Apologetic Best Practices?

[bluegreenearth]

Does the discipline of Christian apologetics have recommended best practices for its theistic practitioners?

If so, what are those best practices?

Are they demonstrably effective?

Could they be improved upon?

If so, what improvements are needed?

Do you have a recommendation for a new best practice or for improving an existing best practice?

All proposed answers to the above questions should be open for debate.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #1]

I'll begin by suggesting a best practice that many apologists I've encountered would probably benefit from if they were to make the additional effort:

Don't wait for someone else to find potential flaws in your apologetic arguments. Rigorously attempt to anticipate possible objections to the apologetic arguments you intend to defend, develop justifiable resolutions for them where possible, and revise or abandon those arguments accordingly. For almost any apologetic argument you might be inclined to defend, there is a high probably that a variety of possible objections to it have already been published somewhere for your awareness. A little research, intellectual humility, and doxastic openness could facilitate significant improvements in your dialogues.

*Yes, this best practice is equally recommended when defending secular arguments as well. Admittedly, I should also try to utilize this best practice more consistently.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #1]

Am I to presume from the lack of any theistic contributions to this thread that the apologists among us are unaware of any best practices in their field or are they merely not interested in this topic?

[TRANSPONDER]

Does the discipline of Christian apologetics have recommended best practices for its theistic practitioners?

If so, what are those best practices?

Are they demonstrably effective?

Could they be improved upon?

If so, what improvements are needed?

Do you have a recommendation for a new best practice or for improving an existing best practice?

All proposed answers to the above questions should be open for debate.

tricky one. I'd be an atheist telling Theist apologists how they should argue. But then I've done that often enough. And the Formal Debate method has rules, so perhaps what I'm really suggesting is the rules ...or methods...by which a fruitful and meaningful discussion can be conducted. But the points you make above don't set the parameters. Ok; both sides are arguing to Win. Of course, because they are arguing to persuade the audience, our well - beloved peanut gallery - of the validity of their case, because, friends, I have never bought the 'Not arguing - just telling' wangle. That translates from Theist to English as "I expect to preach here and not be called on it" and you may take that one to the bank.

But for me and I hope and trust, other atheists, 'agnostics' and irreligious theists (eh, what? ) the truth matters, not just winning. For the Theist or Some kind of theists, as I have said before, all that matters is winning, because they acquired all the Truth they needed through Faith.

Thus for the atheist, best practice is validating through science data and logical validity and for the Theist, best practice is winning, like a Lawyer. the Truth isn't important - that's the business of the Jury. Winning the case is all that matters, because you've been paid by a, IOU drawn on the bank of heaven.

It is otiose, with a dash of Vodka, to talk to the theists (some kinds) of how to improve their way of arguing. Rather it's the atheist side who need to up their game and get match -fit.

The most important things to learn are:
Never lend her money.....

sorry, wrong forum,

know and understand as much as you can, know your stuff and be willing to back it up or admit being wrong if you are - that's better than trying to defend the indefensible.

Keep your temper. Don't get offended and drawn into a fight - that's a theist -apologetic trap -tactic. Have fun, have a laugh. It's a way to release the overheated air from your brain and stop it exploding.

Never forget to look out for logical fallacies - Theism is Based on a logical fallacy. And always remember - you can never convince a believer - but they can convince themselves. Half of atheists Used to be believers.

Be honest. To do other is not only cheating yourself, but atheism has such a bad rap that they have to be squeaky clean - in their debating methods, at least.

To sum up - it's not about suggesting Best Practice for the Theist, but the necessary Best Practice for the atheist.

[POI]

Does the discipline of Christian apologetics have recommended best practices for its theistic practitioners?

If so, what are those best practices?

Are they demonstrably effective?

Could they be improved upon?

If so, what improvements are needed?

Do you have a recommendation for a new best practice or for improving an existing best practice?

All proposed answers to the above questions should be open for debate.

Welp, I would contend Dr. William Craig would be the current front running 'poster child' to represent all that is the 'proper apologetics practices'. And yet, he even admits himself, that EVEN if all of his 'arguments and evidence' were to be against him, he would still believe.

Belief in the Holy Ghost is not founded/inferred/concluded upon logic/reason/evidence, it's instead merited by "the witness of the 'Holy Spirit' ". True believers do not come to belief, based upon arguments and evidence. Hence, they certainly cannot be persuaded to disbelieve, based upon arguments and evidence.

If you simply skip to 01:30 - 02:30 of the video below, you will see that all the arguments and evidence one can present, will not shake the true believer:



Thus, the follow up question one might ask could be......

If a true believer does not come to believe, based upon arguments and evidence, then why the heck present any at all?

[TRANSPONDER]

"...EVEN if all of his 'arguments and evidence' were to be against him, he would still believe...."

Of course, but that doesn't matter. It is futile to expect to convince a Believer with a persuasive case. The point is to knock don the theist apologetics they use to prop up their Faith. For you, for me, for all the goddless bastardry and for all the people who care that their beliefs are based on something more than Faith.

One of the Arc Axioms is 'Once you know how a magic trick is done, you won't be fooled by it again'.

[bluegreenearth]

Welp, I would contend Dr. William Craig would be the current front running 'poster child' to represent all that is the 'proper apologetics practices'. And yet, he even admits himself, that EVEN if all of his 'arguments and evidence' were to be against him, he would still believe.

