The Apologetics of Confrontation and Anger

[carpedm9587]

I usually don't get that wrong teach...

And do NOT do it again...

[Celebrian]

I just don't agree with the approach ascribed to Jesus.

Although Jesus' approach may be a turn off to people today, it helps to keep in mind that it was a very different culture. Insults were a common part of honor-shame challenges in the ANE. It wouldn't be seen as poisoning the well.

[carpedm9587]

Although Jesus' approach may be a turn off to people today, it helps to keep in mind that it was a very different culture. Insults were a common part of honor-shame challenges in the ANE. It wouldn't be seen as poisoning the well.

That I cannot speak to. I do know that modern honor/shame cultures (e.g., Japan, China, etc.) do not seem to have that concept of "insults" as a core of their communication model. But I cannot say I am expert on the concept of honor/shame as it applies to cultures in the ancient near/middle east.

However, we are not in the ANE. We are in the 21st century in the western world. What may or may not have worked for Jesus in that culture is not a prescription for what will or will not work here. If one cannot reach back and judge ancient cultures by modern norms, it seem one likewise cannot use behaviors of someone in an ancient culture to justify behavior in the modern age.

In other words, if it is inappropriate to say "Jesus' choice in the ANE cannot be judged according to modern standards," it seems equally inappropriate to say, "it's OK fo rme to do it now, because Jesus did it then.

My $.02

[Celebrian]

I'm not an expert either, but that is what I have read. My point was simply that we can't assume that Jesus' listeners were turned off by insults or that they didn't have the desired effect. Whether that is appropriate in a modern society without shame is a whole other can of worms.

[psstein]

An ad hominem is not equal to an insult or a disparagement? I agree it is not always vulgar - but how is it not the other two. Can to provide an example of an ad hominem that is not an insult or a disparagement?

An ad hominem fallacy is dismissing an argument based on the person of who's arguing it. If I were to say that Richard Carrier's argument for mythicism should be dismissed because he's polyamorous, then that's an ad hominem.

Saying that Carrier's argument for mythicism should be dismissed because he's completely against the consensus of NT scholars/historians today is not an ad hominem.

[carpedm9587]

An ad hominem fallacy is dismissing an argument based on the person of who's arguing it. If I were to say that Richard Carrier's argument for mythicism should be dismissed because he's polyamorous, then that's an ad hominem.

Saying that Carrier's argument for mythicism should be dismissed because he's completely against the consensus of NT scholars/historians today is not an ad hominem.

Actually, I would say it is. Although his perceived position for/against the argument he's making certainly raises the possibility that his argument is slanted and unsubstantiated, it does not prove or disprove it - it remains a fallacy.

As a parallel, if I were to say, "that position against climate change fails because the research supporting it was funded by the fossil fuels industry, which is clearly partisan," I would be engaging in an ad hominem. If I were to say, "be wary of cherry picking and other information fallacies, folks - the research supporting that position was finded by the fossil fuels agency - which has a clear bias," I would not. It is a fair observation and warning to be careful and diligent in reviewing the argument - it is a fallacy to simply dismiss the argument.

Make sense?

[Adrift]

I am curious about a dynamic I see all around me, here as well in the U.S. and the world at large. There is a flavor of anger and confrontation to the apologetics I see both here and elsewhere. I recognize that many atheists likewise have a confrontational approach to dealing with theists, and I wish I could apologize on behalf of all of them. There are times I think most atheists are just angry ex-theists that have not completely let go of their original worldview.

But if the goal of apologetics is to explain the faith, and convey the message of Christ risen, does a confrontational and angry apologetic EVER successfully convey the spirit of Christ? The stories of Jesus convey the impression of a man who was masterful at countering skeptics without ripping into them. Only once, that I recall, did Jesus ever "lose it," and that was when he encountered the hordes disrespecting the sacred place he saw as "my father's house." Beyond that, he apparently responded evenly and creatively to the most obnoxious of challenges, creating an atmosphere of invitation to his teaching, rather than a knee-jerk reaction against it. Even when he was to be arrested to be ultimately taken to his death, the stories convey the image of a gentle-man, even healing the ear of one of his oppressors.

Yet nowhere is there an impression that Jesus of Nazareth was a wimp. He conveys the sense of strength, self-assuredness in his faith, and concern for those who he believed would ultimately benefit from his message. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," is a powerful, masterful strategy for dealing with the situation. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to god what is god's," is similarly powerful and masterful.

Doesn't all the rage and confrontation achieve the exact opposite of what you want to achieve?

I want to be clear that I do not see this from ALL people here, or even ALL the time. But it is certainly here, and with remarkable regularity.

Thoughts...?

