New Apologetics?

[boatsnguitars]

I've grown tired of Apologists. Officially. I know many here have, as well. I know many Apologists here would just say that I'm not "getting it".

I've done this for decades. I've seen the same arguments and counter arguments over and over. There is nothing new under the Sun - not in the world of Apologetics. How could there be? The Bible doesn't change. There is no new discovery that confirms anything in the Bible.

About a decade ago I suggested we numbered the arguments:
1. Ontlogical argument
1.1: Response to the Onto Argument
1.1.1: Rebuttal to the response
1.1.1.1: Rebuttal to the rebuttal

(The actual numbering isn't important)

Then, we could just debate thusly:

3
3.55
3.55.2
3.55.2.1

5!
5.3
5.3.1
5.3.1.4!

Because, as I see it, we are now simply regurgitating. I know there are new people - new young people - learning about this, and it's important we reach the young people the Church is trying to corrupt. But when I see 40, 50, 60 year old people arguing at basic levels, it's frustrating.

Here's a thought: I challenge all Christian Apologists to go to a Muslim Apologist website and spend 10 years arguing against them. Learn all the tricks. Learn all their responses. Then, return to a site like this and try to have a good, rational debate. What I am seeing here is not rational, it's not debate and - frankly - I believe this site deserves better. As much as I disagree with the owner, I think he has done an amazing job of allowing different views. I'm just not seeing the effort from Christians here. I'm not seeing anything other than warmed over WLC, CS Lewis or worse arguments.

Debate: What new Apologetics have cropped up in the last 5 years? It must be in the last 5. Unique, specific, and solid arguments for the legitimacy of some aspect of Christianity. Prove my premise wrong. Prove that we are not simply recycling old arguments over and over - without any reference to new developments in the arguments.

I'm not saying we - non-philosophers - need to invent new angles to view the problem. I'm claiming that even theologians aren't inventing new angles - aren't discovering new angles. Sure, they may find a new analogy of an old problem, but I bet there is nothing new from Apologists that is of any concern. Even WLC - the greatest Christian Apologist ever - hasn't come up with anything.

Prove me wrong. Debate me. Bring it on. You will be allowed to pray to God and use His mighty brain to go up against me! I won't consider it cheating!

edit: I encourage people to vent. To argue! To live the dream of expressing their passion! LIVE!!!!! LIVE!!!!! Live in the moment that you feel fit! Express your beliefs in the most profound and expressive ways you can! MAKE US BELIEVE!!!!! Use the POWER OF CHIRST!!!!! COMPELL US!!!!!!! Pull out all stops!!! DO NOT HOLD BACK!!!!!!! I implore you all!!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE!!!! MAKE US BELIEVE!!!!!

Make me believe. Please!

[TRANSPONDER]

The exodus discussion is quite revealing. It not a slam dunk by any means (some discussions are slam -debunk). But it makes little difference. The Theists or Bible apologists may argue, first on evidence, drawing of Christian information sites or books - which is on, because nobody can be an expert in everything. Though they should use the case on the forum, not sent us off to the site, video or book to convince ourselves That is cheating, but they do it.

Otherwise they will play various "Explanations" they have heard (I'm still interested in this "!The Marys split up" excuse. I'm sure they got it from some source or other, but none is honest, no, not one. But the Exodus is disappointing because - ok, Bible apologists are not Egyptologists but they act like they are when they know nothing about it. All we end up with is denial of everything. It is where we end up pretty much with all the topics.

[TRANSPONDER]

The exodus discussion is quite revealing. It not a slam dunk by any means (some discussions are slam -debunk). But it makes little difference. The Theists or Bible apologists may argue, first on evidence, drawing of Christian information sites or books - which is on, because nobody can be an expert in everything. Though they should use the case on the forum, not sent us off to the site, video or book to convince ourselves That is cheating, but they do it.

Otherwise they will play various "Explanations" they have heard (I'm still interested in this "!The Marys split up" excuse. I'm sure they got it from some source or other, but none is honest, no, not one. But the Exodus is disappointing because - ok, Bible apologists are not Egyptologists but they act like they are when they know nothing about it. All we end up with is denial of everything. It is where we end up pretty much with all the topics.

[historia]

Andrew Ter Ern Loke, "A New Moral Argument for the existence of God," International Journal for Philosophy of Religion vol. 93 iss. 1 (Feb. 2023), pp 25-38.

