I’ve receive two interesting and well written comments recently on a couple older articles which debate the main points of those articles. Now I could just respond to these comments briefly and then move on, but I am struck with how much time and effort these two visitors placed in their comments. Anything less than a thorough and well thought out response would be insulting, so I’ve decided that I’m going to respond to these two comments as their own article.
The first visitor, Ian, who responded to “The Failure of Apologetics & The Mind of God” wrote:
In your completely valid and welcomed argument you have used Apologetics to show that Apologetics is not a reasonable form of combating the modern world. Apologetics is simply the defense of our religion, it is a practice of using words and ideas of an unbeliever on terms they can understand. It is not so conclusive that it “proves” to an unbeliever that Christianity is the only true religion any more than we can “prove” what happened during the creation. Faith is still a requirement of God.
Thank you, Ian. I appreciate that you enjoyed my article.
The problem is that a defense of Christianity needs to be conclusive by virtue of it’s claim to being the only true religion. A defense which is not conclusive, cannot defend the claim of being the only true religion at all. Once that contention falls to the blade of logical argument, any amount of defense beyond that becomes pointless… makes apologetics pointless.
However, if Christianity backs off the claim of being the only true religion, Christianity as a whole becomes more defendable from a logical stand point. This is true of all religions; once you declare the unique position of being the only true religion, you instantly lose credibility in any logical argument. In backing off from that claim, the other aspects of religion become more understandable in context to the human condition.
According to Christianity, faith is required of us by God, but I ask you what if it is actually we who need faith - any faith - for no other purpose than our mental and emotional well being? What if faith had less to do about God and more to do about the human condition? How would this change our relationship with God and with religion? Its worth thinking about.
Today Christians are becoming increasingly polarized with the rest of society… The departure of modern society from its morals founded in Christianity was not due to ignorant or wayward Christians (though they certainly didn’t help). It was due to what great minds believed was the evolving (and to them, better) form of human logic and reason. What they did not realize at the time is that God invented Logic and reason. John 1:1 in Greek, which it was originally written reads “In the beginning there was logos”. A divine, logical, mind.
If I’m understanding you correctly, in your opinion the cause of the polarization between Christianity and the rest of society is because society is moving away from Christian morality. In all honesty, I am not convince that there was ever a time in history when Western society adhered to the morality that Jesus proposed. Not that the morality practiced by Christians was not the dominate force at one time or another - but that there has always been a large gulf between what Jesus taught and what his followers did in his name. I’m not just referring to the more egregious offences to morality made by a minority of Christians, I’m talking about the day to day attitudes and actions of Christian society as a whole. The polarization between Christianity and the rest of society has more to do with society’s secularization which, in my opinion, has actually been a boon to the morality of Western society.
Logic was not invented by God - it is purely man-made. Logic may be the highest form of thought for human beings, but that doesn’t mean that there are not yet even higher forms of thought. “Logos” is Greek for “word.” In my opinion, it’s use in the Bible refers to Truth - not the mind of God but simply Truth. From this you could postulate that Truth was created by God. Logic, on the other hand, is just one method or tool used to reach that Truth.
Faith is a deeply personal thing, and as you said yourself, extremely hard to put into exact words when expressing it. I don’t believe that a Christian Apologist or an “Apologist-created” convert has a weaker faith, on the contrary, the more either of these people can see or explain with words or ideas the stronger their faith will be. Just as the Christian that goes hiking can see all of the finer complexities and details of nature will feel closer to God, the Christian that sees the subtle genius of logic will as well.
I never said that a person who used or was converted by apologetics was weaker in faith. I did, however, point out that the success rate of Christian apologetics is abysmal. Being able to articulate what you feel does not make that feeling any more or less real; faith is a feeling.
Theists may feel uncomfortable with it, I would see why, because it requires them to climb out of their shell. It is so much easier to argue that you feel a certain way because you have “faith” in God than it is to do your homework and learn why everyone else thinks differently. On some level they may be afraid to “lose” an argument or debate for God, or maybe if they go looking for the answers they might find something they didn’t want to know that would change their beliefs.
You know… I couldn’t have said that better. Well said! The only thing that I would change is, that, instead of referring to apologetics, it would refer to religious pluralism, religious tolerance, and inter-religious dialogue. Those subjects may very well be off topic, but I feel that they are key to the future growth of religion as a whole - Christianity included.
Apologetics should not replace one’s religion any more than one should take a Tylenol after their headache is gone. At this time though it is necessary to show, as Children of God, that he has relevance in this day and age. Refusing to speak and talk amongst those we as Christians seek to convert is not only the opposite of what Jesus Christ did, it will send our religion further to the fringe, and society further to the brink of lawlessness and debauchery.
I would argue that apologetics is not useful at all - and I guess that was the point of this whole article. You don’t need apologetics to prove that Christianity or God is relevant in this age - you need merely do good in the world and speak honestly. There is great difference between what Jesus did, and the missionary work of Christians. Jesus wasn’t trying to “convert” anybody, but rather challenged and questioned their beliefs to show them that there is a greater truth. Modern day Christians, on the other hand, seek to turn someone into a Christian, which may not be compatible with that person’s personal truth. You are right in thinking that there needs to be a dialogue, but wrong in what the purpose of that dialogue is - we need to challenge each other to seek greater truth, and not assume to always know what that truth entails.
Also, I don’t see Christianity as being on “the fringe” by any stretch of the imagination. If anything pushes our society to the brink of lawlessness and debauchery, it’ll be because we are not listening to each other.
I am 23 years old, and though I do not know how old you or the rest of those that commented on here are, I know my generation. My generation will allow its children to eradicate religion and morals as we know them and replace them with the postmodern view that “whatever you believe, you may practice, and if your belief says another is wrong, it must go”.
Again, Ian, I have to disagree with you. Tolerance of other religions does not entail loss of morals - it is the refinement of morals. Tolerance is what Jesus taught. Remember the story of the Good Samaritan? That was about religious and cultural tolerance. Whatever you believe, whatever you practice, as long as it tolerant and honest, than it is good. If it is intolerant and self deceptive, than it must go. I think Christianity has a place within that “post-modern” world-view, even if you don’t see it.
Namaste.
Tomorrow I’ll respond to Tanya, who commented on my article, “Learning How To Live With Meaning.”
First Photo by Midiman. Second Photo by Phil Whitehouse. Third Photo by Brian Solis. Final Photo by Pete Birkinshaw.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
