Freethought & Rationalism Archive

CX · 08-28-2002, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ron Garrett:
<strong>The publisher thought New Evidence That Demands a Verdict was catchier than the more likelyNew Mistress That Demands a Condo. It's all about the money.</strong>

I would suggest that the personal motivations of various Xian writers cannot be known and are further not within the purview of this forum. Let's stick to the issues and arguments. We can make quick work of McDowell's arguements (which are very weak) without commenting on him personally. Thanks.

Ron Garrett · 08-28-2002, 07:36 AM

I think we have to keep in mind that the real work of the apologist is not to convince the unbeliever, but to reassure the believer. McDowell and others know that your typical layman will never spend the time to confirm or verify what their cheerleaders tell them. They just want to be reassured that someone with a brain has done the work and the layman can go back to a flatline EEG confident that somebody somewhere proved all the ridiculous assertions of the faith.

The apologist knows that believers are magical thinkers who are lazy about such things in the first place, and that in most cases, urban legends being a good illustration, mere assertion is more than enough to spread the word which believers will seize upon and repeat as though they themselves saw it all with their own eyes. After all, that's how Christianity spread in the first place.

Toto · 08-28-2002, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ron Garrett:
<strong>I think we have to keep in mind that the real work of the apologist is not to convince the unbeliever, but to reassure the believer. McDowell and others know that your typical layman will never spend the time to confirm or verify what their cheerleaders tell them. They just want to be reassured that someone with a brain has done the work and the layman can go back to a flatline EEG confident that somebody somewhere proved all the ridiculous assertions of the faith.

...</strong>

I think this is applicable to William Lane Craig, who uses longer words but is just as unconvincing to anyone who doesn't start out as a believer.

Christians don't rely on McDowell. They think of McDowell as propaganda for "baby Christians" who haven't even started to think about Christianity, but are being recruited so Jesus can save them from their drug habits or despair.

Ron Garrett · 08-28-2002, 11:01 AM

Because so much of my experience was in fundamentalism where learning and academic inquiry are marks of The Beast, the majority of my time other than in seminary was spent around Christians that never got past their reverence for McDowell, Walter Martin, Hank Hannegraf and such. In fact, what I enjoyed most about seminary was being able to do actual structured research and formal rhetoric without being ridiculed and counseled by pastors with their GEDs who got their Bible training from Chuck Smith tapes.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-28-2002, 07:36 AM	#12
Ron Garrett Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: United States Posts: 1,657	I think we have to keep in mind that the real work of the apologist is not to convince the unbeliever, but to reassure the believer. McDowell and others know that your typical layman will never spend the time to confirm or verify what their cheerleaders tell them. They just want to be reassured that someone with a brain has done the work and the layman can go back to a flatline EEG confident that somebody somewhere proved all the ridiculous assertions of the faith. The apologist knows that believers are magical thinkers who are lazy about such things in the first place, and that in most cases, urban legends being a good illustration, mere assertion is more than enough to spread the word which believers will seize upon and repeat as though they themselves saw it all with their own eyes. After all, that's how Christianity spread in the first place.

08-28-2002, 11:01 AM	#14
Ron Garrett Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: United States Posts: 1,657	Because so much of my experience was in fundamentalism where learning and academic inquiry are marks of The Beast, the majority of my time other than in seminary was spent around Christians that never got past their reverence for McDowell, Walter Martin, Hank Hannegraf and such. In fact, what I enjoyed most about seminary was being able to do actual structured research and formal rhetoric without being ridiculed and counseled by pastors with their GEDs who got their Bible training from Chuck Smith tapes.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.