Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The problem with apologetics.


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Teancum said:

See this is the problem with apologetics.  You start with the position that what to defend is true. You are not able to start out with the position that it may or may not be true and you are open to following the evidence wherever it may lead. There is much you don't know for certain.  Yet the apologist acts with certainty and is only interested is some small level of plausibility so anything that helps that is seized upon.  

The comment by Card is ludicrous by the way. What a fine example of mental gymnastics.

I think what you may want is the type of interaction where someone plays dumb while acting as if he or she doesn't know anything.  That is not apologetics, so when you want to play that just ask who wants to play dumb with you.

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

The point of apologetics is to share our reasoning for our beliefs, though, as we are counseled "to always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks you about the hope you have". 

It's not about speculating with others, wondering why we should believe something while trying to find a reason to believe whatever we should belief.  Apologetics is an end game activity, while already having our reasons.

In all fairness, I didn't use the words "speculating," "wondering," or "trying to find" in my post. I was however taught that the essence of apologetics is a discourse, an orderly and somewhat extensive at times exchange of ideas. Each participant enters the discourse with his or her position prepared and intact, yet one of the purposes of such discourse is to learn about and from each other's positions in the process. That way apologetics becomes a learning experience. I also made the observation that in my tradition, those who I have known who have made extensive use of apologetics in the way you describe have done so as something of a defense mechanism. Learning is never "an end-game activity. I would suggest that John Warwick Montgomery was an example of an apologete as you describe, while John R.W. Stott and CS Lewis were examples of apologetes as I am describing. I would much prefer to read and in years past, to chat with them.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Navidad said:

In all fairness, I didn't use the words "speculating," "wondering," or "trying to find" in my post. I was however taught that the essence of apologetics is a discourse, an orderly and somewhat extensive at times exchange of ideas. Each participant enters the discourse with his or her position prepared and intact, yet one of the purposes of such discourse is to learn about and from each other's positions in the process. That way apologetics becomes a learning experience. I also made the observation that in my tradition, those who I have known who have made extensive use of apologetics in the way you describe have done so as something of a defense mechanism. Learning is never "an end-game activity. I would suggest that John Warwick Montgomery was an example of an apologete as you describe, while John R.W. Stott and CS Lewis were examples of apologetes as I am describing. I would much prefer to read and in years past, to chat with them.

My point is that apologetics is about sharing the reasons why you believe something, thus giving an answer or explanation about why you believe something you believe or hope for. To someone who wants to know why you believe what you believe.

Thus you start with a belief or hope you already have, with your own reasons for why you believe what you believe.  And then someone else comes along who wants to understand why you believe what you believe. 

You've already arrived at your own beliefs.  Apologetics, for you, would then be about you explaining why you believe what you believe.  That is what I meant by end game.  You already have your own beliefs and now, for you, it's jkust about sharing what youi believe so that someone else can understand why you believe what you believe.

Link to comment
On 7/15/2021 at 4:05 PM, JLHPROF said:

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.

Thank you for demonstrating further the low bar apologetics is. 

Link to comment
On 7/15/2021 at 9:42 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 
 

Yet I have seen you argue all apologists need to do is to help develop a rather low bar of "plausibility" enough that someone might go pray and seek an answer.  But what happens when one prays and the answer they receive is that the LDS Church is not what it claims?

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

I think what you may want is the type of interaction where someone plays dumb while acting as if he or she doesn't know anything.  That is not apologetics, so when you want to play that just ask who wants to play dumb with you.

I have no idea what your point was here. Can to clarify?  It imagine you intended to be insulting.

Link to comment
On 7/16/2021 at 3:21 PM, the narrator said:

Part of the problem is that nobody seems to quite know what resurrection even is, outside of some vague and generalized claim about a body* being raised** from the dead in perfection***.

*undefined

**undefined

***undefined

A person's physical body is "undefined"?  How so?  I'm using my physical body to type these words on a computer.

Also, how is "being raised from the dead" wholly "undefined?"  We can differentiate living beings/bodies from non-living beings/bodies.

"{I}n perfection" is defined, albeit incompletely.  We can differentiate a physical-but-mortal body from a physical-and-immortal body in some key respects.  One is subject to disease, infirnity, and death, the other is not.  One is a body of "flesh and blood," the other is a body of "flesh and bone."  "The resurrected body is tangible, but when the flesh is quickened by the Spirit there will be 'spirit in their [veins] and not blood'" (WJS, p. 270; see also TPJS, p. 367).  A resurrected body "will be suited to the conditions and glory to which the person is assigned in the day of judgment." 

