On the topics I work on, the defensive approach completely dominates, and sadly the quality of arguments is abysmal. Apologists mostly just pass around the same junky, poorly constructed arguments, and there is a failure to engage with relevant scholarship. Sadly, there are good reasons why real scholars dislike typical apologetics.
I don't think that "safety-first" is the correct way to describe many apologists and apologetics because many of the apologists are infernalists or annihilationists so they sincerely believe that some people will either suffer forever or be absolutely killed by God. So, it doesn't seem like they are doing "safety-first" apologetics. I mean, I guess they certainly want people to not go to eternal hell, so i guess you can call that safety-first apologetics, but to me... well, it makes sense though if you are in that paradigm because - truth or knowledge is instrumental, but saving lives is more important. This is why Aquinas' advocated for death penalty for heretics and the council of florence strongly condemned heretics and justified crusades as important and very good work.
What "safety" is there? Now, this doesn't mean that they are actually "truth-first" either because some of them straight up deny established science like evolution, age of earth and species, animal pain, etc. I believe that they are actually "tradition-first" people and have some sort of psychological view that the losers should suffer forever or be killed because the good ones have earned their place in heaven due to their free will. So, to them, it is not just that they win even by large margin... others must lose absolutely in such powerful sense that either they die or they intensely suffer forever. No good treats for them at all.
It’s pretty cool for me to look back and see how my own apologetics have evolved since I latched on to WLC 10+ years ago. Back then me would be pretty surprised to know how much I now disagree with WLC. (Though I still highly respect him and thank him for helping me see how intellectual Christianity can be.)
I feel like you give the truth-averse “apologists” too much credence in this argument. However, the need for stability over time is something I recognize. Sadly, it’s one of the main reasons that the Orthodox Church is seeing an influx of young men, in spite of its egregious heresies (e.g. Nicaea II). I want to see a stalwart truth-driven offensive arise! Rally men to the red pill of truth; it’s what sets men free.
Josh I don’t really think this does anything because you’re just being a safety first defender of truth first philosophy, I believe if anyone challenged your truth first position you’d likely engage in some form or shaming and think it’s fair to say you view this as a doctrine that shouldn’t be questioned. My point here is that everyone has certain beliefs that they will defend (safety first)… the only question is what beliefs, and how many?
This sounds like a nice idea. I'm just not sure I buy the notion of a "truth-first defender." The defender, by definition, is making their argument for what they've already decided is true. How can that leave room to update their beliefs?
But I'd love to be proven wrong. What are some practical examples of truth-first apologetics?
We can redefine what a defender is. When a scientist claims that evolution is both a theory and a fact, they defend that claim with evidence ( like fossil records and DNA). There is room for the scientist to update their beliefs based on evidence. Bill Nye the science guy would agree. That is how he answered in his debate against Ken Ham.
I define a defender is someone who simply defends a claim with evidence and reasoning.
So here is a practical example of truth-first apologetics:
Present evidence and reasoning for a claim. Acknowledge what it would look like, the implications, for that claim to be false. Acknowledge whenever the other side makes good points. Try to build bridges with people that you disagree with.
It is possible that you have the truth but an argument defending that truth doesn't work. So it is helpful to learn that and to find a better argument for that truth.
Epistemically speaking, miracles are possible. But are miracles actual? Do we have enough evidence of alleged miracles? How do we deal with miracles from conflicting religious traditions? Isn't it much more likely that reports of miracles are just mistaken yet sincerely believed?
It isn't enough to say that miracles are possible. Santa Claus is also possible.
On the topics I work on, the defensive approach completely dominates, and sadly the quality of arguments is abysmal. Apologists mostly just pass around the same junky, poorly constructed arguments, and there is a failure to engage with relevant scholarship. Sadly, there are good reasons why real scholars dislike typical apologetics.
I don't think that "safety-first" is the correct way to describe many apologists and apologetics because many of the apologists are infernalists or annihilationists so they sincerely believe that some people will either suffer forever or be absolutely killed by God. So, it doesn't seem like they are doing "safety-first" apologetics. I mean, I guess they certainly want people to not go to eternal hell, so i guess you can call that safety-first apologetics, but to me... well, it makes sense though if you are in that paradigm because - truth or knowledge is instrumental, but saving lives is more important. This is why Aquinas' advocated for death penalty for heretics and the council of florence strongly condemned heretics and justified crusades as important and very good work.
What "safety" is there? Now, this doesn't mean that they are actually "truth-first" either because some of them straight up deny established science like evolution, age of earth and species, animal pain, etc. I believe that they are actually "tradition-first" people and have some sort of psychological view that the losers should suffer forever or be killed because the good ones have earned their place in heaven due to their free will. So, to them, it is not just that they win even by large margin... others must lose absolutely in such powerful sense that either they die or they intensely suffer forever. No good treats for them at all.
It’s pretty cool for me to look back and see how my own apologetics have evolved since I latched on to WLC 10+ years ago. Back then me would be pretty surprised to know how much I now disagree with WLC. (Though I still highly respect him and thank him for helping me see how intellectual Christianity can be.)
Uncomfortable truth trumps comforting lies.
I feel like you give the truth-averse “apologists” too much credence in this argument. However, the need for stability over time is something I recognize. Sadly, it’s one of the main reasons that the Orthodox Church is seeing an influx of young men, in spite of its egregious heresies (e.g. Nicaea II). I want to see a stalwart truth-driven offensive arise! Rally men to the red pill of truth; it’s what sets men free.
Josh I don’t really think this does anything because you’re just being a safety first defender of truth first philosophy, I believe if anyone challenged your truth first position you’d likely engage in some form or shaming and think it’s fair to say you view this as a doctrine that shouldn’t be questioned. My point here is that everyone has certain beliefs that they will defend (safety first)… the only question is what beliefs, and how many?
This sounds like a nice idea. I'm just not sure I buy the notion of a "truth-first defender." The defender, by definition, is making their argument for what they've already decided is true. How can that leave room to update their beliefs?
But I'd love to be proven wrong. What are some practical examples of truth-first apologetics?
We can redefine what a defender is. When a scientist claims that evolution is both a theory and a fact, they defend that claim with evidence ( like fossil records and DNA). There is room for the scientist to update their beliefs based on evidence. Bill Nye the science guy would agree. That is how he answered in his debate against Ken Ham.
I define a defender is someone who simply defends a claim with evidence and reasoning.
So here is a practical example of truth-first apologetics:
Present evidence and reasoning for a claim. Acknowledge what it would look like, the implications, for that claim to be false. Acknowledge whenever the other side makes good points. Try to build bridges with people that you disagree with.
It is possible that you have the truth but an argument defending that truth doesn't work. So it is helpful to learn that and to find a better argument for that truth.
Fighting ignorance one post at a time.
Thank you, sir. Merry Xmas.
Data over Dogma
Reason over Revelation
Apologies over Apologetics
Epistemically speaking, miracles are possible. But are miracles actual? Do we have enough evidence of alleged miracles? How do we deal with miracles from conflicting religious traditions? Isn't it much more likely that reports of miracles are just mistaken yet sincerely believed?
It isn't enough to say that miracles are possible. Santa Claus is also possible.