Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The problem with apologetics.


Recommended Posts

Don’t get me wrong.  I have great respect for apologists in the church.  Some of them have been very helpful to me.

However I recently heard an interesting point made by Terryl Givens(I’m not whether I would label him an apologist or not).

He said that when you base a testimony on an apologetic argument, that particular argument could later turn out to be incorrect.  
 

For example, you could believe an argument that Joseph Smith couldn’t have known something about Abrahamic traditions found in the Book of Abraham.  This is like a God of the Gaps argument because you later learn that Joseph did have that information available.

Are there ways to do apologetics better?

 

 

 

 

Edited by Rivers
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Don’t get me wrong.  I have great respect for apologists in the church.  Some of them have been very helpful to me.

However I recently heard an interesting point made by Terryl Givens(I’m not whether I would label him an apologist or not).

He said that when you base a testimony on an apologetic argument, that particular argument could later turn out to be incorrect.  
 

For example, you could believe an argument that Joseph Smith couldn’t have known something about Abrahamic traditions found in the Book of Abraham.  The is like a God of the Gaps argument because you later learn that Joseph did have that information available.

Are there ways to do apologetics better?

 

 

 

 

Good question. I guess the problem could lie in the apologetic being worried of leading astray a struggling member. And they do everything possible to put a faithful answer in. 

Link to comment

I agree that, in engaging in apologetics, one must take great care that one's zeal does not exceed one's knowledge (see Romans 10:2), that one should not overstate the evidence, and that one should be mindful always of the potentially changing state of the evidence from one moment to the next. 

That said, I see no reason why one should avoid engaging in reasonable extrapolations of the evidence to provide plausible explanations for what, as yet, we don't know for certain, why opponents of the Church of Jesus Christ (both within and without the Church) should be allowed what Elder Neal A. Maxwell called "uncontested slam dunks," why we should not, in Orson Scott Card's words, encourage those who doubt to doubt their doubts and to question their questions rather than doubting or questioning their faith, or why we should not employ Austin Farrer's dictum:

Quote

Though argument does not create conviction the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish” (see Farrer, “Grete Clerk,” in Light on C. S. Lewis compiled by Jocelyn Gibb, Harcourt and Brace, 1965).

I am indebted to Daniel C. Peterson for providing the source of the quote from Farrer, which I got from here: Daniel C. Peterson (November 17, 2016), "The many uses of 'apologetics," Deseret News, accessed on line at https://www.deseret.com/2016/11/17/20600667/the-many-uses-of-apologetics, last accessed July 15, 2021.  As usual, Professor (Emeritus, alas!) Peterson's column is worth a read in its entirety.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Apologetics provide the counter-balance to the rational/logical arguments thrown at people of faith.  It's the opposite but equal force that negates the movement that critical information could cause.  In CS Lewis' word, it doesn't induce belief, but rather creates an environment in which faith can flourish.

My own faith crisis (about a decade back) did not lead me to exit the church.  For every rational argument against the church or theism in general, there was a rational argument to counter it.  This left me in a neutral state, a state where I could fairly consider the rational arguments from both camps, weigh the evidence, and then choose.  I learned that in that choosing, where my belief was compelled by neither side of the argument, I made a statement about what I valued.  The apologetics that I encountered here and in other locations around the web, allowed me the freedom to make that choice. 

Stormin' Mormon - This is about the finest commentary I have seen on the forum. Many thanks for that perspective. : ) And yes, Lewis is wonderful as always.

By the way, where did you get your handle? ; )

Link to comment

The name came from a roommate in college, who used it for some anonymous online chatterboard in the late 90's.  Back then, the first Gulf War was still recent enough that people still remembered Stomin' Norman Schwartzkopf. 

The avatar is from a message board on a webcomic that I still love to this day.  It's Jayne Cobb (from Firefly), drawn as an orc in the style of "The Order of the Stick."  It's a two-fer in revealing the depths of my nerdery. 

Edited by Stormin' Mormon
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The name came from a roommate in college, who used it for some anonymous online chatterboard in the late 90's.  Back then, the first Gulf War was still recent enough that people still remembered Stomin' Norman Schwartzkopf. 

The avatar is from a message board on a webcomic that I still love to this day.  It's Jayne Cobb (from Firefly), drawn as an orc in the style of "The Order of the Stick."  It's a two-fer in revealing the depths of my nerdery. 