Belief in the Holy Ghost is not founded/inferred/concluded upon logic/reason/evidence, it's instead merited by "the witness of the 'Holy Spirit' ". True believers do not come to belief, based upon arguments and evidence. Hence, they certainly cannot be persuaded to disbelieve, based upon arguments and evidence.

If you simply skip to 01:30 - 02:30 of the video below, you will see that all the arguments and evidence one can present, will not shake the true believer:



Thus, the follow up question one might ask could be......

If a true believer does not come to believe, based upon arguments and evidence, then why the heck present any at all?

A few years ago, I couldn't tear myself away from that entire series in which the video you referenced above is a part. Everyone should take the time to become familiar with those concepts regardless of whether they agree or disagree with the narrator's perspective. Thanks for sharing!

[TRANSPONDER]

Welp, I would contend Dr. William Craig would be the current front running 'poster child' to represent all that is the 'proper apologetics practices'. And yet, he even admits himself, that EVEN if all of his 'arguments and evidence' were to be against him, he would still believe.

Belief in the Holy Ghost is not founded/inferred/concluded upon logic/reason/evidence, it's instead merited by "the witness of the 'Holy Spirit' ". True believers do not come to belief, based upon arguments and evidence. Hence, they certainly cannot be persuaded to disbelieve, based upon arguments and evidence.

If you simply skip to 01:30 - 02:30 of the video below, you will see that all the arguments and evidence one can present, will not shake the true believer:



Thus, the follow up question one might ask could be......

If a true believer does not come to believe, based upon arguments and evidence, then why the heck present any at all?

A few years ago, I couldn't tear myself away from that entire series in which the video you referenced above is a part. Everyone should take the time to become familiar with those concepts regardless of whether they agree or disagree with the narrator's perspective. Thanks for sharing!

That's a good video. Aside from pointing up the rules of logic and the fallacies of theist -think, it does point to how Faith is the starting point for the excuses that are called 'God's logic'. Putting on my Theist hat, I could argue that someone who did what was set out to allow God to make contact dd not do so were not doing it right, did not have enough faith or, if all else fails' 'God has his reasons'.

Right away the principle of parsimony kicks in. 'The simpler explanation is that there is no such contact and you are generating the feelings yourself'. The proof is that others have this supposed contact and produce a whole lot of different divinely downloaded Truth. This is which I love to see theist apologists who disagree on their beliefs.
Arq atheist Axiom - 'There are many religions; there is only one science'.

Of course, we can get the 'It's all the same God' argument which can either loop back on itself (circular argument) or opt for the sages and elephant metaphor (not to be confused with the Elephant in the room). They each had a bit of the elephant but none could see the whole thing it was. This is edging towards the idea that (even if they prefer the religion they know) their religion is not the only Right one, and thus they are edging towards irreligious theism, which is regularly getting into bed with atheism.

[Tcg]

Welp, I would contend Dr. William Craig would be the current front running 'poster child' to represent all that is the 'proper apologetics practices'. And yet, he even admits himself, that EVEN if all of his 'arguments and evidence' were to be against him, he would still believe.

Belief in the Holy Ghost is not founded/inferred/concluded upon logic/reason/evidence, it's instead merited by "the witness of the 'Holy Spirit' ". True believers do not come to belief, based upon arguments and evidence. Hence, they certainly cannot be persuaded to disbelieve, based upon arguments and evidence.

If you simply skip to 01:30 - 02:30 of the video below, you will see that all the arguments and evidence one can present, will not shake the true believer:



Thus, the follow up question one might ask could be......

If a true believer does not come to believe, based upon arguments and evidence, then why the heck present any at all?

That section of the video is fascinating. Craig mentions "the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart" and later "the inner witness of the Holy Spirit." Whatever this experience is, and I wish he'd explained it more, it is totally internal to the believer and of course can't be presented as evidence to anyone else. This reminds me of a poster who pushes meditation and the truths it reveals that they claim can only be known by experiencing meditation in the same way the poster has. This explains, at least in part, why there are so many different religions and believers in them that are so fully convinced theirs is the right one. It's not based on the evidence presented, but rather some experience the religion provides. "I know it's true because I felt it", might be their witness.

I was once a Christian, but deconverted due to numerous doubts that could not be addressed properly. This was to some degree a result of an examination of the evidence. More so it was the result of hearing others who had experienced similar doubts and likewise found no reasonable answers. I don't think arguments and evidence could have convinced me absent my doubt. Believers, however, have an amazing ability to ignore doubt provoking issues. One I spoke with during my questioning phase simply answered my query by stating, "You can ask Jesus once we get to heaven." It was a terribly unsatisfying answer.

ETA: Craig's statements remind me of an old hymn I used to hear as a kid. It's called "He Lives" and the chorus ends with this phrase:

"You ask me how I know He lives
He lives within my heart"


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. It is not an Arq Axiom but I used to say that God was the self, inflated to divine level. And you make the very good point that doubt and question can be deflected with 'Ask Jesus when you get to heaven'. This is utterly dismissive, as the first thing that comes to mind (if, that is, it has not been switched off) is 'when I have doubts and questions like this, won't that keep me out of heaven? Doesn't Jesus know that an answer now will confirm my belief? Right now, I'm on the edge of losing it'. Of course the choice is Faith or doubt. That's one reason why debunking the ludicrous belief in heaven and hell is an important apologetic, as it is and has always been a way of terrifying people into Church, ever since they stopped being able to burn people before they die, for religious backsliding.