Ojuice5001

Apologists are more common among Christians and Muslims than among non-Abrahamic religions. This is because the motive for apologetics is conversion of unbelievers, and Abrahamic religions are the most interested in actively trying to convert people. Still, every religion has some interest in trying to convert the infidel, so every religion, if it exists long enough, will develop some sort of apologist.

Are non-Abrahamic apologetics significantly different from Abrahamic ones? Are they better or worse as rational arguments? If they are worse, I don't think it follows that Christianity and Islam are actually more rational than Asian and pagan religions, but of course the Abrahamic apologists would disagree.

muon

I've read a decent amount of Buddhist apologetics, intended primarily for Western or Westernized persons. A Sri Lankan named Jayatilleke wrote a pretty thorough one a few decades ago.

What was most interesting to me was how the various Buddhist apologists attempt to coopt Western science to their aims. While we are perhaps more used to ultra-religious people in the West rejecting science, the Eastern perspective is that modern science confirms, or at least is compatible, with their philosophies.

This Jayatilleke guy used a fair amount of this argumentation. But his understanding of science failed him in the end. He wound up arguing that paranormal abilities support the truth of Buddhism, and that Western parapsychology workers had established that paranormal powers exist!

I read a number of these works, including Jayatilleke's, with a fine-toothed comb many years ago. Really there was a lot of common ground in style with Western apologetics, though---frequent reliance on special pleading, arguments from ignorance, even miracles. The argumentation was better than the Josh McDowell kind of crap, but not as good as say a William Craig. Ultimately all were as unconvincing as Craig, though.

Waning Moon Conrad

I can't help feeling that apologetics are useless.

For those like me who are already Buddhist, it's unnecessary.

For those like you who are capable of criticism and discerning bullshit, they won't work.

If bullshit convinces you, then you won't comprehend madhyamika or yogacaran philosophy and hence you'll really just be wasting space at whatever dharma centre you attend.

Sounds like he was out to make a buck by selling books.

Would you buy a book that proves you're immortal?

hinduwoman

hindus too have some apologetics who claim that Hindu scriptures are filled with scientifc miracles. Personally I blame Daniken for that.

lpetrich

Erich von Daniken (or Daeniken) has been the best-known advocate of ancient astronautics, but he was not the first.

L. Sprague deCamp's The Ancient Engineers mentions some of these views, which he compared to someone taking Homer's Odyssey mention of Charybdis sucking up water three times a day and spitting it out again three times a day and concluding from that that the Odyssey's authors had been familiar with washing machines.

Also, one of Carl Sagan's biographers mentioned a curious incident back in 1950, in which the Great Sagan, as I sometimes call him, adamantly advocated the theory that past religious leaders were extraterrestrial visitors and that their miracles had been their technology in action. He advocated this theory while having a meal with some friends in a very formal sort of restaurant, and at once point, he slammed his fist on the table and said,

"But I say to you, Jesus Christ is extraterrestrial!"

However, he would later show greater critical sense on this subject.

Veil of Fire

Why would there be non-abrahamic apologists?

I don't lose anything if you don't believe me. Hell, YOU don't even lose anything if you don't believe me. I have no reason to 'convince' you of anything, except for the demands of my own ego, seeking validation through others and such things. The only thing I really care about convincing people of is my right to exist.

jess

Would the Wicca(tm) Book-of-Shadows-Thumpers count as apologists? thos who need to alter history to fit their worldview?

I would think that apologetics are only needed if the religion is trying to promote its texts as fact, and not lessons into character and life.

If the answer is, 'well, it doesn't make sense because its a myth', why do you need to argue the veracity?

Veil of Fire

No, they count as cretins with a low self-esteem. A Wiccan has no reason to thump her book at you unless she doesn't feel properly validated if she can't convince other people to follow her. That's the low self-esteem part. The cretin part comes from buying the "$ilver'$ $pell$ for $elling Out" version of witchcraft and trying to pass it on as unvarnished truth.

I detest them with a passion I normally only reserve for Methodists, and will do everything in my power to enlighten them and/or make big veins throb in their forehead. If I can do both at once, well, bonus!

hinduwoman

Inferiority complex. Since sicence is now the paradigm, the Asinas try to prove --- to Westerners --- that they had everything as good as Westerners could produce.

mibby529

Okay, here's what I have as non-Abrahamic apologists:

Neopagans generally claim that their religions are the world's oldest. (Geez, don't these idiots know what neo means?)

But even they aren't as bad as $cientologists. Of course, who other than Xians is?

Now New Agers are a weird type. You can tell them their beliefs aren't whatever they claim them to be, but they'll still believe it. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> We call them twinkies.