Ha! I had a friendly acquaintance from my days in a single's ward back in San Diego (mid-90s) where someone came through the ward with this handle stating it was what he used when in the MMA/boxing ring!

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Apologetics provide the counter-balance to the rational or logical arguments thrown at people of faith.  It's the opposite but equal force that negates the movement that critical information could cause.  In CS Lewis' words, it doesn't induce belief, but rather creates an environment in which faith can flourish.

My own faith crisis (about a decade back) did not lead me to exit the church.  For every rational argument against the church specifically or theism in general, there was a rational argument to counter it.  This left me in a neutral state, a state where I could fairly consider the rational arguments from both camps, weigh the evidence, and then choose.  I learned that in that choosing, where my belief was compelled by neither side of the argument, I made a statement about what I valued.  The apologetics that I encountered here and in other locations around the web, allowed me the freedom to make that choice. 

 

edited to add:  I agree that it's dangerous to base one's testimony on an apologetic argument.  However, that doesn't mean that apologetic arguments play no role in the development of faith.  They are the shield, not the sword.  The rain tarp, not the hammer.  They protect from destruction, but do not build anything themselves.  The right tool for the right job is a powerful thing indeed.

I believe the quote you reference (right after I quoted it from one of Professor Peterson's columns, above) is from Farrer, not from C.S. Lewis.  Good observations, though.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Rivers said:

Don’t get me wrong.  I have great respect for apologists in the church.  Some of them have been very helpful to me.

However I recently heard an interesting point made by Terryl Givens(I’m not whether I would label him an apologist or not).

He said that when you base a testimony on an apologetic argument, that particular argument could later turn out to be incorrect.  
 

For example, you could believe an argument that Joseph Smith couldn’t have known something about Abrahamic traditions found in the Book of Abraham.  The is like a God of the Gaps argument because you later learn that Joseph did have that information available.

Are there ways to do apologetics better?

 

 

 

 

Yep.

Fergitaboutit and go by the spirit.

Oddly ;) that is what the scriptures say about apologetics.

Don't be a sign seeker.

Even IF tomorrow there was  a huge discovery, say of gold plates in a crumbled Mayan temple, which precisely translated to the BOM we would still need to know if it was "from God".  And that comes only from testimony.

Keep the end in mind.

Don't put the expedition together. Save your money, it won't stop skeptics anyway 

Insanity is repeating what has never worked before

Get educated and realize that what goes as "truth" is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS debatable.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

For every rational argument against the church specifically or theism in general, there was a rational argument to counter it.  This left me in a neutral state, a state where I could fairly consider the rational arguments from both camps, weigh the evidence, and then choose. 

I like this.  This is the function of apologetics.  To help with what I've always termed "inoculation" against critic's arguments.
It doesn't require you have all the answers, only to recognize that there are some available and for everything else there's faith until the remaining answers are made known.

I think the Church has finally come to realize this too.  Instead of ignoring or downplaying problems as they did in the early to mid twentieth century they are now providing SOME rational response and reasoning, such as with the essays, the Joseph Smith Papers, and more.
And I think the Church is better for it.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Rivers said:

He said that when you base a testimony on an apologetic argument, that particular argument could later turn out to be incorrect.  

This is not an issue with apologetics, but rather and issue with how people interpret and make decision based on apologetics.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I believe the quote you reference (right after I quoted it from one of Professor Peterson's columns, above) is from Farrer, not from C.S. Lewis.  Good observations, though.

 

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Oops.  My bad.  And ninja'd!

:ph34r:

;) :D 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Rivers said:

Don’t get me wrong.  I have great respect for apologists in the church.  Some of them have been very helpful to me.

However I recently heard an interesting point made by Terryl Givens(I’m not whether I would label him an apologist or not).

He said that when you base a testimony on an apologetic argument, that particular argument could later turn out to be incorrect.  

I think no reputable apologist for the Church would advocate that we "base a testimony on an apologetic argument."  Elder Holland put it well:

Quote

Our testimonies aren’t dependent on evidence—we still need that spiritual confirmation in the heart of which we have spoken—but not to seek for and not to acknowledge intellectual, documentable support for our belief when it is available is to needlessly limit an otherwise incomparably strong theological position and deny us a unique, persuasive vocabulary in the latter-day arena of religious investigation and sectarian debate. Thus armed with so much evidence of the kind we have celebrated here tonight, we ought to be more assertive than we sometimes are in defending our testimony of truth.

