Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Why is apologetics almost unknown?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    I am talking about individual arguments. If someone were to produce a particular, specific, argument for the existence of God that was widely regarded as convincing then it would be taught and discussed at every university.

    There are, of course, lots and lots of different apologists who write different books and different websites. But they all mostly use different arguments to each other, usually that they themselves have authored, because there are no apologetics arguments that have stood the test of time and expert opinion. If there were, everyone would learn the convincing argument at school or uni and we would all know that God existed.
    Are you purposely a source of misinformation, or are you really this clueless? Most apologists do NOT use different arguments to each other, they do NOT usually author their own arguments, and they often DO derive their arguments from philosophical sources centuries old. The greatest philosophical arguments that are still in highest use today come from the minds of people like Anselm, Aquinas, Pascal, Clarke, Leibniz, Kant, and the like. All of whom are still widely taught in universities around the world. Even newer arguments like Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument, or Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology are built on the works of past thinkers.

    Of course, with the growing post-modern, left-leaning bias of most of secular Western academia in the last century has come a contempt and disdain for religion, and especially Christianity. So it's no wonder that these philosophers and their arguments, while certainly discussed, are not treated with a fair shake at the university level anymore. People who have a deep indwelling hatred for God, for Christianity, and for religion in general, are not going to put forward a sincere examination on the philosophical arguments for the existence of God, no matter how brilliant and convincing they are.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
      Have you ever used electricity, driven or ridden in a train, automobile, or airplane, taken antibiotics, or used plastics? If so, congratulations, your life has been benefited by modern science! Heck, you typed your response on a computer, tablet, or smartphone. Circuits didn't invent themselves, it took knowledge of electricity and small scale manufacturing to figure it out. So I have proof that modern science benefited you. And by studying science and using it to develop better technologies, we can help to advance the condition of humanity.
      Let's break this down a bit. But first, I was not asking why you want "modern science", but rather why you want "modern scientific view of the universe". The distinction may be a bit clearer after I do the breaking down.

      Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
      Have you ever used electricity,
      Yes, I have benefitted from a modern scientific study of electronics.

      Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
      driven or ridden in a train,
      Yes, I have benefitted from modern scientific studies of electronics, stability, velocity, acceleration and deceleration (and especially those who were saved as to life because train slowed down fast enough has benefitted from these) and a few related.

      Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
      automobile,
      Yes, I have benefitted from modern scientific studies of combustion, gas dynamics (or whatever Boyles law is integrated into) and levers, among other things relevant for propulsion and direction of cars, plus as with trains also of studies of acceleration and deceleration.

      Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
      or airplane,
      Yes, aeordynamics is also a subject on which I agree modern science has a thing to say/

      Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
      taken antibiotics,
      Blue cheese involves that. Seriously : the mold used in blue cheese is bread mold, and bread mold is the mold which excretes penecilline.

      Both discoveries were made because someone left bread to mold.

      Ian Fleming's (or is that the James Bond author?) moldy bread fell on a disc with bacterium culture.

      The French or Provençal shepherd's bread was left to mold next to a lump of cheese - till next time he arrived to the grotto.

      In other words, both discoveries, whether culinary or scientific, were made without specifically invoking modern scientific views of the universe.

      Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
      or used plastics?
      Computers generally involve plastic in the screens and around the circuits, and ball point pens and some drinking goblets involve plastic too.

      Yes, I have benefitted from modern chemistry.

      Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
      If so, congratulations, your life has been benefited by modern science!
      At least in parts, that is no denying it.

      Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
      Heck, you typed your response on a computer, tablet, or smartphone. Circuits didn't invent themselves, it took knowledge of electricity and small scale manufacturing to figure it out. So I have proof that modern science benefited you.
      Small scale manufacturing is actually a pre-modern invention.

      Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
      And by studying science and using it to develop better technologies, we can help to advance the condition of humanity.
      Exactly how much is claiming the universe is 13.5 billion years across or Earth is 4.5 billion years old going to help inventing better technologies which, if used the right way (a thing science cannot guarantee) can help to advance certain parts of the material conditions of men?

      In other words, where exactly is modern scientific view of the universe directly involved?
      http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

      Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
        If someone were to produce a particular, specific, argument for the existence of God that was widely regarded as convincing then it would be taught and discussed at every university.
        St Thomas Aquinas' five ways?
        http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

        Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          But they all mostly use different arguments to each other, usually that they themselves have authored, because there are no apologetics arguments that have stood the test of time and expert opinion.
          Or because these are the ones they understand best.
          http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

          Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            If there were, everyone would learn the convincing argument at school or uni and we would all know that God existed.
            That is presuming there are no ideological barriers to that.

            There are.

            Hume is an ideological barrier, not a valid reason, against apologetics from history, spec. miracles.

            Kant is an ideological barrier, not a valid reason, against apologetics from proofs for existence of God, involving specifically the Five Ways of St Thomas.

            Marx and others since Russian Revolution are ideological barriers against Kant's own (?) proofs from universal validity of reason and moral law.
            http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

            Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              Hmm. That's unfortunate. If you don't mind me asking, what brings you to a Christian theology forum if you've decided that there's no point looking any deeper?



              Yes there are. To be honest, in the nearly 20 years of reading apologetic literature, I can't ever remember running across the arguments for hell that you're alluding to here. Do you remember the apologists you read that led you to these views?
              1. I was a Christian when I joined. I don't post much in apologetics now for that very reason but I sometimes have free time and get bored and go here.
              2. Well for the first part I hear people saying the gates of hell are locked from within, not from outside. A brief search suggests C.S. Lewis argued it. The second one was argued by a Muslim on an Internet forum. I can try to find the original source later.
              Find my speling strange? I'm trying this out: Simplified Speling. Feel free to join me.

