The inherent sleaze of apologetics

[DeistPaladin]

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.

[Minimalist]

There is a lot of money in telling the dolts what they want to hear, D-P.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

It is distressing, to say the least and dangerous.
What apoligetics do is up the con. It's a modernization of the stereotypical guy-on-soapbox preaching about the ins and outs of life and existance to attract a flock to a particular faith by masking willing ignorance under a scientific vineer to make their claims appear to have scientific backing to help neutralize the threat of modern science.

Since modern science is the pursuit of truth, it is naturally antitheical to faith-based initiatives, so by cleverly rearranging the scientific details just enough to seem legitimate to the layman, you can get away from looking bat-shit insane.
Given what 'science' there is in the bible to those who critically read it and the lack of people actually reading it without already deciding that the whole thing is absolutely and unequivically true, there is still a perponderance of people who believe in things that are quite rather against the findings in nature (like young-earth creationism).

More dangerous than simply the ignorance, Apoligetics continue a brand of faith that not only continues outright untruths about reality but purposefully obfuscates the knowledge that has been hard-earned over centuries of dedicated research and review.

They are not only bad for society at large, but they are actively undermining modern civilization and standing against the march of humanity's progress into a better and more civilized future.

[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.

[Zen Badger]

---

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.

Really? what are the other possibilities?

[Autumnlicious]

A wizard did it?

[DeistPaladin]

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.

You're discussing the "God and Morality: Separate Issues" post. The "three possibilities" are, assuming both God and objective morality exist, that morality exists outside of God, morality exists because of God, and God is morality (whatever that means). The first suggests that right and wrong would continue to be so if God ceased to exist. The second suggests that morality is a creation of the subjective judgments of another being, which isn't objective. The third is based on circular reasoning. If there are any other possibilities, I don't see them. Ryft rejected #3 and then presented what seemed to be a flowery version of it.

If you wish to discuss this post further, here's the link: http://atheistforums.org/thread-5746.html

[Jaysyn]

A wizard did it?

No, it's turtles all the way down.

[Zen Badger]

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.

Amazing isn't it, people like G-C will post things like this but when you challenge them to back up their crying jag with some actual reasoned argument......

Poof!!! nowhere to be seen.

Simply amazing.

[KichigaiNeko]

A wizard did it?

No, it's turtles all the way down.

Don't forget the Elephants!!!