I've really only ever encountered the angry apologetics shtick on this and one other Christian Theology forum, and only among a couple big name Christian apologists. Not saying it didn't/doesn't happen on lots of other Christian forums, but personally, I found it to be relatively rare. On this forum, it was mostly due to the Tektonics influence, which has waned in a big way since the big crash. Apologetics has, in fact, taken a bit of a backseat on this forum, where the big back and forth nowadays is politics, and politics are always going to be contentious, no matter what and where the format. I think your perspective on the issue might be a bit skewed too. I don't know how familiar you are with some of the bigger skeptic forums, but they were far FAR worse about how they interacted with religious people (but especially Christians) than any Christian forum I've ever visited. This forum at its worse was nothing compared to places like The Rational Response Squad forums, Internet Infidels, Reddit's /r/Atheist subreddit, and the comment sections of Loftus and Carrier's blogs. Those were intensely vile and hateful places, and looking at some of the bigger skeptic/"free thought" forums today, not much has changed.

Concerning your own behavior on this forum, I honestly remember you being far more genial than you seem to remember. In fact, I seem to remember you standing behind those Christians who were against the insult rhetoric used on the forum.

[Jedidiah]

Most of the angry apologetics, even here on TWeb is not in my opinion really apologetics - it just arguing. I would love to be able to discuss the truth of the Christian God with any rational atheist or agnostic. The only ones I have seen here are not interested in exchanging ideas. They (JimL, Tassman, and first floor come to mind) just make proclamations and have no back up and are not willing to answer any questions.

[carpedm9587]

I've really only ever encountered the angry apologetics shtick on this and one other Christian Theology forum, and only among a couple big name Christian apologists. Not saying it didn't/doesn't happen on lots of other Christian forums, but personally, I found it to be relatively rare. On this forum, it was mostly due to the Tektonics influence, which has waned in a big way since the big crash. Apologetics has, in fact, taken a bit of a backseat on this forum, where the big back and forth nowadays is politics, and politics are always going to be contentious, no matter what and where the format. I think your perspective on the issue might be a bit skewed too. I don't know how familiar you are with some of the bigger skeptic forums, but they were far FAR worse about how they interacted with religious people (but especially Christians) than any Christian forum I've ever visited. This forum at its worse was nothing compared to places like The Rational Response Squad forums, Internet Infidels, Reddit's /r/Atheist subreddit, and the comment sections of Loftus and Carrier's blogs. Those were intensely vile and hateful places, and looking at some of the bigger skeptic/"free thought" forums today, not much has changed.

Concerning your own behavior on this forum, I honestly remember you being far more genial than you seem to remember. In fact, I seem to remember you standing behind those Christians who were against the insult rhetoric used on the forum.

Thanks, Adrift. My problem back then was I had little/no patience for rudeness, and if I was subjected to it long enough, I tended to respond in kind, becoming exactly what I disliked. Hopefully, I've mellowed a bit. These days, when things get rude or testy, I ask if the dynamic can change, and if it is clear it's not going to, I disengage and move on. Helps me keep my blood pressure in check, and I don't have enough years left in front of me to waste them on unpleasantness.

As for your comments above, they make sense. I frankly don't spend ANY time on the "skeptic" or "atheist" chats. Most of them seem more like angry ex-theists than atheists with a mature, developed, philosophy. And most seem more focused on tearing down than building up.

My initial question was mostly focused on those who engage is "tear down" apologetics and attacks. It just seems at odds with a quest to invite to the faith and convey the message of Jesus of Nazareth. However, I do understand the reaction to the put-downs and tear-downs so many atheists/agnostics tend to resort to.

I have not seen that many there this time around, so the Tektonics influence may well have been a factor. There was one guy from there, if memory serves, who was really into the "blast them and ridicule them" apologetic. Never had much use for that.

[carpedm9587]

Most of the angry apologetics, even here on TWeb is not in my opinion really apologetics - it just arguing. I would love to be able to discuss the truth of the Christian God with any rational atheist or agnostic. The only ones I have seen here are not interested in exchanging ideas. They (JimL, Tassman, and first floor come to mind) just make proclamations and have no back up and are not willing to answer any questions.

Hopefully - I will not shy away from questions. Demi asked me one that had me thinking for about half a day, and he leans somewhat to the "acerbic" discussion style, I've noted. So you never know when someone might larn ya sumpthin!

[psstein]

Actually, I would say it is. Although his perceived position for/against the argument he's making certainly raises the possibility that his argument is slanted and unsubstantiated, it does not prove or disprove it - it remains a fallacy.

As a parallel, if I were to say, "that position against climate change fails because the research supporting it was funded by the fossil fuels industry, which is clearly partisan," I would be engaging in an ad hominem. If I were to say, "be wary of cherry picking and other information fallacies, folks - the research supporting that position was finded by the fossil fuels agency - which has a clear bias," I would not. It is a fair observation and warning to be careful and diligent in reviewing the argument - it is a fallacy to simply dismiss the argument.

