Family Man

I was reading Diogenes' excellent thread Shredding the Gospels, when a thought occurred to me. I have always been repelled by Christian apologetics. In fact, it was the apologetics more than the biblical inconsistencies that turned me off of Christianity in particular and religion in general. If you need to stoop to some obviously bad argumentation, your position can't be sound in the first place. But while it is easy to spot the inadequacies of apologetics, it is more difficult to explain it.

In essence, apologetics is an attempt to explain away discrepancies. However, in doing so, they replace the discrepanies with something just as bad.

For instance, consider the two deaths described for Judas, perhaps the most egregious example of apologetic excess. What apologists would have us believe is that Matthew had half of the story, Luke (in Acts) had the other half, and if we wed them together we have the truth, leaving us with the absurd picture of Judas hanging himself then falling and spilling his guts. That story is laughable on its face even before we consider the likelihood that each would have half the story.

But think of the implications: according to apologists, the contradiction is only apparent. But they can only make that case by arguing that the gospel writers were bad reporters who frequently only told half the story. How does that inspire confidence in the bible as the "Word of God"? It doesn't. The apologetic claims are just as damning as the discrepancies themselves.

The ironic thing is, had I been given more reasonable explanations when I first started questioning my faith my deconversion would have taken a much longer time. Acknowledging that these were obvious fabrications by gospel writers who clearly couldn't let Judas get away with betraying a demigod would have struck me as quite reasonable and not have struck me as being fatal to the Christian cause.

But then, apologetics isn't about providing a reasonable defense. It's about providing cover for those who want to believe no matter what.

luvluv

If you hate apologetics so much, why not stop subjecting yourself to it?

Jaguar Prince

I think it is important to realize that Xtian apologetics became mixed with fanatical despair when Luther proclaimed the Bible as the sole authority in the Church. The Protestant Paper Pope (PPP) made Xtian apologetics totally dependent on a book, on words, on the past, with no possibility to argue from present reality or from human intelligence.

It is obvious to me that Luther, far from being a progressive thinker, was in fact a Stone Age man deeply hostile to the Renaissance spirit of discovery. He certainly used the idea of basing own's beliefs on experience to effect the divorce between himself and the Roman Church, but once the separation had been consummated, he was quick to reinstall authority and to base it on the past, which means that he reverted to scholasticism and its blind reliance on ancient authors such as Aristotle.

Spiritual safety, hate of the unknown does terrible things to people.

Finally, I think it would be fruitful to meditate on the root meaning of the word apo-logetics:

away from (apo) mere human discourse (logos)

rooted in (apo) the Logos (universal Reason/Dao/Dharma/Hochma)

Jag

luvluv

I'm fairly sure the word derives from the Greek usage of the word "apology", which simply means "defense".

I.E. Socrates' Apology was not him saying he's sorry for what he's done, nor him falling away from some Eastern conception of Logos, but simply him defending himself against charges made against him.

Let's not make stuff up.

Godless Wonder

The point of the whole thread, if I'm not mistaken.

post tenebras lux

Interestingly, - from the same greek root of apo [away, off] logos [speech] and also coming to english via latin - we get the word apologue, meaning 'an allegory or moral fable'.

Well, it was interesting to me anyway.

Luxie

muTron the homeless

I hear ya man! Have you read the book "Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?" It is a dialogue between William Lane Craig and J.D. Crossan. Interesting reading for the layperson wanting to become familiar with HJ polemics, but someone wrote an essay critique at the end (sorry I can't remember the author) essentially saying that apologetics serve as a thinly veiled intellectual cheerleading exercise for those already convinced of the truthfulness of the position being defended. At it's heart Xianity is 99% existential IMHO. I have never heard of anyone converting to the flock based on the historical evidence or the solid logic inherit in the system, even a grand apology of the resurrection.

Apologetics serve to keep the sheep in the pen so to speak, not convince the wolves on the outside. Ironic for you and me such was not the case, but judging by book sales from writers of the apologia it seems a popular strategy.
:huh:

Toto

Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? a debate between Craig and Crossan, moderated by Wm. Buckly, with responses to the debate by two conservatives (Craig L. Blomberg and Ben Witherington III) and two liberals (Robert J. Miller and Marcus Borg).

This comment from James Lowder seems apt: "the liberals simply could not bring themselves to take Craig's apologetic arguments seriously."

luvluv

To nobody's surprise, I disagree with Lowder's comments.

In my opinion, the liberals simply refused to take on Craig's very straightforward defenses of the Orthodox view. You can write that off as "not taking it seriously" but the fact is the liberals simply didn't respond to Craig's best arguments. If you show up for a debate and refuse to take on your opponents best arguments, you aren't "not taking your opponent seriously" you're losing the debate, at least in the eyes of people who aren't familiar with the material.

Toto

It doesn't sound like you really disagree with Lowder.

Lowder is assuming that Crossan did not take Craig's arguments seriously because he knew that there were better arguments that could be made, and that Crossan must have known about. So Crossan lost the debate because he could not take his opponent seriously.