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]

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

My short answer is yes and no. As a term referring to a philosophical belief (Christianity) rather than a specific study (physics), there is no straight answer to this question. My more complex answer is as follows.
I would define science as the study of the physical universe through the experiment/observation process. Certainly, scientific theory touches on abstract matters, but only insofar as they relate to the physical universe (even psychology is defined as the study of human behavior, rather than human inner life). Apologetics touches on these issues when the particular challenge to Christianity being addressed is scientific. The Theory of Evolution is probably the first thing to come to most of our minds, though I’m far more interested in the archeological investigation of the first century church.
Science, however, is not the only legitimate field of study. While Archeology uses many scientific methods, there is a element of conclusion and philosophical thinking that will always be involved. The heart of religion is in the philosophical and supernatural realms. I think it is a fair assumption that most agree that religion (whether true or false) is an answer to basic human needs. It offers an explanation for the existence of objective morality, purpose in life, life after death, etc. These are clearly issues that are much more firmly rooted in philosophy than science, and at this point apologetics must be philosophical, rather than scientific.
That is to say that apologetics is a blanket term covering both scientific and philosophical fields, and that legitimate apologists will understand the difference between these fields and use the correct techniques in each.

[McCulloch]

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

My short answer is yes and no. As a term referring to a philosophical belief (Christianity) rather than a specific study (physics), there is no straight answer to this question. My more complex answer is as follows.

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.

cognitive science
–noun

• the study of the precise nature of different mental tasks and the operations of the brain that enable them to be performed, engaging branches of psychology, computer science, philosophy, and linguistics.

cognitive science. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. (accessed: January 17, 2007).

I would define science as the study of the physical universe through the experiment/observation process. Certainly, scientific theory touches on abstract matters, but only insofar as they relate to the physical universe (even psychology is defined as the study of human behavior, rather than human inner life). Apologetics touches on these issues when the particular challenge to Christianity being addressed is scientific. The Theory of Evolution is probably the first thing to come to most of our minds, though I’m far more interested in the archaeological investigation of the first century church.

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

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.

[Goat]

Some people think that their minds exist in their brains somewhere and that their brains do all their thinking for them.

And what objective evidence do you have this is not the case? I can demonstrate that people's emotions and thinking are altered by modifying the brain.. either through physical damage, altering it's biochemistry via drugs, or throught stimulation to various parts of the brain via electrodes or magnetic pulses.

What test do you have that shows that the mind is not a property of the connections and biochemistry of the brain? How do you show that the mind has any properties that is seperate from the brain?

Willpower would be a case in point unless you choose to credit the brain alone with having the sole capacity to make the choice of "blowing its brains out," so to speak, and snuffing out its life in an act of suicide.

Reducing the human soul and mind to mere functions and fabrications of the brain denies personal responsibilty and choice for any human act. It is tantamount to saying that my brain thought the idea up and told me to do it, which is not much different than saying that the devil made me do it.

Not at all. 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.

[Goat]

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

My short answer is yes and no. As a term referring to a philosophical belief (Christianity) rather than a specific study (physics), there is no straight answer to this question. My more complex answer is as follows.

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.

cognitive science
–noun

• the study of the precise nature of different mental tasks and the operations of the brain that enable them to be performed, engaging branches of psychology, computer science, philosophy, and linguistics.

cognitive science. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. (accessed: January 17, 2007).

I would define science as the study of the physical universe through the experiment/observation process. Certainly, scientific theory touches on abstract matters, but only insofar as they relate to the physical universe (even psychology is defined as the study of human behavior, rather than human inner life). Apologetics touches on these issues when the particular challenge to Christianity being addressed is scientific. The Theory of Evolution is probably the first thing to come to most of our minds, though I’m far more interested in the archaeological investigation of the first century church.

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

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.

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'

[jcrawford]

While true that the brain monitors involuntary bodily functions as part of its God-given tasks, there is no way that a human brain can be conscious or cognizant of all the experiences and memories which exist in man's sub-conscious or unconscious Mind, even when willed by the soul to do so, proof being that we cannot remember that which we have intentionally forgotten and suppressed and our brain has no power to think otherwise.

Can you clarify? Do you mean..

1) At times the brain cannot think of stuff even when willed by the soul.

It is a presuppositition on your part to think that the brain is capable of thinking, feeling or willing anything, since my presupposition is that those capacities are the function of a soul. The belief that the brain is self-conscious or self-cognizant is betrayed by the fact that we do not experience brain functions in our minds when we think, but thoughts, ideas and mental concepts or constructs. Knowledge of the brain is not located in the brain but in the mind, otherwise there could be no object/subject distinction if the brain simply observed and reflected on itself.

2) The mind cannot think of stuff, even when willed by the soul?

Neither the brain nor the mind can recall that which has been sub-consciously repressed by the soul since willpower depends on the dictates of the soul's conscience, which may be burdened with guilt.

Can the soul think of stuff without the mind and the brain?

Intuitive thoughts and ideas seem to be capable of entering the soul without the brain or mind playing any conscientious role in their inception or conception. This is not to say that the mind and brain play no part whatsover, but that original ideas, thoughts or beliefs seem capable of being generated by non-physical or mental means to a certain extent. 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?

If it can why does it need a mind.

The mind serves as an analytical and reflective instrument of the soul, which contemplates the reality and meaning of the soul's physical and spiritual experiences.

Why not a soul-brain theory, and leave out the mind.