That we cannot define these things with absolute and mathematical precision does not mean we cannot define them at all.

Thanks,

-Smac 

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, Teancum said:

See this is the problem with apologetics.  You start with the position that what to defend is true.

How is that a problem?

50 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You are not able to start out with the position that it may or may not be true

With respect, I disagree.  We can start out with and continue with that position.  "For we walk by faith, not by sight."  (1 Cor. 5:7.)  I've said this a few times:

Quote

We should ditch the "I know" paradigm.  "I'd like to bear my testimony.  I know this church is true..."  Well, actually, no.  Most of us, I think, have faith that God lives, that Jesus Christ is His Son, that the Church is what it claims to be, etc.  "I know" has become an affectation, and an inaccurate one at that.  Just as people use "literally" to mean "figuratively" ("I was so bored yesterday, I was literally climbing the walls..."), I think members of the Church use "I know" to mean "I believe."  And in so doing we've set up an incorrect perception of things.  "For we walk by faith, not by sight."  (2 Cor. 5:7).  "{I}f a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it."  (Alma 32:17-18).  "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  (AoF 1:9).

We are supposed to not have a sure knowledge.  We are supposed to be proceeding in faith.  But we've made it seem like anything short of a pulpit-thumping "I know..." just isn't good enough.  But "I know" seems too rigid.  Too fragile.  Too glass-jawed.  "I believe...", on the other hand, gives us some room.  Some time and some space to absorb challenging/difficult things.  

I think the "I know" affectation is just that, and also that most of us are using it to express a strong belief, not a sure knowledge.

50 minutes ago, Teancum said:

and you are open to following the evidence wherever it may lead.

We can do that, too.  I do that all the time.

50 minutes ago, Teancum said:

There is much you don't know for certain. 

I'm glad we can agree on that.

50 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yet the apologist acts with certainty and is only interested is some small level of plausibility so anything that helps that is seized upon.  

I don't think this is an accurate or fair characterization.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I have no idea what your point was here. Can to clarify?  It imagine you intended to be insulting.

Put simply, apologetics is about people with beliefs explaining why they believe what they believe.  Which means people who don't believe anything can't do apologetics because they don't have any beliefs to explain.  It requires a belief, first, and then someone who believes can tell you why or the reason for believing.

You seemed to not understand what apologetics is all about.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Teancum said:

See this is the problem with apologetics.

Okay.  Well, I'm relieved and gratified, at least, to know that there's only one.  I'm listening.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

You start with the position that what to defend is true.

Well, yes.  That inheres in the very nature of apologetics as an enterprise, be it apologetics for religion, or apologetics for philosophy, or apologetics for some scientific principle, or apologetics for any other proposition.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

You are not able to start out with the position that it may or may not be true and you are open to following the evidence wherever it may lead.

Well, it would seem that, in Alma 32, Alma begs to differ.  In brief, the formula he outlines is: (1) Plant the seed.  (2) Care for it.  (3) Nourish it. (4) If, after one has planted it, cares for it, and nurtures it, it "swells and sprouts and begins to grow," then one knows that it is a good seed. (5) Eventually, the seed bears good fruit.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

There is much you don't know for certain. 

Certainly, that's true.  I never claimed otherwise.  I have simply determined, as best I know how, to not let what I do know be held hostage by what, as yet, I do not know.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yet the apologist acts with certainty and is only interested is some small level of plausibility so anything that helps that is seized upon.

Not at all.  The very nature of the apologetic enterprise lies in asking questions.  As to whether one is persuaded by the quality and the level of the purported evidence the apologist presents, each person who evaluates that evidence must decide for himself or herself.  Caveat lector.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

  

The comment by Card is ludicrous by the way. What a fine example of mental gymnastics.

Oh, I see, so it is not certainty qua certainty that is the problem.  Rather, it depends upon where one's certainty lies.  Well, thanks for clearing that up for us.

Best Wishes & Warm Regards,

-Ken

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

How is that a problem?

With respect, I disagree.  We can start out with and continue with that position.  "For we walk by faith, not by sight."  (1 Cor. 5:7.)  I've said this a few times:

I think the "I know" affectation is just that, and also that most of us are using it to express a strong belief, not a sure knowledge.