To that point I mention that while we were living and serving in England, I became fond of the writing of the English cleric Austin Farrer. Speaking of the contribution made by C. S. Lewis specifically and of Christian apologists generally, Farrer said: “Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.”[10]

...

[10] Austin Farrer, “The Christian Apologist,” in Light on C.S. Lewis, ed. Jocelyn Gibb (1965), 26.

I think FAIR, FARMS, the Interpreter Foundation, Book of Mormon Central, Saints Unscripted, etc. are all on board with this sentiment.  See, e.g., this 2016 article by Daniel Peterson:

Quote

For most people, though, it’s not enough merely to manage doubts, any more than it’s sufficient, where a real alternative exists, simply to manage pain or to just stand back and watch a disease run its course. The better alternative, continuing the medical metaphor, is to cure the disease, repair the injury, or, even better, prevent such illnesses and injuries in the first place.

There’s an urgent need, accordingly, for both “negative” apologetics — evidence and arguments to defend against faith-injuring criticisms of the Restoration — and “positive” apologetic arguments that furnish affirmative reasons to believe. Latter-day Saints whose “resistance” has been strengthened by sound and persuasive arguments will be far less susceptible to the disease of doubt, far less likely to suffer crises of faith.

For some, in a sense, the most effective answer to questions about early Mormon plural marriage might be information about Arabian Nahom and Lehi’s trail. The most reassuring response to the Mountain Meadows Massacre could be the Book of Mormon witnesses. And evidence of the Book of Mormon roots in the ancient Middle East may, in certain cases, offer the most convincing defense of the LDS Church’s stance on same-sex marriage.

But, important though defending the faith can be for troubled Saints and even, sometimes, for still-undecided investigators, apologetics isn’t only about defense.

The gospel is true, and there’s a strong positive case to be made for it. While the witness of the Spirit is essential, different people come to that witness differently. By their use of scriptural arguments, Latter-day Saint missionary teaching methods illustrate the important role that reason and reasons can assume in the gaining of a testimony. And, for some people, evidence and argument can play — sometimes must play — a part, as well.

I baptized my father on the same night that I was set apart as a missionary. All my life, he had been a friendly unbeliever, standing just outside the walls of the church. What changed his mind after so long? Several factors contributed but among them was reading the works of the late Hugh Nibley. Dad was impressed, and it surprised him. For the first time ever, he later told me, he began to ask himself “Could Mormonism actually be true?” That question opened his mind to the life-altering spiritual conversion that followed.

Apologetics can serve the kingdom in unique and irreplaceable ways. For some, it can be a lifeline. It can create doubts about their doubts. It can also strengthen a spiritual foundation, making such doubts less likely and less potent in the first place. And, as in my father’s case, it can lead some to consider the gospel more seriously, and perhaps even to gain a testimony.

See also this quote attributed to Elder Neal A. Maxwell.  And this 1993 talk by Pres. Oaks.  And this essay by Pres. Oaks (part of "Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures").  And this blog entry.  And this Church News article by our own Scott Lloyd.  And this 2000 Liahona article by Daniel Peterson.  And this article by David Snell.  And this article by Saints Unscripted.  And this LDS Living article by Daniel Peterson.  And this Interpreter Foundation article by Jeffrey M. Bradshaw.

And this:

Yep!

3 hours ago, Rivers said:

For example, you could believe an argument that Joseph Smith couldn’t have known something about Abrahamic traditions found in the Book of Abraham.  The is like a God of the Gaps argument because you later learn that Joseph did have that information available.

Are there ways to do apologetics better?

Yes.  Continue.  Contextualize.  

By "continue" I mean keep moving forward in study and effort.  We can't rest on our laurels.  If we discover a demonstrable error in our evidence or reasoning, let's own up to that and keep moving forward.  If we have a good argument, let's present it and invite others to consider it.

By "contextualize" I mean keep apologetic arguments and evidence in their proper sphere.  In appropriate proportion and context.  Don't credit this or that apologetic issue with more oomph than its proponents claim for it.  I think you will find very few apologists who take an "We Have the Smoking Gun!" approach to the Restored Gospel.  I think that's naive and incorrect.  Elder Maxwell put it well:

Quote

It is the author’s opinion that all the scriptures, including the Book of Mormon, will remain in the realm of faith. Science will not be able to prove or disprove holy writ. However, enough plausible evidence will come forth to prevent scoffers from having a field day, but not enough to remove the requirement of faith. Believers must be patient during such unfolding.

