Fundamentalism aside, I've noticed when talking to other Christians that most of their apologetics is about trying to make God increasingly vague and undefined to shield him from scrutiny. It tends to involve less pseudoscience and more poorly defined terms.
This is good from the theistic point of view because it helps stave off cognitive dissonance. It isn't about proving their belief right, but rather about retaining faith by making it so it can't be proven wrong. I used to be pretty good at this when I was in college. A lot of what I believed was done specifically to reconcile observable reality with my ever-changing belief system.
Of course, it also ended up being what made me ultimately reject my faith. I was in a period of time when I was trying to get it to "make sense", and one day I had this thought "why am I so focused on believing in a religion that I am making up as I go along?". That was the first time I actually felt some comfort in letting go.
This is good from the theistic point of view because it helps stave off cognitive dissonance. It isn't about proving their belief right, but rather about retaining faith by making it so it can't be proven wrong. I used to be pretty good at this when I was in college. A lot of what I believed was done specifically to reconcile observable reality with my ever-changing belief system.
Of course, it also ended up being what made me ultimately reject my faith. I was in a period of time when I was trying to get it to "make sense", and one day I had this thought "why am I so focused on believing in a religion that I am making up as I go along?". That was the first time I actually felt some comfort in letting go.
