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?

[Jester]

Remember that, except for the few who would redefine words to their own liking, cognitive science has a specific meaning. I am not just asking if Christian apologetics is a science but further whether Christian apologetics is a cognitive science as claimed by jcrawford.

Thank you. I was actually unfamiliar with that specific term, and will keep this in mind.

The question was not whether Christian apologetics touches on or relates to science, clearly it does. But is Christian apologetics a science?

Please accept an apology for my lack of clarity, as well as my explanation. I consider those two questions to be basically synonymous as they relate to this discussion. I would argue that the degree to which the subject material of apologetics touches on science is the degree to which legitimate apologetics is, in fact, a science. Insofar as one defines the Christian faith as having nothing to do with science, one’s apologetics will not (or, at least, should not) involve scientific study.

Science, however, is not the only legitimate field of study.

Admittedly true. Literature, music, dance, history and philosophy are all legitimate fields of study. A claim was made, and I am challenging it that Christian apologetics is a field of cognitive science.

Understood; I’ll try to keep my future comments more to that point, and will keep in mind the distinction that we are discussing cognitive science.
At the risk of redundancy, I will attempt to state my position more clearly:
I mean to say that apologetics, as it deals with all things considered to be Christian (hardly a universally agreed upon term), cannot possibly be categorized into a single field of study. As such, I believe it to be a reasonable conclusion to say that legitimate apologetics covers a multitude of fields, depending on the particular apologist and situation, and including cognitive science.
Of course, a study, simply because it is scientific, is not automatically true in its conclusions. Whether or not we should believe the cognitive science of apologists is not to be assumed by referring to a portion of their work as science.

[Furrowed Brow]

For example: how could a brain conceive of a soul if it denies the cognitive power of a soul's mind in the first place?

Well I guess if one dumps dualism. Says something like the language we use to describe the mind, e.g. intentions, wants, hopes, thoughts etc, are just a folksy way of speaking; or as Daniel Dennett has argued, folk psychology works like a calculus or ready reckoner for predicting behaviour; then the concept of mind is a concept that should be understood as a social tool, and not an entity or aspect of an entity. Similarly the soul is just another social concept, but this time the language game - as Wittgenstein might say - is peculiar to theism.

Part of the problem with theories of mind is that language is mercurial, messy, and whilst mixed metaphors are relative easy to spot, mixed up concepts are not. For example what does it even mean to say that a “brain conceives”?

Again using Wittgenstein’s notion of language games. The brain is a physical organ and thus fits neatly into a physical description of the body. Whilst the word “conceive” belongs to the terminology of the mental. Two different forms of language, that tend to get blended together; which is fine, as long as we are not trying to be rigorous, nor build a detailed theory of how the brain works. Moreover we do not have to take seriously any ontological/metaphysical implications of our language of mind viz., folks psychology.

[Jester]

When science (the word being derived from 'scios' in Greek, which means knowledge) is limited by definition to "the study of the physical universe," then those scientists who limit science to their own definitions, can have nothing authoritative to say about their own human minds and souls, or any science of the human mind or soul, and the fields of both Christian science (apologetics) and cognitive science are open to all scientists whose definitions of science are not presuppositionally limited to, or prejudiced by, the particular science which physicists have defined and limited themselves to.

I would disagree with this, not on the grounds that issues of the minds and souls are not every bit as legitimate as the physical world (in my opinion, far more legitimate), but that science is not the only field of logical study, and should not be treated as such. Scientists can say things about art, literature, religion, and philosophy as human beings, but are not experts in these fields. As such, their professional findings and statements should only relate to science, and the branch of apologetics that touches on their field.
As such, metaphysics is not science, but this is not to say that it is any way inferior to science. It is entirely legitimate study, but is a study of a different sort than science.

[Jester]

The way science works is that it looks for data, finds and tests a hypothosis, and discards ideas that don't match the data.

The way that Christian Apologistics work is that it starts with a concept that Christianity is right, examines the data, and trys to explain away or discard any
data that does not meet with the original assumption. This is the exact opposite of the way that science acts. It is not 'cognative science'. If anything, it is 'discognative'

That is an excellent warning to apologists, but I maintain that it is unfounded to claim that all apologetics follow this form. Legitimate apologetics proposes the reality of Christianity in the same way that scientists propose hypothesis. Einstein intuitively sensed that a person traveling at the speed of light would see his/her own reflection in a mirror for decades before he could prove it. He believed it against all the claims of modern science, as well as the general criticism that he was abandoning the simplest scientific truths for flights of fancy. Similar stories are the background of many great breakthroughs in science.
This is not to say that we should accept the word of apologists for any reasons other than the evidence they present and the continuity of their logic. If their arguments are scientifically compelling, then they can be called legitimate scientists, if not, we can discard the argument.