I am increasingly finding this to be true.  I have been on this board since 2004.  I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the substantive pro and con arguments regarding the truth claims of the Church.  I have spent a lot of time and effort in listening and responding to critics, opponents, disgruntled members, what have you. 

I have concluded that personal revelation from God must be the foundation upon which a meaningful and enduring testimony is to be built. 

I have also concluded that secondary/ancillary evidences, including what we style as "apologetic" ones, are helpful, but not dispositive.  

I have also concluded that the Austin Farrer quote noted above can really help people who are struggling in their faith.  I am reminded of the 2018 book Faith is Not Blind by Elder Bruce C. Hafen and Marie K. Hafen.  See here:

Quote

Elder Bruce C. Hafen, an emeritus General Authority Seventy for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Sister Marie K. Hafen, once a member of the church’s Young Women general board, have just penned a refreshingly frank book— "Faith is Not Blind" (Deseret Book) — providing powerful paradigms for navigating faith in increasingly complex times.
...

In the volume, lived stories — like a Latter-day Saint being challenged by an agnostic coworker — blend with the doctrinal discussions one might expect from university-level lecturers. As the authors put it, “untested idealism,” “naïve simplicity” or a gospel that’s little more than “a firm handshake, a high-five, and a smiley face” is unlikely to foster the requisite conviction in order for faith to survive today's trials.

The Hafens’ work, however, focuses on equipping readers with the forms of faith that don’t merely survive but flourish in the space beyond skepticism, adolescent or otherwise. With decades worth of experience engaging the life of the mind and the life of the spirit, the Hafens pepper their pages with accessible parables from their own faith pilgrimage — an odyssey that began when the Hafens first met in a BYU class titled “Your Religious Problems.”
...
While the volume tackles modern issues, like “digging deeper” in an internet era (one chapter is titled “Some Internet soft spots”), the most important religious questions addressed are hardly novel.

A central cause of faith crisis in any age arises when we apprehend a gap between the real and the ideal. Simply minding this gap without ever bridging it arrests many a faith journey. The Hafens quote American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes: “I would not give a fig for the simplicity (on) this side of complexity. But I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.”

They propose a tripartite model of spiritual progression. It begins with childlike simplicity — “innocent and untested.” Then stage two commences as believers juxtapose the ideal and the real. This is where “we struggle with conflicts and uncertainty.” But those who successfully navigate this stage arrive at, in Holmes’ words, a simplicity that transcends complexity — “a settled and informed perspective that has been tempered and tested by time and experience.”

I commented:

Quote

So we have:

Stage 1 ("Innocent and Untested") --> Stage 2 ("Juxtaposing the Ideal and the Real") --> Stage 3 ("Informed Perspective of Complexity-Transcending Simplicity Tempered by Time and Experience").

This seems about right.  Stage 2 is, I think, where a lot of members of the Church are struggling and giving up.

I think that, for many, apologetics has, or should have, a role to play in Stage 2.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

Don't put the expedition together. Save your money, it won't stop skeptics anyway 

Insanity is repeating what has never worked before

Get educated and realize that what goes as "truth" is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS debatable.

Apologetics is not intended to convince skeptics. Just to provide plausible answers, when possible, to problems that are advanced against the Restoration. And you are correct that faith and a spiritual affirmation is the only real answer, at least in this life.

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Apologetics is not intended to convince skeptics. Just to provide plausible answers, when possible, to problems that are advanced against the Restoration. And you are correct that faith and a spiritual affirmation is the only real answer, at least in this life.

Some apologia is absurd and wrong based upon the evidence that exists, like John Sorensen's theories.  But, some apologia lends insight.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Apologetics provide the counter-balance to the rational or logical arguments thrown at people of faith.  It's the opposite but equal force that negates the movement that critical information could cause.  In CS Lewis' words, it doesn't induce belief, but rather creates an environment in which faith can flourish.

My own faith crisis (about a decade back) did not lead me to exit the church.  For every rational argument against the church specifically or theism in general, there was a rational argument to counter it.  This left me in a neutral state, a state where I could fairly consider the rational arguments from both camps, weigh the evidence, and then choose.  I learned that in that choosing, where my belief was compelled by neither side of the argument, I made a statement about what I valued.  The apologetics that I encountered here and in other locations around the web, allowed me the freedom to make that choice. 