              "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do."-Jeremy Bentham

              "We question all our beliefs, except for the ones that we really believe in, and those we never think to question."-Orson Scott Card

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
                1. I was a Christian when I joined. I don't post much in apologetics now for that very reason but I sometimes have free time and get bored and go here.
                2. Well for the first part I hear people saying the gates of hell are locked from within, not from outside. A brief search suggests C.S. Lewis argued it. The second one was argued by a Muslim on an Internet forum. I can try to find the original source later.
                Hmm. How is Lewis' argument on hell like what you've described? I'm familiar with Lewis' argument, but I don't remember him arguing either that people have "full knowledge of the consequences of our actions and the existence of God" or "that we can cause infinite harm to God and deserve infinite punishment."

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  Of course, with the growing post-modern, left-leaning bias of most of secular Western academia in the last century has come a contempt and disdain for religion, and especially Christianity. So it's no wonder that these philosophers and their arguments, while certainly discussed, are not treated with a fair shake at the university level anymore. People who have a deep indwelling hatred for God, for Christianity, and for religion in general, are not going to put forward a sincere examination on the philosophical arguments for the existence of God, no matter how brilliant and convincing they are.
                  Um, wow. I take it you've never been to a university?
                  "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                  "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                  "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    Um, wow. I take it you've never been to a university?
                    I have. Ranked one of the top universities, not only in the States, but in the world. Don't you get tired of always being wrong?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      I have. Ranked one of the top universities, not only in the States, but in the world.
                      Oh, you visited a relative who was attending? Or was it a public lecture you went to?
                      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        Oh, you visited a relative who was attending? Or was it a public lecture you went to?
                        Did you include that joke in your application to clown college? If so, it's no wonder they rejected you.

                        Really, dude, are you even trying?
                        Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                          Did you include that joke in your application to clown college? If so, it's no wonder they rejected you.

                          Really, dude, are you even trying?
                          I'm not trying to be funny. It's reasonable to assume that someone who makes the bizarre statements about universities and the people at them that Adrift did ("have a deep indwelling hatred for God" etc), is not familiar with what they are talking about. The fact that he has constructed an imaginary picture of what universities are like that has no connection with reality strongly implies he has little to no firsthand knowledge of the situation himself. A general lack of higher education would also explain the erratic nature of many of his posts and the ways he commonly mishandles evidence. So I am genuinely curious to know what, if any, higher education he has had.
                          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            So I am genuinely curious to know...
                            Bull

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              I'm not trying to be funny. It's reasonable to assume that someone who makes the bizarre statements about universities and the people at them that Adrift did ("have a deep indwelling hatred for God" etc), is not familiar with what they are talking about. The fact that he has constructed an imaginary picture of what universities are like that has no connection with reality strongly implies he has little to no firsthand knowledge of the situation himself. A general lack of higher education would also explain the erratic nature of many of his posts and the ways he commonly mishandles evidence. So I am genuinely curious to know what, if any, higher education he has had.
                              Do you deny that contempt of Christian orthodoxy is a fashionable, or, at least, respected opinion among people who consider themselves well-educated or well-informed? Many people, especially among the social and intellectual elite of the West, believe that Christianity's historical and theological claims are rubbish and that the people who still believe it are superstitious rubes. I for one have no trouble believing that Adrift witnessed this sort of contempt for sincere religious belief during his time at whichever university he attended.

                              I should note, though, that my own experience of university life is more recent and bit different, but that could be explained by self-selection: I graduated from a religious university and have spent time since graduation at religious apostolates at secular universities: the faculty I've interacted with wouldn't have come anywhere near a religious university or a religious organization attached to a secular university if they didn't believe in, or weren't willing to at least suspend judgment about religion.

                              And if social media is any indication, higher education is no guarantee whatsoever that a person knows how to handle evidence properly or react rationally, particularly where Trump is involved.
                              Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                                Do you deny that contempt of Christian orthodoxy is a fashionable, or, at least, respected opinion among people who consider themselves well-educated or well-informed?
                                In my experience, well-educated and well-informed people tend by and large to be not particularly interested in the religious beliefs of others because they are aware that such beliefs are not scientifically testable and are 'private'. To open one's mouth and make a statement about religion at all, be it positive or negative, breaks a social taboo because it is generally understood that religious views are a matter for oneself and should not be brought up in polite conversation. It is like opening your mouth and talking about your sex life. Any and all religious views are tolerated equally, be they Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, Christian, Muslim, or no view at all, so long as you don't bother others with it. So I think going around expressing contempt of Christianity would get you weird looks just as fast as going around espousing it would.

                                Many people, especially among the social and intellectual elite of the West, believe that Christianity's historical and theological claims are rubbish and that the people who still believe it are superstitious rubes.
                                Sure. Pretty much everyone in the world disbelieves in at least 99.999% of the human religions in history. You probably think the Aztecs worshiping Quetzalcoatl and the Egyptians worshiping Ra were superstitious rubes, for example. Statistically speaking, highly educated people today appear to be less religious than the general population, so it's not surprising that they disbelieve Christianity.

                                I for one have no trouble believing that Adrift witnessed this sort of contempt for sincere religious belief during his time at whichever university he attended.
                                While I have no objection to the idea that he might have at some point witnessed one or more discussions about religion at an American university - and I'm aware that religion is a big deal in US public life in a way that it's simply not here - the way he characterized a hatred of God as being a major factor in people at universities was just hilarious.

                                And if social media is any indication, higher education is no guarantee whatsoever that a person knows how to handle evidence properly or react rationally, particularly where Trump is involved.
                                I'm not quite sure what a perfectly rational reaction to Trump would consist of. Possibly laughing oneself to death or building a nuclear bunker.
                                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X