The Ten Best Apologetic Arguments

[Zzyzx]

.
From another thread:

You keep throwing up straw men - choosing the worst examples of apologetic behaviour as if this characterises everybody. If I were less logical and chose as my prime examples of atheistic argument those put forward by extremists or fundamentalists, then I too could erect a whole cornfield of straw men! How about dealing with the best rather than the worst that is on the table?

List the best arguments in favor of Christianity. Show that the arguments are sound (or not sound).

[Deadclown]

.
From another thread:

You keep throwing up straw men - choosing the worst examples of apologetic behaviour as if this characterises everybody. If I were less logical and chose as my prime examples of atheistic argument those put forward by extremists or fundamentalists, then I too could erect a whole cornfield of straw men! How about dealing with the best rather than the worst that is on the table?

List the best arguments in favor of Christianity. Show that the arguments are sound (or not sound).

Here are the best reasons I could think of, using my experience as a former Christian. I assume that current Christians can do better than me since it's been a while now. The only order, is the order in which they occurred to me.

1) There is peer and social pressure to believe in 'something' and Christianity in particular. It would be extremely difficult to run for public office in America without being affiliated with the religion.
2) Christianity gives the opportunity for social structure and community for people with common beliefs and likely somewhat similar backgrounds.
3) Christianity takes the pressure off from being forced to face unpleasant ideas about the universe and our individual place in it (or humanity's as a whole).
4) It gives solace to those who have lost loved ones (who were also Christian) and helps to alleviate fears of death for the individual.
5) Using Christianity as a basis for a moral system removes some of the pressures of being responsible for your own ethical decisions.
6) Using Christianity in place of scientific explanations for the past and the universe removes areas of uncertainty where science has not yet established concrete answers.
7) Christianity provides a sense that donated funds (tithes) will be used for good causes, as Christianity promotes activities that benefit the needy. This somewhat removes personal guilt for lack of personal action when faced with facts regarding worldwide suffering.
8) Christianity gives a sense of personal fulfillment and the feeling of being content.
9) It generally provides a ready authority figure that is often available for talk or advice.
10) It has an established feel of age and tradition, which is an appealing draw for the human mind.

I could probably go on, but those are the first ten things to occur to me off the top of my head. Naturally since I abandoned the religion I don't think any of them are supremely worthwhile or sound arguments.

[fredonly]

I can only think of these 6:

1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument which provides an argument in support of a first cause of the universe. IMO, while this is not a demonstrably sound argument, it is also not demonstrably unsound.
2. Argument from Design which argues there is such thing as "irreducible complexity," that implies design. Because of the vagueness of the concepts, it can't be completely defeated.

Specific to Christianity:
3. The earliest Christians died for their beliefs.
I list this because I see it so frequently, but it is a poor argument. 9/11 terrorists died for their beliefs as well. It WOULD mean something if Peter of James died for their beliefs, but there's no direct evidence that they did (just legends).
4. The rapid growth of Christianity can only be explained by a miracle.
Another poor argument. Christianity grew about as fast as the LDS church. A pretty good clip, but hardly miraculous. It REALLY took off after the emperor became a Christian.
5. The Gospels provide evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.
Nonsensical. The Gospels were written by believers for believers to support their beliefs. They are not news reports. Fundamentalists try to add credence by insisting the Gospels are eyewitness accounts - but these assumptions are not supported by the evidence.
6. Because the Christian faith is based on belief in the Resurrection, it must be true.
Fallacious. I agree that belief in the Resurrection is a core belief of Christians. However, the possession of a belief is not indicative of truth; it just means people believed it and spread this belief.

[Slopeshoulder]

Here's what occurs to me:

1. Properly understood and framed, it's a powerful and beautiful mytho-poetic living tradition that can provide the conditions and context for the kind of transformative psycho-spiritual fulfillment that seems to to be all but hardwired into us to desire.

2. Its themes, narrative, symbols, insights, and metaphors are deep and rich, and have inspired sublime thought, expression, and action.

3. In the west, it is the mythic cultural inheritance we are most familiar and imbued with, a common language and set of images etc, that makes it convenient and accessible.

4. There are aspects of it, like the political engagment, or the engaged earthiness, alongside the deeply mystical, that some might find makes it unique and a more "complete" or satisfying or amenable choice. I'm not sure about this one.

5. While magical thinking is a no-no for mature people, I see no philosophical basis for omitting spirituality from my life or our collective life, including the possibility of reality and perspective that is unknown and unavailable yet decisive to us; indeed I strongly abhor the thought of doing so and have not been impressed enough either philosophically or existentially by the scientism, rationalism, materialism, positivism, or humanism that seek to replace spirituality to choose them if it comes down to a choice - i favor reasonable, inclusive, and mytho-poetic spirituality, and christianity is what I know best.

These work for me.

The rest is dross as far as I can tell. Just a bunch of outdated and bad attempts to establish what neither can nor should be established. These are usually misguided efforts to reduce myth to fact, to historicize the symbolic, to concretize the poetic, or to particularize the archetypal. Then Christianity becomes something between a joke and a nightmare.

[Alueshen]

1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument which provides an argument in support of a first cause of the universe. IMO, while this is not a demonstrably sound argument, it is also not demonstrably unsound.

Here is an interesting refutation of Kalam.