We can do that, too.  I do that all the time.

I'm glad we can agree on that.

I don't think this is an accurate or fair characterization.

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps I did not state my first comment well. It is a problem IMO to approach something as the truth and seek any thing that in almost any way confirms our belief.  Many here, even on this thread have argued that apologetics is just to raise the truth of where faith is placed to simple plausibility.  I don't know of many disciplines that approach truth seeking in such a way.  

Can you really tell me you approach your defense of the LDS faith with a willingness to reject it if the evidence is weak or lacking?  Are you open to that?

I do agree that it would be a wonderful thing to drop the "I know...." routine.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bOObOO said:

Put simply, apologetics is about people with beliefs explaining why they believe what they believe.  Which means people who don't believe anything can't do apologetics because they don't have any beliefs to explain.  It requires a belief, first, and then someone who believes can tell you why or the reason for believing.

You seemed to not understand what apologetics is all about.

Apologetics is more than simply explaining why someone believes what they believe.

"Apologetics is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse. Early Christian writers who defended their beliefs against critics and recommended their faith to outsiders were called Christian apologists."

Of course it requires belief first. Nobody would attempt to defend a religious doctrine that they don't believe. But is an apologist really open to the risk that what they believe is not true?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Apologetics is more than simply explaining why someone believes what they believe.

"Apologetics is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse. Early Christian writers who defended their beliefs against critics and recommended their faith to outsiders were called Christian apologists."

A more wordy way to say what I said.  All beliefs can be considered religious beliefs and "defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse" is just a long winded way of saying "explaining". 

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Of course it requires belief first. Nobody would attempt to defend a religious doctrine that they don't believe. But is an apologist really open to the risk that what they believe is not true?

I'd say the answer to that depends on the apologist.  And it's beside the point, and the apologetics.  Of course any apologist could change his or her mind and believe something else, instead.  All apologetics is concerned with is explaining why a belief is believed, with the one who believes explaining why he or she chooses to believe. 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Perhaps I did not state my first comment well. It is a problem IMO to approach something as the truth and seek any thing that in almost any way confirms our belief. 

Sure.  Confirmation bias.  But surely the risk of that swings both ways?

Moreover, "apologetics" doesn't seem to to do that much.  To the contrary, a lot of Latter-day Saint apologetics includes all sorts of concessions.  "We don't know (or don't know much) about..."  "Our leaders were human and made/make mistakes..."  That sort of thing.  

I have spent many years listening to critics and opponents of the Church, partly as a means of countering the risk of confirmation bias.  I have found ample grounds to accept, and exercise faith in the tenets of the Restored Gospel.  Many of the critiques of my faith are predicated on assumptions I do not hold or share, on conjecture and guesswork, on flimsy evidence and reasoning.  I have found the following essays quite helpful in this regard:

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Many here, even on this thread have argued that apologetics is just to raise the truth of where faith is placed to simple plausibility. 

I'm not sure they are saying that.  Kenngo spoke of "engaging in reasonable extrapolations of the evidence to provide plausible explanations for what, as yet, we don't know for certain."

Glenn: "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."

Maestrophil: "I don't need to fret if I can't nail one explanation down as fact. I can hold out that the is AN explanation out there somewhere and my faith is sufficient until that truth is revealed to me.  In other words it created fields of plausibility that buttress my faith."

I just found a discussion I had with you back in 2016 on this same topic:

Quote
Quote

I am not contemptuous about evidence in favor of the LDS claims on how the Book of Mormon came to be.  I am skeptical and find the claims of divine intervention and Angels with plates of gold a fantastical claim.  That's it.  Do you not find it fantastical as well?  

Well, maybe this comes down to discomfort about terminology.  "Fantastical" has more than a pejorative whiff about it.  Here's the dictionary definition:

Quote
1.
conceived or appearing as if conceived by an unrestrainedimagination; odd and remarkable; bizarre; grotesque:
fantastic rock formations; fantastic designs.
2.
fanciful or capricious, as persons or their ideas or actions:
We never know what that fantastic creature will say next.
3.
imaginary or groundless in not being based on reality; foolish orirrational:
fantastic fears.
4.
extravagantly fanciful; marvelous.
5.
incredibly great or extreme; exorbitant:
to spend fantastic sums of money.
6.
highly unrealistic or impractical; outlandish:
a fantastic scheme to make a million dollars betting on horse races.
7.
Informal. extraordinarily good:
a fantastic musical.