I didn't pay the $30, so I can't comment on what appears to be The Moral Argument for God. Dress it up all you want, it doesn't seem to be different than WLC's. But, I can't tell.

Loke spends the whole article comparing and contrasting his reformulation of the Moral Argument with that of Craig's, so they are not the same.

Man Ho Chan, "How Does Multiverse Proposal Affect the Design Argument?" Religions vol. 13 iss. 10, 948 (Oct. 2022).

Again, the Teleological Argument or ID Argument. The only difference is that the Theist has found a new gap to fill: the Multiverse.

Again, whether you find any of the arguments persuasive or not is irrelevant.

Putting your jaundiced description of the article aside, you are essentially admitting here that this article is tackling something new. He's using Bayesian theory as an evaluative framework for assessing what impact the Multiverse proposal might have on the Design Argument, which I don't think anyone has done before.

That is a new development, and so, in itself, proves the OP wrong.

A note on all the arguments. None of them claim to be strong.

That's often going to be true of a recent journal article tentatively setting forth a new argument or perspective within any field of study. It'll take more follow-up research over the course of years to build up a strong argument.

Worse, you will note that each of the authors are Christians from Christian Universities.

I thought we were looking for examples of new Christian apologetics. Who were you expecting to make those arguments, if not Christians?

[TRANSPONDER]

Fair enough. Thanks for recalling the Topic.But just picking up multiverse theory and putting it through the Bayesian method as used by Theist apologists to validate 'design' is...just Intelligent Design repackaged. It isn't anything really new, but it is a new gimmick to try to reinflate a long deflated Theist apologetic.

And sorry folks for the duplicate post. I don't always notice that happens. Correct a typo and get one extra post free.

Yes. A quick look shows this is just the old 'Fine tuning' argument with an appeal to 'what is the more probable explanation?' (Bayesian assessment). This is an old apologetic with a new bit of evidence. But the very basis of the apologetic is disputed, let alone whether multiverse theory does enhance fine tuning.

Fine tuning is a blunderbuss argument that is in effect Design applied to anything and everything. It fails on Biology (though they may deny the evolutionary evidence). It is arguable on 'designed to support Life'. Rather it is designed to eliminate Life and nearly did several times. The 'hole designed to fit the puddle' analogy shows how this kind of design apologetic is invalid because it is based on Faith in a predetermined plan.

There is this 'Universe would not exist if constants were a little bit different'.I'm a bit foggy here, but I have seen a couple of arguments about this, so it is not a sure thing and Bayesian probability can hardly be applied to something still not fully understood.

Of course, the question of 'Which god?' nullifies the whole Design argument anyway, but I understand that the Theism here may be non - religious theism. So a proposed creator of some kind (name your own) is debatable but academic, anyway.

[boatsnguitars]

Yeah, I'm not seeing anything really new. I am fine granting that it is new in order to keep people thinking that I'm fixated on that aspect of my challenge.
Sure, finding a new gap that Science has discovered - that really new for Theists.... rolleyes....

[TRANSPONDER]

Yeah, I'm not seeing anything really new. I am fine granting that it is new in order to keep people thinking that I'm fixated on that aspect of my challenge.
Sure, finding a new gap that Science has discovered - that really new for Theists.... rolleyes....

One could argue that atheism is the same. Of course it is.If we get (essentially) the same old argument, repainted they are going to get the same rebuttals, with a new new discoveries to Re a bit more Butt. Like for instance that DNA gave more Ooomph to the rebuttal of the Morality argument which was pretty much in place from the 1990's.

[boatsnguitars]

Yeah, I'm not seeing anything really new. I am fine granting that it is new in order to keep people thinking that I'm fixated on that aspect of my challenge.
Sure, finding a new gap that Science has discovered - that really new for Theists.... rolleyes....

One could argue that atheism is the same. Of course it is.If we get (essentially) the same old argument, repainted they are going to get the same rebuttals, with a new new discoveries to Re a bit more Butt. Like for instance that DNA gave more Ooomph to the rebuttal of the Morality argument which was pretty much in place from the 1990's.

I probably could have come up with a better thread, but the point I was trying to make is that there doesn't seem to be any new development in Theism. In fact, the whole point seems to be an effort to find ways to "prove" the original claims - from uneducated goat herders - are true. I'm sure we've all watched the myriad of Theist vs Atheist debates and wonder where is anything new? Watch 2 WLC debates and you've watched them all.

