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]

This is one thing that atheists appear to forget - and Christian apologists never seem to remember - many present atheists used to believe all these supernatural experience claims that are pushed in our face as 'evidence'. But we already know (high degree of probability) they are a delusion of the human mind.

Thus it is not hard to see through apologetics like Kalam or the Ontological arguments and even substance dualism and the various gap for God arguments. Skeptics have the mental preparation to know these to be flawed from the get - go by assuming a god - claim as a valid Given. The believers just don't seem to be able to do this, and the big part of the Big Lie is that God - apologetics are even worthy of consideration. The argument died with Deism, Darwin and Debate. What we have now is Theist banging away (1) at a debate that theism has already lost, but the problem is in getting the general mass of humanity to understand this. That, as we see from the continuing publication of 'Your Stars' in the press (last time I looked, anyway) is the proverbial 90% that has to think better before they can even talk with Spock.

(1) I was going to save the cue as abuse or ignore is Too Predictable, but a manifestation of the flawed argument with irrelevant debate like Gap for God or Bible contradictions. If abiogenesis isn't true, and there is a god, that doesn't validate Christianity. If the Human Mind is somehow evidence of a Soul, a Cosmic Mind and an afterlife, with or without a capital letter, it doesn't help Christianity. Nor does the Bible apologetics. Never mind a local Flood or a historical Exodus, Even if the Resurrection -account was credible and the Shroud proved to be 1st c, it would only raise long - delayed question about what happened as distinct from what Christianity claims happened.

[Purple Knight]

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

The evidence is, they were told. It's no more or less (but perhaps weathered in trustability by time a bit) than the claim that Abraham Lincoln existed. Most of us trust history. And maybe the things in the Bible did happen. However, you have to contend with alternate explanations, and some of them hold a lot of water, that posit that perhaps God is not so great a fellow.

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.

People are dumb. Some people are even malicious. The whole religious shabang only works if 1) we all have a shared understanding of what good is and 2) either there is no reward, or the reward is given for doing good.

We can't know whether we're going to be given a reward or not, but if we are, this lack of knowledge about it, is probably part of the process. If you knew you'd be punished for stealing a cookie, you just wouldn't do it. Worse than that, not stealing now becomes a selfish choice, rather than one we do out of the real goodness of wanting someone else to have a cookie.

The only thing that can spoil religion "out of the box" so to speak, by which I mean, knowing we can't know about the reward, is if we don't all carry a shared understanding of good. I don't have this understanding, and this is just true. However, the number of times I ask different people the same question about morality and get the same answer, scares me. If evolution did this, I would think different survival strategies would produce different ideas about morality. Yet alarmingly, parasites, hard workers, exploiters, and moralists all seem to think exactly the same.

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...

This is basic human tribal behaviour and dominance-jockeying. They always take what they can and then make everything about nuance so the guy doing it harder can be wrong, and the guy doing it less then they are, can be wrong too, and they can be Goldilocks and eat perfectly warm porridge. They will do this over little green apples if that's what they have. Oh look at Susan she only has THREE little green apples, what a travesty! And do you see Beth's forty-one little green apples? She puts us all to shame. Little green apples are all that matters!

All it does is prove that religion can't make people virtuous. It's, at very least, an argument for not going to church, or for making sure the church you go to, is one without these little green apples in it. There was a point in my life I was going to go, just out of curiosity, and every one I looked in, the people were dressed way too nice. They wore their little green apples for everyone to see, and I lost interest. If I ever drive by one on Sunday, and I see construction workers in their paint-stained jeans talking outside with mothers stained by the exploits of their children, maybe I'll give it a look.

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...

I don't believe in any of this either, but if I did, I'd say:

If you live a good life, care, are kind to others, try to see the other side, and they think you are going to Hell, then they are going to Hell.

It's true in a way. We make our own Hells. We cut people off, cut people out, decide people are stupid... I admit they are, but, I also think, if we earnestly lower the bar, if we aim for a common understanding where we can actually have that, allow other people's foundations to become ours, it might just make a slightly better world before we all blow ourselves to Kingdom Come.