I would perhaps say instead that the truth claims of The Book of Mormon are bold.  Audacious.  

You are skeptical, and so run the risk of confirmation bias to reinforce your skepticism, right?  And we face the same risk going the other way.

More from that discussion:

Quote
Quote

Even when I felt I had a testimony of the book I believed the claims made by Joseph were fantastical. And by that I don't mean bad.   I mean, well, fantastical.  I find the same true of Muhammad's claim and how Islam believes the Koran came to be, of the Bible and the story of Jesus and so on.  

I guess we have divergent views on what "fantastical" means, then (or perhaps about its connotations).

Quote

I am not sure I am under any obligation to provide any alternative theory.   Why is that my job?  

I'm not sure it is.  I feel no obligation to stake out a position on the Loch Ness Monster, or conspiracy theories about the Kennedy Assassination, or about any number of controversial issues.

However, if I venture into a discussion about one of those issues, and if I stake out a position on the controversy, and if I proceed to attempt to persuade people to my point of view, then I have assumed such an obligation for myself.  DCP put it this way (emphasis added):

Quote

I want to suggest something like that in this case, that to me, the explanation of Joseph Smith is simple and elegant, and the alternative explanations just don’t work and they get more and more complex and it’s just too much for me, and so I’ve said sometimes that I simply don’t have the faith to disbelieve Joseph Smith’s story. I just can’t get there. I can’t do it. And I’ve tried. I’ve really tried to give it a serious look. I cannot put together hallucinatory explanations of the witnesses and stealing from Solomon Spaulding and stealing from Ethan Smith, and I’m just mentioning a few, and putting it all together. Joseph Smith, this incredibly learned young man who’s sitting there on the frontier.

...

I remember my friend Bill Hamblin once being in communication with a one-time, fairly prominent, ex-member critic of the Church and of the Book of Mormon. And he said, “Look, let’s assume for a moment that you’re right and that Joseph Smith did not have plates. Did he know that he didn’t have plates or did he think that he had the plates? In other words, was he a conscious deceiver, or was he in some sense mad?”

To which this critic responded: “I don’t have to lower myself to your simplistic little dichotomies.”

Well, see, I think it’s intellectually incumbent upon people like that to, come on, give us an answer to this. Otherwise it’s like guerrilla warfare. You attack and attack and attack, you always withdraw, you never defend territory. You never have to stake out your own explanation, which then will be subject to criticism and attack.

I think DCP makes a fair point.  I welcome you to join in discussions about The Book of Mormon.  I welcome critiques of my position on The Book of Mormon.  But if you are going to meaningfully contribute to the discussion, then I think you need to defend positions that you stake out for yourself.  If your position about The Book of Mormon is that it has naturalistic origins, great!  Let's talk about it! (I assume you are not agnostic/indifferent/ambivalent about this topic in the way I am agnostic/indifferent/ambivalent about topics like the Kennedy Assassination.)  But if you refuse to defend your position, then you really aren't meaningfully contributing to the discussion.  This is why I think it is "intellectually incumbent" upon each of us to use reasoning and evidentiary analysis, rather than "guerrila warfare . . . never defend{ing} territory"-style tactics as described by DCP.
...
As audacious (or "fantastic" if you insist upon it) as the truth claims about The Book of Mormon are, the alternative theories are even 
more so, even less plausible.  Hence Dr. Peterson's statement about why he "can't manage to disbelieve."  The LDS Church has both a claimed witness of the Spirit on an individual/personal level, and also supplemental, ancillary analysis of The Book of Mormon and its origins.  Meanwhile, the critics have . . . well, not much of anything to offer in contravention.  After nearly 200 years, you'd think they'd have some coherent theory, but they don't.  I find that interesting.

Yep.

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I don't know of many disciplines that approach truth seeking in such a way.  

Secular disciplines?  Sure.

But discerning truth from God doesn't fit into an empirical mold very well, does it?

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Can you really tell me you approach your defense of the LDS faith with a willingness to reject it if the evidence is weak or lacking? 

Yes.  I've been doing that for many, many years.  

I quoted Elder Maxwell previously: "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."

In the absence of sure knowledge, I am quite content with acting on and proceeding in faith.  But that means I need to accommodate the possibility that what I believe is not what it claims to be.  I'm quite okay with that.  

