Apologetics

[Andrew]

Early Christian writers were known as "apologetic", a term used for defending religious doctrine against critics through systematic argumentation... not the same as "Im sorry" or "I apologize for eating your lunch".

It's basically a way to argue your point to a critic through a method of using some common mutual understanding of things in order to persuade them in the least insulting way.

For example Paul used greek poetry in his favor to persuade the followers of greek philosophy that the very idea of such a God is not as far fetched as they think.

As Christians in the 21rst century it may seem unlikely to present something new that critics have never heard before, but with modern global networking it's extremely easy to catch on to the latest objections presented by critics!

Some objections are so "evident" that even Christians for centuries have failed to address them with solid conviction, perhaps even causing some Christian degeneration or apathy toward the criticism.

Here is a great example of what I am talking about (yes yes, if you know me then you have seen me post this a few dozen times lol). This corrects the objection by atheist concerning Unicorns being mentioned in the Bible.. I literally have to show this to my friends and family (both Christians and Atheists) so that they may fully understand and wake up to the reality of the infallibility of the Word of God... (where even science seems to always find itself in 2nd place to)

 

[Andrew]

.

 

[Josiah]

In Christianity, truth matters.

So individuals who have opinions NEED to defend that.... to show it's true (to the level claimed). In epistemology, this defense is called 'apologetics." It is the evidence that what is claimed is TRUE.

In things like religion, this cannot be of the same nature as (say) mathematics; "proof" is a tricky word! In my field (Physics), "proof" usually means little more than "there's credible evidence and mathematical affirmation", not really proof. And today's "proof" may not be proof tomorrow.... indeed, physists understand that what is accepted as true today PROBABLY won't be for long. "Proof" is allusive. Nonetheless, positions NEED to be "adequately" defended. And this needs to be considerably MORE than "it seems to me" or "it's POSSIBLE" or "God leaned down and whispered in MY ear - and just my ear." It needs to be credible, reasonable, evidenced, well thought out. And in epistemology, an opinion is up for attack. In Physics, there are esteemed publications where "opinions" are submitted to peers.... and IT IS THE JOB of the peers to shoot it down, to reveal bad evidence, faulty assumptions or conclusions. The authors ASK for this, WELCOME this... it's how mistakes and errors are discovered. This is true in religion, too.

In 2000 years, Christianity has embraced two forms of evidence....
+ The WORDS of Scripture. (Not to be confused with personal interpretations of such, that would be purely circular).
+ The TRADITION of Christianity (ancient, ecumenical faith - especially in understanding Scripture) including the 3 Creeds and 7 Councils.

Individuals with new positions (even if possible vis-a-vis Scripture and Tradition) have always had a very "up-hill" fight for acceptance; the assumption has always been that it's error until "proven" true. Luther and Calvin both accepted this, insisting that where they might be giving a new "spin" on things, the "burden of proof" rests with THEM, not the Catholic Church. For both, the RCC could say "prove it" to them but they never said "prove it" to the RCC at a point that was historically and ecumenically held. Both accepted that IF something had always been believed, that ALONE is powerful evidence (but not "proof" since error can exist - even ecumenically and historically).



Related, I often recall two quotes:

My doctrine class teacher: "There's never been a heretic who got into trouble for saying too little."
Martin Luther: "Humility is the foundation of all sound theology."





.

 

[Andrew]

In Christianity, truth matters.

So individuals who have opinions NEED to defend that.... to show it's true (to the level claimed). In epistemology, this defense is called 'apologetics." It is the evidence that what is claimed is TRUE.

In things like religion, this cannot be of the same nature as (say) mathematics; "proof" is a tricky word! In my field (Physics), "proof" usually means little more than "there's credible evidence and mathematical affirmation", not really proof. And today's "proof" may not be proof tomorrow.... indeed, physists understand that what is accepted as true today PROBABLY won't be for long. "Proof" is allusive. Nonetheless, positions NEED to be "adequately" defended. And this needs to be considerably MORE than "it seems to me" or "it's POSSIBLE" or "God leaned down and whispered in MY ear - and just my ear." It needs to be credible, reasonable, evidenced, well thought out. And in epistemology, an opinion is up for attack. In Physics, there are esteemed publications where "opinions" are submitted to peers.... and IT IS THE JOB of the peers to shoot it down, to reveal bad evidence, faulty assumptions or conclusions. The authors ASK for this, WELCOME this... it's how mistakes and errors are discovered. This is true in religion, too.

In 2000 years, Christianity has embraced two forms of evidence....
+ The WORDS of Scripture. (Not to be confused with personal interpretations of such, that would be purely circular).
+ The TRADITION of Christianity (ancient, ecumenical faith - especially in understanding Scripture) including the 3 Creeds and 7 Councils.

Individuals with new positions (even if possible vis-a-vis Scripture and Tradition) have always had a very "up-hill" fight for acceptance; the assumption has always been that it's error until "proven" true. Luther and Calvin both accepted this, insisting that where they might be giving a new "spin" on things, the "burden of proof" rests with THEM, not the Catholic Church. For both, the RCC could say "prove it" to them but they never said "prove it" to the RCC at a point that was historically and ecumenically held. Both accepted that IF something had always been believed, that ALONE is powerful evidence (but not "proof" since error can exist - even ecumenically and historically).



Related, I often recall two quotes:

My doctrine class teacher: "There's never been a heretic who got into trouble for saying too little."
Martin Luther: "Humility is the foundation of all sound theology."





.

Yes to defend the truth but also to solve dilemmas presented by critics.

If I recall it was Justin the Martyr who had such a dialogue with a certain Jewish skeptic concerning similarities with Christ with other greek pagan mythology. Justin explains his case not really with proof but with logic and reasoning, also unlearned atheists still make the claim that Jesus was borrowed from pagan mythos, Bill Maher even dedicated a film uses this claim to scoff at Christianity.. and thankfully this whole argument has been 100% fully debunked (thanks to the information age more and more objections are being easily and swiftly refuted)
Another was an apology to the Jews (forget the author here too) who brought up the fact that many of Hebrew men had fought on the Sabbath, I believe he mentions the walls of Jericho and even the Maccabean revolt.