Because the mind is that capacity of the soul to reflect on both itself and the physical encounters it experieces while associated or attached to its physical body.

If it can't, how is it able to will the brain/mind to cognise without knowing what it is trying to will them to do.

It is because of the fact that the interactions and relationships between, body, brain, mind and soul are difficult to analyze and distinguish, that I chose to develop a theory regarding all of them, since each must be related to the other in order to construct a unified theory of them. A Soul/Brain Theory without a Mind to distinguish and mediate between the two categorical concepts would be a mentally abstract and mindless theory indeed.

[jcrawford]

While true that the brain monitors involuntary bodily functions as part of its God-given tasks, there is no way that a human brain can be conscious or cognizant of all the experiences and memories which exist in man's sub-conscious or unconscious Mind, even when willed by the soul to do so, proof being that we cannot remember that which we have intentionally forgotten and suppressed and our brain has no power to think otherwise.

Can you clarify? Do you mean..

1) At times the brain cannot think of stuff even when willed by the soul.

It is a presuppositition on your part to think that the brain is capable of thinking, feeling or willing anything, since my presupposition is that those capacities are the function of a soul. The belief that the brain is self-conscious or self-cognizant is betrayed by the fact that we do not experience brain functions in our minds when we think, but thoughts, ideas and mental concepts or constructs. Knowledge of the brain is not located in the brain but in the mind, otherwise there could be no object/subject distinction if the brain simply observed and reflected on itself.

2) The mind cannot think of stuff, even when willed by the soul?

Neither the brain nor the mind can recall that which has been sub-consciously repressed by the soul since willpower depends on the dictates of the soul's conscience, which may be burdened with guilt.

Can the soul think of stuff without the mind and the brain?

Intuitive thoughts and ideas seem to be capable of entering the soul without the brain or mind playing any conscientious role in their inception or conception. This is not to say that the mind and brain play no part whatsover, but that original ideas, thoughts or beliefs seem capable of being generated by non-physical or mental means to a certain extent. 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?

If it can why does it need a mind.

The mind serves as an analytical and reflective instrument of the soul, which contemplates the reality and meaning of the soul's physical and spiritual experiences.

Why not a soul-brain theory, and leave out the mind.

Because the mind is that capacity of the soul to reflect on both itself and the physical encounters it experieces while associated or attached to its physical body.

If it can't, how is it able to will the brain/mind to cognise without knowing what it is trying to will them to do.

It is because of the fact that the interactions and relationships between, body, brain, mind and soul are difficult to analyze and distinguish, that I chose to develop a theory regarding all of them, since each must be related to the other in order to construct a unified theory of them. A Soul/Brain Theory without a Mind to distinguish and mediate between the two categorical concepts would be a mentally abstract and mindless theory indeed.

[jcrawford]

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

My short answer is yes and no. As a term referring to a philosophical belief (Christianity) rather than a specific study (physics), there is no straight answer to this question. My more complex answer is as follows.
I would define science as the study of the physical universe through the experiment/observation process. Certainly, scientific theory touches on abstract matters, but only insofar as they relate to the physical universe (even psychology is defined as the study of human behavior, rather than human inner life).

When the definition of psychology (the Greek term for 'soul') is limited to human or animal behavior, then the "science" of psychology can say nothing authoritative about the "inner life," souls, minds or beliefs of either humans or animals.

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.

IOW, metaphysics is as much of a science as any study of physics is, even though its purview and source of authority lies in the realm of man's supernatural mind and soul, and is capable of metaphysically challenging any notions of mental health which exist in the minds of psychologists, psychiatrists and registered cognitive scientists who have long ago abandoned purely metaphysical and mental knowledge of the Human Mind and Soul to religious scientists like myself and a good many other scientific Christian apologists and cognitive scientists, since the definition of words and the establishment of their meanings is not a science, but a form of art.

That is why the liberal departments of colleges used to be consolidated under the rubric of "Arts and Sciences," and why Medicine is considered to be an art as much as it applies science in the practice of its art.

[jcrawford]

Remember that, except for the few who would redefine words to their own liking, cognitive science has a specific meaning.

It has only the same sort of "specific meaning" that Christanity has for Roman Catholics, and only by dogmatic and doctrinal definition rules out the possibility that Protestant apologists like Luther and Calvin or Van Til and Rushdoony can be called either Christians or cognitive scientists.

Christian scientists can equally claim that anyone who seems to be incapable of cognizing their own functional souls and minds, can hardly lay claim to expertise and and absolute authority in the field of cognitive science.

I am not just asking if Christian apologetics is a science but further whether Christian apologetics is a cognitive science as claimed by jcrawford.

What kind of science do you presuppose Christianity to be if not an authoritative branch of cognitive science.

A claim was made, and I am challenging it that Christian apologetics is a field of cognitive science.

What evidence do you rely on in order to prove that Christian apologetics is not a valid form of either Christian science or "cognitive science," since theology used to be known as the Queen of the sciences and dogmatic definitions by certain scientists comprise more of a religious activity than anything which may be construed to be part of the "scientific" method of attaining to, and establishing, true knowledge.

[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?

[jcrawford]

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

Ok. Upon what data can you test your hypothesis about the existence of the human, soul, mind, brain and conscience which would cause you to discard 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.

That is a bold faced scientific lie since all systematic approaches to knowledge begin with preconceived presuppositions about the constitution and nature of the "data."

Like the NY Times logo: All the News That's Fit to Print.

Or like Darwin's "natural selection" being based on those species which have been naturally "observed" to have survived.