(September 2, 2013 at 8:12 pm)apophenia Wrote: It parallels an argument that I've made previously. Apologists usually advance arguments for belief that bear no relation to the reasons why they first came to believe. If the reasons they first came to believe were sound and compelling, why don't they use those reasons instead? If the arguments they are advancing weren't responsible for persuading them, then why do they conclude that they should be persuasive? If they came to believe for reasons that aren't compelling, why should we come to believe for those reason? Either way you look at it, the apologist is tacitly admitting that his original reasons for belief are insufficient, because if they were sufficient, he would be using them as an argument instead (as they are proven to persuade, at least in the apologist's case).
I am of the opinion that engaging in apologetics is simply an attempt to justify a conclusion with post-hoc rationalization. In other words, it may be that the apologist isn't so much defending their faith to others as they are subconsciously defending it to themselves, which would render the initial reasons for their conclusion useless, as that is the very thing they are attempting to justify. Or maybe they simply fear having their initial reasons properly criticized, which would bring the whole house of cards crashing down.
Either way, the whole charade definitely appears to be more for the benefit of the apologist than anyone else.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