I suppose it's exhausting to me because I am so certain there is no God that I literally can't understand why anyone would ever openly admit to believing in one - yet, they seem so adamant and righteously angry when I ask them about it.

[TRANSPONDER]

No, no. it is understandable. I have had to address the feeling of of banging my head against a brick wall. I have had to find ways of pegging away at what at times seems a futile task.

1.) it needs doing
2.) I learn - all the time
3) I make it fun.

Sometimes something new will come up. Like with the resurrection, the Angel at the tomb (not in John) excused by the 'Marys split up' argument. That was a new one and finding the flaws in it was a new thing. Further, the Exodus examination has been a pleasure since my initial suspicion (it was written in Babylon during the Exile) has been bolstered by learning that the writing style indicated 600 BC dating.

Did we get a discussion on the new ontological argument? It just looked like the old 'objective morality' argument. And of course failed on the old flaws

a.) there is no reason to require morality to have any more objective basis than survival instincts (reciprocity/co -operation)
b) even if true, it doesn't tell us which god or religion. The same flaw with Kalam, ID and anti -evolution.
b.) Biblical morality is nothing to write home about.

And there again, though the apologetics and rebuttals are not new, not everyone has heard them. Though the 'water fits the hole' fallacy is probably known, the one about 'odds against' is not (if life was planned to end in humans, the odds of chance doing that are astronomical. But if it was Not planned, the odds on coming up with...whatever it came up with... are 1/1. one of the Whirlwind in a junkyard fallacies). The basic fallacy or flaw in apologetic being the usual one - starting out with Godfaith skewing the whole argument. They simply cannot help themselves from inherent Theist bias that invalidates all their apologetics.

E.g instead of going with the most probable argument, they think it is their faithclaim is the default theory until 100% debunked. This is why any far fetched interpretation, making something up or simply denying everything means they win. And (or so I reckon) in their view, it does - they have not been persuaded so their Faith is intact,so they win.
Never mind they lost the case and made the Bible apologetic look like a raccoons' buffet. Refusing to accept the case no matter the evidence (it's only the opinion of scientists after all) wins it for the - in their view.

And it might - if their audience is as biased as they are (and to be fair atheist audience can be just as biased ) but that doesn't matter - the case is what matters. It becomes a question of relying on mass support for lies, bad arguments and faithclaims, and they win. Public realisation that they have been lied to and bamboozled (and I have faith, folks, that people hate being lied to) leading to irreligion (at least) getting the vote (oh yes, folks, in the end) and secularism wins.

And that's the reason we do this, because everyone else other than scientists perhaps pays lip service to religion so as not to lose customers, their jobs and votes.

[Purple Knight]

As much as I disagree with the owner, I think he has done an amazing job of allowing different views. I'm just not seeing the effort from Christians here. I'm not seeing anything other than warmed over WLC, CS Lewis or worse arguments.

I think I get a lot of good responses - ones that really make me think - because I give them the benefit of the doubt. I assume their worldview is true and I take it from there. I know I might always be wrong.

I live by the Purple Wager, but Marcus Aurellius said it before me. Just live a virtuous life. If the gods are just then they will not care how devout you have been, and will welcome you based on the merits of your deeds. If there are gods but they are not just, then you should not seek to worship them. And if there are no gods, then you will have lived a good life.

But I could always be wrong. There could always be something I'm not seeing. So I look for it. Actively.

[boatsnguitars]

As much as I disagree with the owner, I think he has done an amazing job of allowing different views. I'm just not seeing the effort from Christians here. I'm not seeing anything other than warmed over WLC, CS Lewis or worse arguments.

I think I get a lot of good responses - ones that really make me think - because I give them the benefit of the doubt. I assume their worldview is true and I take it from there. I know I might always be wrong.

I live by the Purple Wager, but Marcus Aurellius said it before me. Just live a virtuous life. If the gods are just then they will not care how devout you have been, and will welcome you based on the merits of your deeds. If there are gods but they are not just, then you should not seek to worship them. And if there are no gods, then you will have lived a good life.

But I could always be wrong. There could always be something I'm not seeing. So I look for it. Actively.

I'm not seeing "it" either (it being any evidence or reason for their beliefs).

