The inherent sleaze of apologetics

[Godscreated]

---

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 the other post you set out three positions and said thats it, you turned a blind eye to other possiblities just so you could say your right and christians are wrong and what you did is just WRONG.