 

edited to add:  I agree that it's dangerous to base one's testimony on an apologetic argument.  However, that doesn't mean that apologetic arguments play no role in the development of faith.  They are the shield, not the sword.  The rain tarp, not the hammer.  They protect from destruction, but do not build anything themselves.  The right tool for the right job is a powerful thing indeed.

Very well stated — except the quote you attributed to C. S. Lewis is actually from Austin Farrer. 

Link to comment

Notwithstanding the “problem with apologetics” identified in this thread, one thing apologetics has taught me is that the standard anti-Mormon arguments are no more compelling than the arguments against them. Ergo, the only interest that attacks against the Church of Jesus Christ holds for me is in the refuting of them. 
 

A corollary to this is that if, as some might argue, it is important to be acquainted with antagonistic criticism of the Church, it is at least as urgent to be aware of sound arguments countering such criticism. Otherwise, one’s testimony of the restored gospel might not be strong enough to withstand the criticism. 
 

Link to comment

Apologists deserve a lot credit for at least engaging with the tough issues.  Even if if their defenses and arguments aren’t perfect, it’s still better than sweeping the hard questions under the rug.  
 

The best thing apologetics has done for me is help me have a well-rounded knowledge of the issues.  

Link to comment

This is the basic gist for my contribution to the volume Perspectives on Mormon Theology: Apologetics, which made some on the apologetics end think me a critic, and others like John Dehlin claim me to be an apologist. You can download my chapter here.

In short, I argue that religious claims are the sort of thing that can only be confirmed or rejected by religious means--such as prayer, revelation, "fruits," etc. You know, the sort of thing that Alma describes in Alma 32, or what Lehi describes when partaking of the fruit of the tree. On the other hand, apologetics (and criticisms) involve secular claims that can only be confirmed or rejected by secular means--such as science, historical research, archeology, philosophy, etc.

So, "the Book of Mormon is the Word of God" is a religious claim that can only be confirmed or rejected by prayer, how it feels, etc. On the other hand, "the Book of Mormon is a record of people who actually lived in the Americas" is a fundamentally secular claim that can only be confirmed or rejected by secular means such as science, archaeology, anthropology, etc.

This doesn't just apply to misguided apologetic attempts to "prove" the truth of a religious claim. It also applies to critical attempts to reject religious claims though secular means, and apologetic responses to defend them. As the same problem exists, and to make things worse apologetic defenses implicitly support the misguided belief that religious claims can be refuted through secular argumentation.

Now some may counter that I'm making an arbitrary distinction between what I call religious and secular claims, but my response is that the distinction I make is already present and fundamental to how those claims are already distinguished in religious practice. Furthermore, while many may certainly think that secular truths can be confirmed or rejected through religious means (such as "God confirmed to me that the Book of Mormon is a record of actually persons who lived in the Americas"), I would respond by saying that doing so is simply an act of confusion and that there is an overwhelming abundance of examples of persons being simply wrong about the secular claims that were supposedly divinely confirmed to them, and that there are zero examples of a secular claim that can be reliably shown to have been confirmed or established through religious means.

Cheers.

Link to comment
20 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I believe the quote you reference (right after I quoted it from one of Professor Peterson's columns, above) is from Farrer, not from C.S. Lewis.  Good observations, though.

 

20 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Oops.  My bad.  And ninja'd!

When I offered my correction, I wasn’t aware Kenngo had already outpaced me. My apologies to him and to Stormin’ Mormon for appearing to pile on. 

Link to comment

I hate to say this because I know I'll offend. But IMO, I believe if the church never had apologists, nor the Gospel Topic Essays, many more members would still be in. It's what we don't know can't hurt us. And the websites such as FAIR brought up more things I had never known besides JS's polygamy. As well as the Gospel Topic Essays bring up more than people would have known. 

I don't know if the church needed the GTE's for legal reasons or ? Maybe someone can enlighten me on that. But the more the church responds to critics the worse it is, again IMO.

 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment

By the way, I’m unaware of any good Latter-day Saint apologist who would dismiss or dispute the idea that an individual spiritual witness is the only ultimately acceptable means of arriving at the truth of the Restoration. Apologetics can help us remain on stable ground as we try to arrive there. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...