In an exchange with Ryft on another thread, the side-topic of degree of expertise in apologetics came up. I offered that there is nothing to "know". It's different from legitimate academic pursuits where there are degrees of qualification. A layman with a YouTube channel will regurgitate the same canned arguments heard from Craig, Strobel, McDowell, Habermas and others. The reason is simple and it has to do with what distinguishes religious apologetics from legitimate academic pursuits.
In a real academic field, you usually first gather the data and then see what conclusions you can reach based upon what you've learned. Even in the more subjective fields like say, music, theory is often based on what has been observed to work. The composer writes music and, after he/she becomes famous for it, the music theorist then analyzes the composition to create the theory that explains how and why it works.
With apologetics, you first embrace the desired conclusion, arrived at by faith, and then try to find a way to justify it. Such an approach can be used to justify any absurd belief, from astrology to conspiracy theories. It's also a process that is inherently intellectually dishonest or, at the very least, willfully ignorant. There is no such thing as a good apologist. The profession is inherently morally and intellectually bankrupt.
In a real academic field, you usually first gather the data and then see what conclusions you can reach based upon what you've learned. Even in the more subjective fields like say, music, theory is often based on what has been observed to work. The composer writes music and, after he/she becomes famous for it, the music theorist then analyzes the composition to create the theory that explains how and why it works.
With apologetics, you first embrace the desired conclusion, arrived at by faith, and then try to find a way to justify it. Such an approach can be used to justify any absurd belief, from astrology to conspiracy theories. It's also a process that is inherently intellectually dishonest or, at the very least, willfully ignorant. There is no such thing as a good apologist. The profession is inherently morally and intellectually bankrupt.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
