Credible/Honest Apologetics?

[The Grand Nudger]

lol, the internet scrubbed it. I posted a video of How do I know? The bible tells me so!

[Neo-Scholastic]

I know I'm following up on my own topic here, but I'm hoping others will opine and make sure I'm being honest and fair.

I recently picked up "The Testimony of the Evangelists" by Simon Greenleaf, as it was recommended as a great classic work worthy of my attention.  I started reading, but almost immediately set it aside as not worth my time.  The reason: the first chapter, just a few paragraphs in says the following (don't worry, this appears to be public domain):

"The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no part of these inquiries.  This has already been shown, in the most satisfactory manner by others, who have written expressly upon this subject. Referring therefore to their writings for the arguments and proofs, the fact will here be assumed as true."

Why would I read one sentence further than that?  Basically he seems to be saying that other people have written things showing that Christianity is true, so we'll assume it's true.  So he will now continue the book and show that it's true.  Am I missing something here?  Why bother to write the book if you're stating in chapter one that what you're going to prove is true has been proven true, which will be accepted by default as evidence of its truth?

This is my continuing frustration.  I'm not frustrated with the lack of convincing arguments, as I'm not optimistic that any exist.  I'm frustrated that the recommendations of great thought and evidence being brought to me are consistently so blatantly dishonest and/or circular.

Wow, you really read a lot more meaning into that passage than I did. I just took it to be an elaborate way of saying that rehashing those demonstrations are beyond the scope of his book, which to me, isn't all that different from starting some demstration with a given that is widely accepted by the audience. Maybe, since you do not share his given, maybe you are not his audience.

[TheJefe817]

Wow, you really read a lot more meaning into that passage than I did. I just took it to be an elaborate way of saying that rehashing those demonstrations are beyond the scope of his book, which to me, isn't all that different from starting some demstration with a given that is widely accepted by the audience. Maybe, since you do not share his given, maybe you are not his audience.

Could be.  I would say the passage suggests that the given is the truth of Christianity via revelation, and if that is the case it is certainly true that I do not share the given.  It seems rather broad to be a given, actually, but then, as you say, I may not then be the audience.  The question then would be who the audience would be - those who already believe?  That's not me being rhetorical or intentionally rude, I'm just thinking about it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

You are not being rude, just giving an outsider's perspective on a curious subculure.

[Jehanne]

You are not being rude, just giving an outsider's perspective on a curious subculure.

Now that you are a Donator, we have to treat you with respect.

[Pat Mustard]

You are not being rude, just giving an outsider's perspective on a curious subculure.

Now that you are a Donator, we have to treat you with respect.

No, we only have to treat people with respect when they act in a manner which deserves respect.

[arewethereyet]

There are a lot of people with purple names who aren't donating to keeping the forum up and running. Many did at one time but don't any more.

And...respect from me can't be purchased.

[Simon Moon]

I'm currently reading Frank Turek's infamous, "I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist" where he posits the simple idea that yes Christianity does require some faith, but according to his balance the committed atheist requires more.

He also claims "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." for Christ's resurrection.

So far I find it worth my time to read.

His posit fails on multiple levels.

How much faith does it take to be unconvinced that a god or gods exist?

I am also unconvinced that: alien abductions, Chupacabra, ghosts, Ginn, telekinesis, dowsing, etc, etc, exist. Are all those also faith based positions?

He also claims "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." for Christ's resurrection.

Yeah...

Not so much.

Back on my post #25, I mentioned I had a shelf full of apologetics books. One of them is "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist".

Turek's so called "proof" for Jesus' resurrection, was kind of laughable. It has been quite a while since I read it, so I can't remember all the problems with it, but it was pretty poor.

[Jehanne]

Back on my post #25, I mentioned I had a shelf full of apologetics books. One of them is "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist".

Since when does "suspending judgment" require faith?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Back on my post #25, I mentioned I had a shelf full of apologetics books. One of them is "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist".

Since when does "suspending judgment" require faith?

Indeed. I promote the connotation of "faith" that is more akin to trust than belief. For example, trust is more closely aligned with the will. Belief is more closely aligned with thought. At the same time I know there are Christians, such as Kierkegaard, who consider the irrational acceptance of some first principles as an inescapable part of the human condition. Hence the assertion of these types of Christians is that being an atheist requires "faith" in different first principles... first principles that do not entail theism, but must be accepted on "faith" nonetheless. My guess, not having read the book would be, the Christian writer finds the first princples of an atheistic philosophy to be lacking, a position the existentialist part of me finds agreeable.