals and agriculture is a huge problem. The apologists try to get a bucket under the leak with arguments about limited geography, tapirs or caves with un-verified horse bones. It is a major stretch at best, and no answer at all if we are being completely honest.

So if the BoM is suspect, we can shore that up by its divine origin, right? OK, well it turns out Joseph easily had access to all this material and by all appearances pirated huges chunks of ideas and even word for word text. Not to mention, the story just doesn't pass the funny looks test. Well, here come the apologists with another bucket.

Well, at least we know the translation method was inspired, right? Well, actually, Joseph uses a rock from a well that serves as a treasure finder in its off hours. Never fear, we have another crude bandage explaining that everyone was magical back then. It was just the thing to do.

How about the witnesses? Turns out people were just plan whacked back then and had massive fits of feinting, visions and speaking in tongues. We're definitely going to need a bucket to hold any water here.

So, at least Joseph was a good person? No, he lied repeatedly about polygamy, coerced women to marry him using the trust they place in him and divine revelations. Traded salvation for 14 year olds. We're going to need a really big bucket.

Finally, you step back, and realize the whole dang floor is covered in nothing but buckets!!!!! (Only a five exclamation point statement, not quite a sixer).

You may discuss these points but we do not allow off hand smears of religious leaders no matter what their religion is. You have been removed.

[Buzzard]

I am reminded by these threads at times, of the Clergyman in C.S. Lewis's "The Great Divorce". When invited to go to Heaven, he wanted assurances that he would still have the ability to question, to debate, to doubt. I don't have my copy with me, so this is a paraphrase, but his angelic guide kindly but directly informs him that the kind of debate he was seeking has as much to do with salvation as masturbation has to do with marriage. (Apologies to the mods for the word, but it's the same phrase C.S. Lewis uses).

And FWIW, apologetic works have been very helpful to me in resolving questions and understanding the undeniable ancient Semetic origin of the BOM. (Sorry, Control Freak, we seem to come to different conclusions).

[ControlFreak]

No need to apologize, but if you want to know why apologetics fails, it is because all of the evidence and failures add up to a perfectly logical conclusion. It just wasn't the one I thought it would be. I think apologetics needs to get past individual weak defenses and look more at the big picture. But, in the end, the big picture is way too obvious, so focusing inn minor details may help people avoid seeing it.

[awyatt]

The topic is about why apologetics fail in Mormonism. You have pulled a bit of a trick by trying to polarize the discussion into "Are ALL apologetics false by their very nature?" So your criticisms of Kerry are not quite fair, nor are they on point.

Actually, Kerry made a broad statement about apologetics:

It just doesn't work is all. It has no bearing on truth, it's just that apologetics doesn't work. It's assumptions are untested, it's method is ridiculous, and its evidence is forced fit.

Dan then asked a clarifying question:

Just to be clear: Is this true of every single apologetic argument? Does your judgment extend beyond Mormonism to all apologetic arguments? Every argument for the historicity of scripture? Every argument for the existence of God?

Kerry responded in the affirmative. In other words, Kerry gave an "absolute" in his hyperbole, and absolutes are especially easy to dispatch. Dan did so. It was instructive to both Kerry (I would hope) and to those reading.

That isn't a trick. The solution (if the situation demands one) isn't to chide Dan, but to make sure that absolutes aren't used in arguments and assertions unless the data warrants it. It did not warrant it in this case.

-Allen

[Bob Crockett]

if you want to know why apologetics fails

Apologetics have not failed. Wilberforce was a great Anglican apologist; he indirectly led Great Britain to keep out of the Civil War.

A number of great apologists emerged to debate Martin Luther. Without them we'd be much poorer for an understanding of Catholic doctrine

And then there's the greatest apologist of all times, Thomas Aquinas, who undertook a number of the finest defenses of Christianity and of the existence of God imaginable.

As to LDS apologia, there's B.H. Roberts, Orson F. Whitney and more recently, Hugh Nibley. Those three men probably led more Saints to an understanding of doctrine and of Christianity than one single modern-era apostle.

And then, since Nibley, there's been an on-going march of apologia, with Dr. Peterson at its nominal head. I can speak from personal experience, as a former bishop, seeing an entire family enter the church because of a lecture of Dan's, where I had failed.

So, if you or anybody else is going to say that apologetics have failed, I'd want to see some proof. Instead, we have DBMormon continuing to raise the issue -- just like John Dehlin -- as a means to advance their own disbelief in the Church itself, rather than in apologetics. [i say that because in both of their cases, explanations are provided them, but they don't acknowledge them or pay attention to them; in Dehlin's case, during his interviews, he just rabbits off to the next topic of disbelief rather than acknowledging -- hey, that's pretty reasonable to learn that Joseph Smith's own official scribe did not note in his journal that Joseph Smith ever had any interest in translating the Kinderhook plates.] DBMormon (he probably does it unwittingly) and Dehlin (less unwittingly, it seems) have a fundamental disbelief in the church and seek to find solace in public rather than through priesthood lines.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Ahab]

I am trying to tackle why those who struggle find no peace in the answers offered. Why is it that some are given answers and they fit and make the questions go away while others get the same answer and they see it as mental gymnastics. Since I grasp the answers and am comfortable with them I was hoping those who have serious doubts might sincerely help me to better understand why they see the answers as insuffcient. For the record, I exited my faith crisis over 6 months ago. Yet in a apologetic discussion board I am criticized for discussing apologetic issues... weird

You seem to have been on both sides of the issue, where you had doubts even when you had the answers presented to you and then later you exited your faith crisis (because you found the answers sufficient?). Or do I not correctly understand what you meant.

