Apolotetics misusing philosophy?

[Nuda900]

A while back A saw this video....pretty damn good I must say:





The question: should apologetics be taken seriously within academia?

[bennyboy]

Hmmmm it's broken for me.  I think I've fixed it, though:

[bennyboy]

I think this is a very good lecture. We have, collectively, addressed all these things here on AF, but this represents a nice condensed form.

[robvalue]

If they freely use logical fallacies, which they generally all do, I see no reason to take them seriously.

Also, if they're trying to establish facts about reality based on just philosophy and no supporting evidence, they should also not be taken seriously.

Thanks for the vid, I'll check it out!

[robvalue]

That is a great video, thank you!

This confirms yet further what a slimy, dishonest weasel WLC is. He knows full well what he's doing, and he hides the fallacies and equivocations behind walls of text and plays both sides seamlessly.

As I predicted, logical fallacies, and philosophy without evidence. That's all apologetics is, and it's why it achieves fuck all except reassuring those who already believe. Oh, and makes him rich. Con artist. He may believe his conclusion, but he knows his methodology is flawed.

[abaris]

I've yet to find any apologist carrying a significant scientific degree. Significant in the sense of actually knowing what they're talking about. I wouldn't enter a stage to speak on Quantum Physics, Astronomy or Evolution. I know my limits.

So, some of the may be some doctor. Doesn't mean their topics are based on what they actually know. They just have read some hand picked books in all probability. If they even done that.

[robvalue]

Indeed. Not one thing Craig has ever said has any bearing on reality, as far as I'm aware. He is discussing his own imagination.

[bennyboy]

I've yet to find any apologist carrying a significant scientific degree. Significant in the sense of actually knowing what they're talking about. I wouldn't enter a stage to speak on Quantum Physics, Astronomy or Evolution. I know my limits.

So, some of the may be some doctor. Doesn't mean their topics are based on what they actually know. They just have read some hand picked books in all probability. If they even done that.

Yeah, hat's the problem with reverse engineering an argument.  You just end up with what it would have had to be for you to be right.

[robvalue]

I'm happy to "play their game" as the guy in the video puts it. I'll happily take on any apologist, and point out the flaws in their arguments.

But as far as considering them philosophers: no, they are not. They are theologians, which is a field requiring no expertise whatsoever.

[The Grand Nudger]

The silliness of people doing their doctorate thesis on the declarations of fairies in order to obtain such "expertise" should not go unmentioned.