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Are you open to that?

Yep.

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I do agree that it would be a wonderful thing to drop the "I know...." routine.

It's more a rhetorical flourish than substantive declaration, but it does tend to have the side effect of creating/maintaining unrealistic expectations.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Apologetics is more than simply explaining why someone believes what they believe.

Explanation.  Defense of.  That's the gist.  The gravamen.

51 minutes ago, Teancum said:

"Apologetics is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse. Early Christian writers who defended their beliefs against critics and recommended their faith to outsiders were called Christian apologists."

Of course it requires belief first.

Yes.  Empiricism doesn't really work in a first-order-of-business kind of way when evaluating the existence of God, ascertaining His will concerning and interactions with us, and so on.

51 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Nobody would attempt to defend a religious doctrine that they don't believe. But is an apologist really open to the risk that what they believe is not true?

Sure.  More to the point, I actually have altered a number of my beliefs consequent to reading or participating in adversarial/apologetic discussion and treatment of those things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  Empiricism doesn't really work in a first-order-of-business kind of way when evaluating the existence of God, ascertaining His will concerning and interactions with us, and so on.

I should add here that empiricism doesn't really work when it comes to any of the major beliefs by which we identify ourselves and form our worldviews. Empiricism is excellent for determining the composition of chemicals or the nature of natural forces (though, incidentally, it's clueless when it comes to determining the ontology of those forces). However, nobody identifies themselves or feels passionately about the composition of a chemical or the nature of a natural force. It's not critical to who we are and how we see ourselves in the world. Empiricism can enable us to build useful things and discover what otherwise amounts to cosmic trivia, but the things that we really use to identify ourselves? Our political opinions and resulting affiliations? Our aesthetic opinions and resulting affiliations? Ethics? Answers to these questions involve normative judgements which must precede the application of empiricist methods. Strict empiricism doesn't really have anything which I can see for these questions. The human condition is such that empiricism is only suited to certain types of questions, and those are closer to the periphery than the center for the vast majority of human beings. 

Or, to gleefully offend all the scientists out there: empiricism can answer some questions very well...but who really cares about those answers? 

Link to comment

I think the most effective apologetes are simply those who simply and sincerely share their faith and who simply and sincerely demonstrate an interest in the others'. Sharing is both active and listening. Very certain LDS-Christians and very certain non-LDS Christians often fail in this effort. Hence all their respective apologetic gyrations are ineffective in bringing about any change or growth in the other or in themselves via something they might learn from the other. 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, smac97 said:

I want to suggest something like that in this case, that to me, the explanation of Joseph Smith is simple and elegant, and the alternative explanations just don’t work and they get more and more complex and it’s just too much for me, and so I’ve said sometimes that I simply don’t have the faith to disbelieve Joseph Smith’s story. I just can’t get there. I can’t do it. And I’ve tried. I’ve really tried to give it a serious look. I cannot put together hallucinatory explanations of the witnesses and stealing from Solomon Spaulding and stealing from Ethan Smith, and I’m just mentioning a few, and putting it all together. Joseph Smith, this incredibly learned young man who’s sitting there on the frontier.

Thank you for your well thought out response.  I guess we have been around the block on this one before. 2016!  Amazed you remembered that discussion. 

Regarding the quote above from Dan Peterson I guess I have walked away with the opposite conclusion. The apologetic efforts to defend and make p[plausible so much of what Joseph Smith did and claimed seem to strain and work at jumping through so many hoops with terrific mental gyrations as well as concessions that most of us would never allow for others making spectacular claims that is seems more reasonable to conclude he made it all up. At least that is where I am at and I did do apologetics for many years before my mental capacity to feel confident in the approach could not longer accept it. From the Book of Mormon to the BOA to Plural marriage to the changing doctrine and revisions to back fill the D&C with apparent new innovations there is just so much that one needs to buttress, defend and ignore that the simple answer that it is based on fraud seems the logical conclusion.  And the list goes on.  The true believer simply has to lean back on faith and a personal experience that seems to me to trump reason as well as rational and critical thought. Occams razor seems to apply in the extreme  in so many cases when it comes the the LDS founding truth claims let alone the poor record of the leaders after Smith getting so much wrong as well.  I wish it were different for me. A times I still want it to be. I based my entire life on a the LDS Church and its truth claims and spent 55 years fully on board with it. 

Thanks again.  I do appreciate your comments.

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

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