Make sense?

I disagree, as there's a sub-text to my remark. Carrier's views are completely ignored by every relevant scholar today because the mythicist hypothesis was completely debunked by scholars in the 1910s and 1920s. Since Carrier doesn't have anything new to say (he reads the Descent of Inanna as a dying and rising god myth), I don't think his views should be paid any heed.

[carpedm9587]

I disagree, as there's a sub-text to my remark. Carrier's views are completely ignored by every relevant scholar today because the mythicist hypothesis was completely debunked by scholars in the 1910s and 1920s. Since Carrier doesn't have anything new to say (he reads the Descent of Inanna as a dying and rising god myth), I don't think his views should be paid any heed.

Not being familiar with the subject matter, I missed the subtext. If what you are doing is pointing to authorative sources that have already debunked the argument - I agree that is not an ad hominem.

[Adrift]

Thanks, Adrift. My problem back then was I had little/no patience for rudeness, and if I was subjected to it long enough, I tended to respond in kind, becoming exactly what I disliked. Hopefully, I've mellowed a bit. These days, when things get rude or testy, I ask if the dynamic can change, and if it is clear it's not going to, I disengage and move on. Helps me keep my blood pressure in check, and I don't have enough years left in front of me to waste them on unpleasantness.

My initial question was mostly focused on those who engage is "tear down" apologetics and attacks. It just seems at odds with a quest to invite to the faith and convey the message of Jesus of Nazareth. However, I do understand the reaction to the put-downs and tear-downs so many atheists/agnostics tend to resort to.

I have not seen that many there this time around, so the Tektonics influence may well have been a factor. There was one guy from there, if memory serves, who was really into the "blast them and ridicule them" apologetic. Never had much use for that.

Like I said, it's been my experience that the "tear down" technique is relatively rare in most apologetic circles. Check out the works and debates of people like William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, Tim Keller, Alister McGrath, Os Guinness, Alvin Plantinga, and so on. They're all incredibly courteous, and amiable apologists, who encourage discussion, and disagree with their ideological opponents without raising their voices, or throwing insults, or attempting to tear people down. I mean, it honestly does sound like you've limited your experiences to the bad apples, and that's unfortunate, because they're not nearly as common as you seem to think. To the contrary, in my experience they're the major exception.

As for your comments above, they make sense. I frankly don't spend ANY time on the "skeptic" or "atheist" chats. Most of them seem more like angry ex-theists than atheists with a mature, developed, philosophy. And most seem more focused on tearing down than building up.

It's been my experience that it's about half and half. Take a place like Reddit's /r/Atheist sub, it's made up of a lot of Europeans who if they had any religious background at all, it was incredibly minimal, but most did not, and the Americans on the sub do have a number of people who were raised in, say, the deep South, who were exposed to plenty of that good ol fashioned religion, but it's pretty mixed even there, with plenty of Americans who had no interest in religion at all until some topic or another got their attention. I'm assuming you're in your late 50s, it's been my experience that the 20-something crowd that makes up the majority of atheist forums today weren't raised with the pervasiveness of religion like you were (or I for that matter).

[psstein]

Like I said, it's been my experience that the "tear down" technique is relatively rare in most apologetic circles. Check out the works and debates of people like William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, Tim Keller, Alister McGrath, Os Guinness, Alvin Plantinga, and so on. They're all incredibly courteous, and amiable apologists, who encourage discussion, and disagree with their ideological opponents without raising their voices, or throwing insults, or attempting to tear people down. I mean, it honestly does sound like you've limited your experiences to the bad apples, and that's unfortunate, because they're not nearly as common as you seem to think. To the contrary, in my experience they're the major exception.

I think in pretty much every field, a sign of being a competent scholar is treating your opponents' views with respect and courtesy.

Of course, we can all think of a certain self-proclaimed genius who doesn't.

[Adrift]

I think in pretty much every field, a sign of being a competent scholar is treating your opponents' views with respect and courtesy.

Of course, we can all think of a certain self-proclaimed genius who doesn't.

Carrier of course, but my mind goes immediately to Craig's debate with Lawrence Krauss. Krauss actually brought a buzzer with him to buzz Craig during the debate when he felt Craig was offering an incorrect argument during his turns. It was so bad that the non-Christian moderators of the debate called Krauss on it a couple times, and the audience cheered when they would. The skeptic community itself was pretty torn with some feeling extremely ashamed of Krauss' behavior (which they shouldn't have, since Krauss doesn't represent them), and others applauding his actions because they passionately hate Craig's guts, and think of him as a liar and charlatan.