I used to believe, too. I truly believed in the supernatural and Jesus. I, too, truly believed in the Divine or some spirit that was transcendent. At first I embraced it, did apologetics, witnessed to others - "Oh! The Jesus is real! you just have to want to believe! etc...."

Cautionary Tale for Believers:
Then, my belief wavered. It wasn't anything specific. It was small, imperceptible shifts. Little hints. Little things like someone in Church saying Jesus cured their cold against the fervent prayers for Jesus to cure their Grandpa. Or, little things like "Catholics aren't real Christians!" ("Why", I'd ask, and they'd tell me they didn't interpret the Bible correctly. "But, half my family is Catholic," I'd say - "Then they're going to Hell most likely...", was the response. Or, little claims like "All the Apostles died for their belief in Jesus! They were cruelly tortured and never repented!" ("But that's that's not entirely true.." "Well, it's basically true" or "What have you been reading? Not the Bible, for sure!"

Or, I'd meet good people who were Jewish, Hindu or - gasp - atheist! And not understand why they could "do no good".

Or, I'd read a science book - and the people at Church would tell me not to. Not all, but enough to make me wonder why do some people think one thing about the Bible and others something completely different?

I don't know how it happened, but I started wondering why there were so many interpretations of the Bible. Then, I met other religious people and wondered why there were so many interpretations of religion, or experiences.

"Because of sin!" They told me, but that started to be such a stupid, simplistic answer. And, sadly, I started to see the stupid people in my Church as what they were: stupid. There truly were simpletons in my Church and the pastor didn't stop them. The pastor didn't agree or disagree, but coddle them.

I spoke to my pastor about Missionaries - I wasn't a fan. And my Pastor agreed that they were conflicted - yet, they continued to collect money to send people to foreign lands - for a holiday paid for by the old ladies on fixed incomes. I knew who was going - they weren't the best and the brightest. They weren't 'shining with the light of Jesus', they were just normal people, taking advantage.

"But Christianity isn't flawed, just because it's people are!" They'd tell me. But then tell me all the ways other Christians interpretation of Christianity was flawed.

Then you'd here them talk about 'so and so' who took Christianity way too seriously (isn't that what you want, I wondered?) But, you'd have them proclaim they'd die for Jesus - you, know, if it didn't interrupt their day job and going out on Saturday night...

Then, I learned about Religion in general. How humans always created mythology. How they created elaborate, deep, philosophical religions that we Christians mocked and ridiculed - even called evil.

Then there was Peyton, who believed in witchcraft and feared it. Believed in Jesus and all the teachings of the Bible. She feared God and swore that the supernatural was real and then became pregnant - from premarital sex - because, apparently, she believed it... to a point.

Eventually, I saw it for what it was. Humans doing humanity. Yes, I pleaded and prayed for God to show me signs, to do me the little honor of showing me He existed and cared for me. It never happened, but I accepted that maybe I wasn't good enough. After all, I was a sinner in His eyes.

But then, Christianity started to be indistinguishable from any other religion. The Church was a job; a gig for pastors to make some money, maybe help a few people who were struggling, and maybe, if they did it long enough, they might actually believe what they preached. Maybe they'd believe like the 'nuts' they would whisper about; the 'nuts' who caused their families such grief because they seemed to be mentally ill - not imbued with the Spirit.

I recently returned to the Church. They are, after all, my family and friends, my community. They are decent people - even if most of them are clearly luke-warm Christians and are destined for the same Hell as me. The few 'nuts' are still around and they would talk your ear off. They do in the Bible Study I sometimes lead. It's exhausting. They are often young and really uninformed. Most of them are not bright, but I can't say that. I have to be nice. They are human after all, and as a Humanist, I care.

I'm just tired of seeing one person after another claim they have proof, or evidence, only to find out it's just generic, run-of-the-mill belief. The same belief I had.

Many of them haven't even asked many of the questions I had. Many of them don't wonder. They don't question. They don't probe. They want to use their belief as a weapon. A weapon to beat people when they feel the other person is smarter than they are. They are insecure, scared and very egotistical. There is no helping them. Not really. If you question them, they panic and lash out. Then you get the pastor asking questions - well, no, telling you to tone it down.

"We need to keep people here. It takes a lot to run a Church and we need a big umbrella. And who are you to assume you know the right answer? Make sure everyone feels welcome! Don't be judgmental - they'll come around! You did!"

Fair enough...