The answer to me appears obvious. It's a matter of knowing who to listen to, or to trust. An answer can be reasonable but you could still not know it is true, even when someone is using the reason to try to show you that in fact it is true. But why should you believe them? What makes the reason they offer the reason that not only makes sense to you, but also lets you know it is true?

What works for me is thinking about the things in my mind, from wherever I get the ideas I have to work with, and then asking God for his assurance and for wisdom to see what is true. And until he does, I'm just continuing to think of the possibilities, until at some point he answers. That's what works for me, when it happens. God answering me. At that point all my doubts go away on that issue that I get his assurance and understanding about, and then I'm off to think about some other things. And then the process continiues. It takes some time to move from each step, usually, but sometimes I go from one point to another and make what to me is amazing progress.

Anyway, I think that's a pretty good explanation of the problem and a description for how to fix it. I could whittle it down some more for you if that seems to wordy, but if you understood what I'm saying you could probably do that yourself, in your own words, to help someone else understand it.

It's not really anything all that much out of the ordinary, I think. People do that pretty much all the time, even without realizing it. Some people just don't understand that God is the one who gives them their good ideas, or give God the credit, but that's stil lhow they're finding out what is true. Otherwise they're just guessing or assuming or hoping that their thoughts are true while still having a tinge of doubt in their ideas. When anyone really "knows" something si true, though, it's because God has helped them to know it.

[cdowis]

Kerry,

I'm just curious.

Perhaps you have answered this already. What do you think about the Book of Abraham evidence you gathered and published on your website? Was that just a coincidence, did you just make it up, or.....

Have you gone back over your work and carefully refuted it all, or do we simply ignore it so that it will simply disappear. I don't intend to get into a big debate over this, but it does seem to be a reasonable question.

I apologize if you have already answered this question.

Edited February 13, 2013 by cdowis

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Kerry,

Perhaps you have answered this already. What do you think about the Book of Abraham evidence you gathered and published on your website? Was that just a coincidence, did you just make it up, or.....

Have you gone back over your work and carefully refuted it all?

Kerry has been removed from this thread...

[cdowis]

Thanks for reminding me.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Instead, we have DBMormon continuing to raise the issue -- just like John Dehlin -- as a means to advance their own disbelief in the Church itself, rather than in apologetics. [i say that because in both of their cases, explanations are provided them, but they don't acknowledge them or pay attention to them; in Dehlin's case, during his interviews, he just rabbits off to the next topic of disbelief rather than acknowledging -- hey, that's pretty reasonable to learn that Joseph Smith's own official scribe did not note in his journal that Joseph Smith ever had any interest in translating the Kinderhook plates.] DBMormon (he probably does it unwittingly) and Dehlin (less unwittingly, it seems) have a fundamental disbelief in the church and seek to find solace in public rather than through priesthood lines.

CFR that DBMormon has a fundamental disbelief in the church. I think that DBMormon has a pretty orthodox TBM testimony. He also has said that apologetics has worked for him. DBMormon wants to understand why apologetic answers don't work for others (as I read him).

[ALarson]

CFR that DBMormon has a fundamental disbelief in the church. I think that DBMormon has a pretty orthodox TBM testimony. He also has said that apologetics has worked for him. DBMormon wants to understand why apologetic answers don't work for others (as I read him).

Isn't DBMormon currently serving as a Bishop? Or do I have him mixed up with someone else?

I think he's just trying to help members (of his ward and elsewhere) find answers to some of their questions regarding church history and past doctrines. He's wondering why the current answers given by apologists haven't really helped them with their doubts and so on.

Maybe I'm wrong, but this is what I see here.

Do not turn a thread into a personal analysis of another poster.

[cdowis]

His list of issues has already answered his question. Many/most of them have been answered/refuted, but like stubborn weeds, they continue to flourish. One example is the "men on the moon" statement by JS. His only comment was "lol" as if nothing had been done, But that has been answered in detail.

I remember a post by an antimormon throwing out an argument back in the day on compuserve. I pointed out that it had already been refuted, but he admitted that he was using it to see if he can find someone that was uninformed.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Isn't DBMormon currently serving as a Bishop? Or do I have him mixed up with someone else?

I think he's just trying to help members (of his ward and elsewhere) find answers to some of their questions regarding church history and past doctrines. He's wondering why the current answers given by apologists haven't really helped them with their doubts and so on.

Maybe I'm wrong, but this is what I see here.

Yes. He is currently serving as Bishop (at least as of a few months ago). Hence my concern that people are accusing him of a fundamental disbelief in the church.

[Bob Crockett]

CFR that DBMormon has a fundamental disbelief in the church. I think that DBMormon has a pretty orthodox TBM testimony. He also has said that apologetics has worked for him. DBMormon wants to understand why apologetic answers don't work for others (as I read him).

Deleted. I don't know how to respond without making it a personal attack. It is what it is.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[ALarson]

His list of issues has already answered his question. Many/most of them have been answered/refuted, but like stubborn weeds, they continue to flourish.

For you they have been answered sufficiently but for many they have not. I think that's what needs to be remembered here. Every day more and more members are learning of the items on DBMormon's list and are searching for answers. Some find them on FAIR but many do not.