[Furrowed Brow]

Hi Jester

As such, metaphysics is not science, but this is not to say that it is any way inferior to science. It is entirely legitimate study, but is a study of a different sort than science.

Sorry. It is like a zillion times inferior.

Logical positivism is a philosophy of science that says metaphysics is not legitimate.

The original logical positivists drew much of their inspiration from the early Wittgenstein. However Wittgenstein said something different. His point was that as soon as we use language for metaphysics the logic of langauge fails, and you end up talking nonsense. Even if you don't notice this yourself. A sentence can be of a correct grammatical form, but if it says nothing about the world, then it can be neither true of false. In which case it is meaningless, and worse it is logical nonsense because a proposition is not formed.

Wittgenstein left room for something greater, you just could not talk about it sensibly. Thus the last point of the Tractatus which forms my signature.

Ok Metaphysicians can choose to carry on regardless. You don't have to buy into logical positivism or the Tractatus. However, science is still streets ahead because it can offer a clear criteria for what gives its propositions meaning. Viz., physical evidence. A criteria that does not beg questions as to the meaning and sense of their propositions. Metaphysics on the other hand is not equal in this respect. The things it wants to talk about, do not physically exist. The problem goes deeper than just being an empirical problem of how does the metaphysician know their ontological commitments is true. It is a problem of how, and upon what theory of logic and langauge do their metaphysical assertions have meaning, and make sense.

Put it another way. Science can show how it's proposition connect to the reality it describes. Science might get things wrong, what was once deemed true may then be found to be false; so this is not a question of how do we know something is true. Metaphysicians cannot show how their propositions connect to the reality they describe. Their problem is how do they demonstrate their propositions have meaning and sense. Wittgenstein's answer is that that they can't and metaphysical propositions are nonsense. Even if you don't agree with that, there is a logical gap in their theory of langauge metaphysicians just have to treat as filled; whilst not worrying themselves that Wittgenstein and the logical positivists might be right.

Science has no such worries.

[Greatest I Am]

Is Christian apologetics a science?
Yes.
I have seen a thesis paper to prove that one equal one.
If such can be considered science then assuredly the complexity of apologetics can be called a science.

Regards
DL

[McCulloch]

Is Christian apologetics a science?
Yes.
I have seen a thesis paper to prove that one equal one.
If such can be considered science then assuredly the complexity of apologetics can be called a science.

Philosophy and mathematics are not sciences. I suspect that your thesis paper was in one of these two disciplines, so not considered science.

Science need not be complex and complexity does not guarantee science. The Copernican view of the solar system (science) was a good deal less complex than the Ptolemaic system (not science).

Validity and truth are not relevant either. Mathematics and history are disciplines which can have demonstrated validity and truth but are not sciences.

[Goat]

You are confusing science with philosophy and ethics. The two are not the same.
It is ethics and philosophy that deal with 'personal responsiblity'. The fact that it is the physical brain that allows that is irrelevant.

You are confusing the brain with Mind and Soul since the brain cannot philosophize about ethics any more than conceive of its own soul. Mind and brain are not the same unless you mentally (intellectually) presuppose the brain's capacity to be ethical or to generate an ethical philosophy.

Let me ask you a question: Do you have a conscience?

Yes, I do. It is trained into by my parents, and by my training as a child. The potential was there due to evolutions, and is a property of my brain.

And, you have yet to demosntrate that there IS a soul that is seperate from the Mind.
Nor have you demomonstrated that the Mind is not 100% dependant on the physical structure of the brain.

Do you have anything besides pure rhetoric to back you up?

[Cathar1950]

You are confusing the brain with Mind and Soul since the brain cannot philosophize about ethics any more than conceive of its own soul. Mind and brain are not the same unless you mentally (intellectually) presuppose the brain's capacity to be ethical or to generate an ethical philosophy.

Let me ask you a question John, do you use your brain when your thinking?
If some one has lost their mind do they still have a brain. Have you ever seen a souless person?
Have you ever seen a mindless person?
Have you ever seen a person without a brain that has a mind or thinks?

[jcrawford]

You are confusing science with philosophy and ethics. The two are not the same.
It is ethics and philosophy that deal with 'personal responsiblity'. The fact that it is the physical brain that allows that is irrelevant.

You are confusing the brain with Mind and Soul since the brain cannot philosophize about ethics any more than conceive of its own soul. Mind and brain are not the same unless you mentally (intellectually) presuppose the brain's capacity to be ethical or to generate an ethical philosophy.

Let me ask you a question: Do you have a conscience?

Yes, I do. It is trained into by my parents, and by my training as a child. The potential was there due to evolutions, and is a property of my brain.

What does your conscience do other than assign its ownership to your brain?

Do you have anything besides pure rhetoric to back you up?

What is pure rhetoric compared to theoretical rhetoric which presupposes that men with consciences and souls originated from sub-human beings in Africa once upon a time long ago?