Is apologetics a science?

[McCulloch]

Christian apologetics have always been a form of cognitive science.

Question for debate: Can Christian apologetics be considered a discipline within the field of cognitive science?

[Cathar1950]

Christian apologetics are as much a cognitive science as astrology is.

Anti-Biblical/Christian reasoning is about the same then.

So would biblical/Christian reasoning be about the same thing.

How about non-biblical reasoning?

They don't belong in the same category of study. But theology could learn something from the cognitive sciences. At least a more naturalistic theology.
But that might be almost a oxymoron depending on how you look at it.
But science has made some changes in theological thinking.
I doubt it has caught up with cognative science any more then quantum physics but there is always hope.

I am going with no.

[jcrawford]

Christian apologetics have always been a form of cognitive science.

Question for debate: Can Christian apologetics be considered a discipline within the field of cognitive science?

Not using your definitions of cognitive science or apologetics. In fact, not using any reasonable definition of these terms.

Thank you for your support. I have only one small quibble. These were not my definitions. I sought definitions from standard reputable unbiased resources. However, it jcrawford has some authoritative definitions of these words which he feels makes his assertion into a true statement, then he is welcome to present them.

Thank you for your warm Christian welcome to participate in the discussion of how a true cognitive science must of necessity include a valid form of Christian apologetics and epistomology in order to ontologically qualify as a realistic human science which investigates and establishes the inter-related functioning of the human mind, brain and soul.

[bernee51]

Thank you for your warm Christian welcome to participate in the discussion of how a true cognitive science must of necessity include a valid form of Christian apologetics and epistomology in order to ontologically qualify as a realistic human science which investigates and establishes the inter-related functioning of the human mind, brain and soul.

I did not see the soul mentioned in the definition of cognitive science. However I suppose the 'concept' of the soul could be considered. You, I think, are not referring to the concept of the soul but to an actuality. I don't believe the latter would be considered by cognitative science.

[jcrawford]

Christian apologetics have always been a form of cognitive science.

Question for debate: Can Christian apologetics be considered a discipline within the field of cognitive science?

I would say no. I think that certainly christian apologetics uses cognitive science, but part of my attempts to point people toward Christ leave the realm of science....basically because I believe in the "heart", the holy spirit speaking to that heart.

Van Til and Rushdoony teach that the Holy Spirit speaks and relates to our souls through the use of our hearts, minds and brains though, since much knowledge of His wonderful works and grace is transmitted solely through books of knowledge about Him, and we have to use our brains to coordinate and relate what we read with our eyes to that love of Him which resides in our souls.

[jcrawford]

Thank you for your warm Christian welcome to participate in the discussion of how a true cognitive science must of necessity include a valid form of Christian apologetics and epistomology in order to ontologically qualify as a realistic human science which investigates and establishes the inter-related functioning of the human mind, brain and soul.

I did not see the soul mentioned in the definition of cognitive science. However I suppose the 'concept' of the soul could be considered.

Not only "could" it be considered but it SHOULD be taken into account since without cognizance, recognition and admission of one's own soulful being and existence into the discussions, who or what may be said to be doing the "scientific" research and cognizing?

You, I think, are not referring to the concept of the soul but to an actuality.

Of course my soul is an "actuality," since I myself am as much a living soul as you are.

I don't believe the latter would be considered by cognitative science.

That would certainly limit the cognitional horizen and perspective of cognitive scientists who deny their own ontological essence, as existentialists like Sarte do for no apparent reason other than egotistical imperatives and qualifying definitions.

I wouldn't say that the term "cognitive science" in an oxymoron, but merely rather redundant, since the word "science" itself is derived from the Greek term for "I know."

[Cathar1950]

I wouldn't say that the term "cognitive science" in an oxymoron, but merely rather redundant, since the word "science" itself is derived from the Greek term for "I know."

I am sorry for being unclear.
I was saying "Natural theology" might be an oxymoron.
Even I think it would be best.

[Cogitoergosum]

Of course my soul is an "actuality," since I myself am as much a living soul as you are.

You like me, are a collection of cells with an awareness. Can you prove you have a soul? How can you qualify it as an actuality?

[jcrawford]

Cognitive science. The field of cognitive science consists of an interdisciplinary study of the structures of the human mind.

This is a great opening statement since it establishes by definitive limitation the area of study which "cognitive science" is restricted to - the "structures of the human mind."

These structures include our sensory/perceptual apparatus, such as vision, audition, olfaction; internal mental processes such as language, thinking, reasoning and problem solving;

Right off the bat, this so-called cognitive scientist confuses known physical objects and processes with "internal mental processes," in his vain attempt to establish a correlation between the "structures of the mind," and known physical processes which he deviously includes with such "internal mental processes such as language, thinking, reasoning and problem solving; "

Thinking, reasoning and problem solving may be said to be "internal mental processes," but "sensory/perceptual apparatus, such as vision, audition, and olfaction," sure aren't.

[jcrawford]

I wouldn't say that the term "cognitive science" in an oxymoron, but merely rather redundant, since the word "science" itself is derived from the Greek term for "I know."

I am sorry for being unclear.
I was saying "Natural theology" might be an oxymoron.
Even I think it would be best.

Natural theology is an oxymoron just like natural selection is, since there is nothing natural about such metaphysical and supernatural concepts as theology and selection.

[jcrawford]

Of course my soul is an "actuality," since I myself am as much a living soul as you are.

You like me, are a collection of cells with an awareness.

Ontological awareness of what? Being a mere "collection of cells" with no soul?

Can you prove you have a soul? How can you qualify it as an actuality?

Proof of one's soul as an actuality is no more necessary than proof of one's existence, since both ontological states of being are epistomologically assumed in accordance with one's capacity for self-cognition, perception and definition.