Credible/Honest Apologetics?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Also which masks? Because of surgical masks? Because those have passed pretty much every test you could throw at them . As for cloth masks while they aren't as effective (something that's readily acknowledged as they are only suppose to be a stop gap though they can be more effective if consistently washed) They are still better than nothing. If we're talking about the general theory behind masks it's common sense and tested to a point you would have to be insane to pretend it has no impact on a respiratory disease.....

[TheJefe817]

I know I'm following up on my own topic here, but I'm hoping others will opine and make sure I'm being honest and fair.

I recently picked up "The Testimony of the Evangelists" by Simon Greenleaf, as it was recommended as a great classic work worthy of my attention.  I started reading, but almost immediately set it aside as not worth my time.  The reason: the first chapter, just a few paragraphs in says the following (don't worry, this appears to be public domain):

"The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no part of these inquiries.  This has already been shown, in the most satisfactory manner by others, who have written expressly upon this subject. Referring therefore to their writings for the arguments and proofs, the fact will here be assumed as true."

Why would I read one sentence further than that?  Basically he seems to be saying that other people have written things showing that Christianity is true, so we'll assume it's true.  So he will now continue the book and show that it's true.  Am I missing something here?  Why bother to write the book if you're stating in chapter one that what you're going to prove is true has been proven true, which will be accepted by default as evidence of its truth?

This is my continuing frustration.  I'm not frustrated with the lack of convincing arguments, as I'm not optimistic that any exist.  I'm frustrated that the recommendations of great thought and evidence being brought to me are consistently so blatantly dishonest and/or circular.

[GrandizerII]

I know I'm following up on my own topic here, but I'm hoping others will opine and make sure I'm being honest and fair.

I recently picked up "The Testimony of the Evangelists" by Simon Greenleaf, as it was recommended as a great classic work worthy of my attention.  I started reading, but almost immediately set it aside as not worth my time.  The reason: the first chapter, just a few paragraphs in says the following (don't worry, this appears to be public domain):

"The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no part of these inquiries.  This has already been shown, in the most satisfactory manner by others, who have written expressly upon this subject. Referring therefore to their writings for the arguments and proofs, the fact will here be assumed as true."

Why would I read one sentence further than that?  Basically he seems to be saying that other people have written things showing that Christianity is true, so we'll assume it's true.  So he will now continue the book and show that it's true.  Am I missing something here?  Why bother to write the book if you're stating in chapter one that what you're going to prove is true has been proven true, which will be accepted by default as evidence of its truth?

This is my continuing frustration.  I'm not frustrated with the lack of convincing arguments, as I'm not optimistic that any exist.  I'm frustrated that the recommendations of great thought and evidence being brought to me are consistently so blatantly dishonest and/or circular.

Why pick up the book in the first place, then? If it's an apologetics book, then you were bound to be frustrated no matter what alternatives would have been said in it, and regardless of other people's recommendations of it.

If I wanted to pick up that book, I'd do it for other reasons, such as reaffirming how some Christians think, not only regarding why they believe Christianity is true but what they also believe as a result of believing Christianity is true. It could still be a good book to read if you were to change your attitude towards such books.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think it might be a bit redundant to say "what they also believe as a result of believing christianity is true". Christianity is not a belief in a god. That's a single line superstition. A god could exist, and even the abrahamic god, and that still wouldn't make christianity true. Ask a jew or a muslim.

If a persons primary interest is why some people believe in gods, they're not going to find that in any book on apologetics. Truth in advertising, I know..you'd think it would be there, they seem to be selling paper on that basis - but it's not. If you want to know why christians believe some normative principle x - then you don't even need christian apologetics. The christians didn't - they borrowed those explanations in every single case.

[TheJefe817]

Why pick up the book in the first place, then? If it's an apologetics book, then you were bound to be frustrated no matter what alternatives would have been said in it, and regardless of other people's recommendations of it.

If I wanted to pick up that book, I'd do it for other reasons, such as reaffirming how some Christians think, not only regarding why they believe Christianity is true but what they also believe as a result of believing Christianity is true. It could still be a good book to read if you were to change your attitude towards such books.

Fair enough.  Perhaps I was looking for something I should not (at least in this book).  It is indeed realistic to expect an apologist to start with the postiion of their answer and work backwards, so perhaps it was just jarring to me to see that stated so blatantly in the first chapter - that this was not to be a building up of a case, but a backfill to what others have already "proven".  It just struck me as an appeal to authority and/or popularity right off the bat.

[TheJefe817]

If a persons primary interest is why some people believe in gods, they're not going to find that in any book on apologetics.  Truth in advertising, I know..you'd think it would be there, they seem to be selling paper on that basis - but it's not.  If you want to know why christians believe some normative principle x - then you don't even need christian apologetics.  The christians didn't - they borrowed those explanations in every single case.

Also fair.  I suppose, after thinking about it, I'm not entirely sure what it is I'm looking for.  I already know what christians believe - I was one for decades.  I suppose I'm still holding onto the thread that there's something convincing that I am missing - perhaps to clear my conscience a little for holding on so long to something that has no basis in evidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, don't hold on to a thread.  Just own it.  What -is- convincing about judeochristian values?  There's a pretty good chance that the explanation for whatever that is by your description doesn't even need a christian to explain it to you.

Juedeochristian values may, in fact, have some basis in evidence...even if gods don't.  You might be looking to apologists to lie to you about what ethicists know.  A losers bet..it always ends in holy holy holy - send me money.

[The Grand Nudger]

[TheJefe817]

Well, don't hold on to a thread.  Just own it.  What -is- convincing about judeochristian values?  There's a pretty good chance that the explanation for whatever that is by your description doesn't even need a christian to explain it to you.

Juedeochristian values may, in fact, have some basis in evidence...even if gods don't.  You might be looking to apologists to lie to you about what ethicists know.  A losers bet..it always ends in holy holy holy - send me money.

From what I'm finding, it always ends in some way in "for the bible tells me so".  Circle around from there, infinitely.

And on the values, yes, agreed.  To put it another way, as I heard one counter-apologist say, there's nothing a christian can do from a moral standpoint that an atheist is unable to do, so it's unnecessary to inject god into the equation.

[The Grand Nudger]

If a persons primary interest is why some people believe in gods, they're not going to find that in any book on apologetics.  Truth in advertising, I know..you'd think it would be there, they seem to be selling paper on that basis - but it's not.  If you want to know why christians believe some normative principle x - then you don't even need christian apologetics.  The christians didn't - they borrowed those explanations in every single case.

Also fair.  I suppose, after thinking about it, I'm not entirely sure what it is I'm looking for.  I already know what christians believe - I was one for decades.  I suppose I'm still holding onto the thread that there's something convincing that I am missing - perhaps to clear my conscience a little for holding on so long to something that has no basis in evidence.