Christian Apologetics and Arguments are Futile
October 24, 2013 at 6:17 pm
(This post was last modified: October 24, 2013 at 6:24 pm by MindForgedManacle.)
One of the best ways to undermine an opponents position is to accept as much of it as they put forward, and to show that even when doing so they completely fail at establishing said position even if they're best efforts are true. I'll be doing this to Christian apologetics, and is aimed particularly at Drich, ChadWooters, Godschild and the like.
So, what are the main ways in which Christian apologetics aims to establish itself as true, or at least that its truth is an inference to the best explanation? The following arguments we're probably all familiar with.
Now, what do these arguments establish with regards to a cumulative case for Christian theism? Well as it turns out, they don't establish Christian theism, and certainly not more other monotheistic religions like Islam. Here is what they establish as true, as far as I can tell:
Cosmological arguments (specifically the Kalam): There is an ultimate, 1st, uncaused cause, who exists 'outside' space and time (whatever that actually means, if anything) and created the universe.
Ontological arguments: There is a Maximally Great Being (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) who exists in all possible worlds.
Teleological/design (fine-tuning argument, specifically): The universe is such that it is highly beneficial for life, a probability of which is so enormously improbable on chance as to tax the mind. Thus, the particular configuration must have been intentionally set as they are by a mind.
Moral arguments: God exists since moral realism is true, and such is only possible if God exists. I find this to be the worst argument for God's existence.
Historical argument: Establishes that there was a figure 2000-ish years ago, of whom the New Testament Gospels are ultimately about. Establishes that Jesus was executed and that his disciples had/claimed to have some sort of post-death experience of him, whether supernatural, hallucination, lied or something else. And yes, that is all it could establish in principle.
Argument from Religious Experience: Establishes that believers experience certain powerful feelings or events, which they take to be the witness and work of the Holy Spirit.
Does anyone else notice the insuperable disconnect between the philosophical arguments and the last 2 religious ones? If you establish with the first 3 that there is a Maximally Great Being who is the 1st Cause and fine-tuned the universe for life, and that there was a man 2000-ish years ago who claimed to be either a manifestation or prophet of said being (depends on your theology), and that Christians have powerful experiences that they assign to said being.
Hopefully you see it. There's no way to take the philosophical and religious arguments together to establish that they're talking about the same being, and the above arguments don't do so. The Historicity Argument can't do it in principle, since it inevitably comes down to relying on testimonies of those convinced and those decades later, none of whom can really agree on much in the way of real importance. And even if they did agree in their entirety, it can't tell you whether or not such is actually true.
Given the above that even if all the major arguments for the Christian God's existence taken cumulatively don't establish it's existence any more than other monotheisms - ignoring the fact that every one of those arguments are flawed through and through - the stance that theism (certainly Christian theism, as well Islamic) is untenable seems very defensible to me.
So, what are the main ways in which Christian apologetics aims to establish itself as true, or at least that its truth is an inference to the best explanation? The following arguments we're probably all familiar with.
Now, what do these arguments establish with regards to a cumulative case for Christian theism? Well as it turns out, they don't establish Christian theism, and certainly not more other monotheistic religions like Islam. Here is what they establish as true, as far as I can tell:
Cosmological arguments (specifically the Kalam): There is an ultimate, 1st, uncaused cause, who exists 'outside' space and time (whatever that actually means, if anything) and created the universe.
Ontological arguments: There is a Maximally Great Being (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) who exists in all possible worlds.
Teleological/design (fine-tuning argument, specifically): The universe is such that it is highly beneficial for life, a probability of which is so enormously improbable on chance as to tax the mind. Thus, the particular configuration must have been intentionally set as they are by a mind.
Moral arguments: God exists since moral realism is true, and such is only possible if God exists. I find this to be the worst argument for God's existence.
Historical argument: Establishes that there was a figure 2000-ish years ago, of whom the New Testament Gospels are ultimately about. Establishes that Jesus was executed and that his disciples had/claimed to have some sort of post-death experience of him, whether supernatural, hallucination, lied or something else. And yes, that is all it could establish in principle.
Argument from Religious Experience: Establishes that believers experience certain powerful feelings or events, which they take to be the witness and work of the Holy Spirit.
Does anyone else notice the insuperable disconnect between the philosophical arguments and the last 2 religious ones? If you establish with the first 3 that there is a Maximally Great Being who is the 1st Cause and fine-tuned the universe for life, and that there was a man 2000-ish years ago who claimed to be either a manifestation or prophet of said being (depends on your theology), and that Christians have powerful experiences that they assign to said being.
Hopefully you see it. There's no way to take the philosophical and religious arguments together to establish that they're talking about the same being, and the above arguments don't do so. The Historicity Argument can't do it in principle, since it inevitably comes down to relying on testimonies of those convinced and those decades later, none of whom can really agree on much in the way of real importance. And even if they did agree in their entirety, it can't tell you whether or not such is actually true.
Given the above that even if all the major arguments for the Christian God's existence taken cumulatively don't establish it's existence any more than other monotheisms - ignoring the fact that every one of those arguments are flawed through and through - the stance that theism (certainly Christian theism, as well Islamic) is untenable seems very defensible to me.
