If the (modern- I have no issues with apologetics as it was during the early church) apologetic thought process is so bad, resulting in dogmatically static individuals who are not willing to change even when presented with valid arguments, then what is a better way to go about processing the deeper issues of life?
A Better Way:
1. Gather evidence first and then draw conclusions based on your findings. Attempt to change your bias from a predetermined starting point to one that it inclined only toward the truth.
2. Evolution. Always be searching for the most accurate information possible. When an error in your thinking is exposed, accept it and change. As more and more time passes, the percentage of accurate information you posses will increase.
I think you’ve really hit the nail on the head with this series of posts. I find people like Dr. Craig to be extremely frustrating because 1) they pollute and dilute the strong evidence for Christianity with very bad arguments and 2) they have an attitude of judgment towards people who believe in real apologetics.
ReplyDeleteA couple of other miscellaneous and rather superficial comments about the series:
First, I am still ok with the term “apologetics” because I believe it is defined by a bias-free proof of the rationality of Christianity. What Dr. Craig proposes is anything but that; and the fact that he calls it “apologetics” does not mean that he has re-defined the term.
Second, I’d like to propose another term for what you refer to as evolution—namely, the dialectic process. In a nutshell, the dialectic is the process of sorting the truth out from a number of clashing viewpoints. Seems like what you are referring to in this post (part 6). Just a thought…
Thanks a lot, Brandon!
ReplyDeleteI do appreciate what you said about being ok with the term apologetics. We shouldn't let certain people ruin terms with their personal interpretations and representations.
Also, thanks for letting me know about the dialectic process. That does seem to be a great description of what I am advocating.
Hello Joshua,
ReplyDeleteI came across your blog quite by accident when perusing some of the work of Don Carson and I would broadly concur with your observations. I am rather surprised that the response to your series has not been fuller given the nature of the subject. I prefer to think that it may be due to the straightforward manner in which you present your arguments. I have sometimes pondered Dr Craig's assertion to the effect that if a person is genuinely seeking God then God will reveal himself to that person, but surely a person seeking God has already made the a priori assumption that he exists? I am sure I will enjoy perusing the rest of your blog.
Hello Phillip!
DeleteThank you so much for your comment. I truly appreciate the feedback, In particular, I am overjoyed that you consider my approach to be straightforward!!!
I would love to hear more of your thoughts on Dr. Craig's assertions concerning personal motivation for searching. There certainly can be a danger in making a priori assumptions.
Again, thank you for your response!!!
-JTS