[jamesmorlock]

The top theist arguments that made me think the most over the years are as follows - in order:

1. The transcendental argument
2. The argument from reason
3. The moral argument
4. The Cosmological argument

All of them have, in my opinion, fatal flaws that keep me from accepting them as sound.

[Question Everything]

1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument which provides an argument in support of a first cause of the universe. IMO, while this is not a demonstrably sound argument, it is also not demonstrably unsound.

It also does not state that any "first cause" must have any type of life or intelligence. It could be totally mechanistic.

2. Argument from Design which argues there is such thing as "irreducible complexity," that implies design. Because of the vagueness of the concepts, it can't be completely defeated.

No, but the burden of proof is on the proponents to come up with anything in living things that could not have evolved from something else. So far, everything they have brought up can be explained by evolution.

Specific to Christianity:
3. The earliest Christians died for their beliefs.
I list this because I see it so frequently, but it is a poor argument. 9/11 terrorists died for their beliefs as well. It WOULD mean something if Peter of James died for their beliefs, but there's no direct evidence that they did (just legends).

There is not one single case where we know of someone who physically interacted with Jesus then later willingly died for the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Of all the possible candidates, either we don't know how they died, they died of natural causes (sometimes at an old age), or they were killed for reasons other than preaching that Jesus rose from the dead. Even in cases where they died because they were Christians, it was for political reasons and they had no opportunity to recant or convert to something else. They could have gone to their deaths totally denying Christianity for all we know.

[notachance]

I absolutely love the deafening silence that is created when an atheist asks a theist to actually present an argument for their beliefs.

It's fantastic.

They absolutely LOVE to disobey 1 Peter 3:15

[CalvinsBulldog]

.
From another thread:

You keep throwing up straw men - choosing the worst examples of apologetic behaviour as if this characterises everybody. If I were less logical and chose as my prime examples of atheistic argument those put forward by extremists or fundamentalists, then I too could erect a whole cornfield of straw men! How about dealing with the best rather than the worst that is on the table?

List the best arguments in favor of Christianity. Show that the arguments are sound (or not sound).

Interesting Zzyzx. I thought in our previous thread that we were getting close to deciding on a topic for an actual head-to-head debate - and given your confident assertions that my "chances of success were near zero" - I felt at least partially justified in thinking that you demonstrated some enthusiasm for such a project. Remember, it was you who said:

I will be happy to engage you in Head to Head regarding validity of any Christian supernatural claims – without any personal comments permitted – and kick your posterior if you have the nerve to try.

I found this faintly ironic since you explicitly acknowledged on the one hand that your "considered opinions" have not been researched, do not rely upon data, and contain no expert input, whereas, on the other hand, my discipline is history - I teach it.

Instead of responding to at least three suggestions for a debate topic - most of which use your wording - there is now a deathly silence on that thread and you have chosen to start another. I think you implicitly accused Christian apologists several times in that thread of bailing on discussions when they "could not defend their propositions". I find this apparent double-standard significant.

Turning my attention to this thread.

Firstly, I point out that for someone who supposedly has a background in science, you have a poor conception of how to ask questions with any reasonable degree of specificity. My first thought upon reading the thread title was, "apologetic arguments for what"?

It should be reasonable self-evident that not all apologetic arguments are the same. Some arguments seek to establish a good case for believing in the existence of God. Other arguments seek to show the early belief in the divinity and deity of Jesus of Nazareth. Other arguments still attempt to show that an intelligent force was necessary for creation, as opposed to only the irrational forces of nature. And so on.

If you could specify which field of apologia you are thinking of, I would be happy to provide some arguments (though perhaps not ten), and I would be very happy to defend those arguments in a head-to-head debate with clearly agreed upon rules. I did propose this earlier with our historical questions, but that seems to have fallen now by the wayside It seems it is you, rather than I, who is running from scrutiny in debate.

I have been twice invited to debate, and twice received either confusion or negation as soon as I mentioned mutually hammering out debate definitions and rules, according to standard scholarly protocols. I find this simply staggering since this arises from people who believe themselves to reside squarely in the human race's brains trust, but maybe it was to the idea of formal debating rules that you objected. I do not know.

My second thought on reading the thread title was, "Why list exactly ten arguments?"

A single, good argument is often enough to establish the probability of something, let alone make the case for its truth. While more than one good argument can reinforce a case through a cumulative effect, I still find the request for exactly ten arguments to be interestingly arbitrary.

My third thought was that an argument must be first shown to be valid, before it can be shown to be sound. Again, I find it surprising that a person with a background in science would be careless with terminology.

Finally: please do not respond (like some of your possibly less-educated peers in this thread), that there is "deafening silence" or some such vacuous, triumphalist nonsense. I am happy to advance arguments; I am happy to debate you; but in a formal setting minus the white noise of other discussions and posts.

[CalvinsBulldog]

I absolutely love the deafening silence that is created when an atheist asks a theist to actually present an argument for their beliefs.

It's fantastic.

They absolutely LOVE to disobey 1 Peter 3:15

I have not yet had the chance to respond. Let us hold off building that triumphal arch until the troops have had the opportunity to engage.

The last line of your post is fallacious. Even if theists do not respond to a challenge, does it logically follow that they love disobeying their sacred text? Most assuredly it does not.