Why dont theist apologists educate themselves?

[DanieltheDragon]

In another thread Abiogensis a theist apologist readily admitted to not knowing the science and then randomly ascribed a straw man argument about bacteria forming from rocks. Yet the apologist is not alone. this seems to be a common tactic deployed in debate. where ignorance of a subject is displayed as a valid position to have. Much of the debate ends up trying to set the record straight and educate the apologist on what the subject is about.

With a plethora of free resources available is the ignorance intentional? Is intellectual dishonesty the tactic itself as to convince others to your cause no matter the cost?Why convince someone of something you dont actually believe?

[Neatras]

There's a very underhanded tactic employed by apologists. I'm not sure what it's called, but it demonstrates the level on which they engage a lot of the time.

When an apologist asks a question, they typically are asking something which is framed to only have two outcomes, both of which have rehearsed counters. But if the respondent gives a descriptive, technical answer that does not fit in line with the predicted outcomes, the apologist has to hurriedly bring the discussion back to the script. If they're made to own up to their dishonesty by listening to the full explanation for why their question is malformed, or their assumptions were nonsensical, they may pay lip service to intellectual integrity and so go on to end the conversation... But cognitively they dismiss the answer in its entirety, latching onto a single word or phrase to mean that the entire answer cannot be correct. At which point they ask the question again, expecting not to be answered.

Why is this so dishonest? Well, it causes both the opponent and the casual audience member to be influenced by this. "If the apologist is honest or upstanding, then he wouldn't be asking that question if he were already answered. Therefore, he hasn't been answered, therefore the answer given before must have failed on some level." It abuses the level of respect that anyone in a debate ought to have, playing off the assumptions that all parties involved are willing to have their faulty assumptions corrected. Even when an answer completely dismisses their entire argument, all they have to do is ignore it and the debate marches on, inexorably strung out in a boring, scripted path that uses all kinds of other dishonest techniques to approach an assumed conclusion that favors the apologist's beliefs.

In light of this, with apologia founded on a concept of word games and dishonesty, should we really expect them to educate themselves about topics that don't involve their preferred deity? No, at best they'll learn "enough" to convince themselves they are experts so they can dismiss the subject in its entirety. Which is, of course, another debate technique.

[WinePusher]

[Replying to DanieltheDragon]

Your topic is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is.

You accuse apologists of being uneducated and ignorant, yet you yourself have admitted that you basically got all your "science knowledge" from KHAN ACADEMY, a web based resource meant for high school and early college students. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Khan Academy or web based resources in general, I don't think I would've been able to survive two semesters of linear algebra without it. But it's really a bit much to watch a few science videos on the internet, and then proceed to denigrate apologists.

I think the key difference is that some apologists are honest enough to admit that they don't understand everything about science, while some nonbelievers will go to great lengths to pretend like they know stuff about science when, in reality, they don't.

[Divine Insight]

With a plethora of free resources available is the ignorance intentional?

I believe that the ignorance of apologists is indeed intentional. However, they don't even seem to realize that they have this intention. In other words, they actually deceive themselves into ignorance by convincing themselves that their God "must be real", and therefore anything they believe conflicts with their God "must be wrong".

So yes, their ignorance is intentional, but even so they are actually ignorant of their own intent. Therefore, in their mind, they believe they are somehow supporting a "just" cause (i.e. the defense of their indefensible religion and God character)

Is intellectual dishonesty the tactic itself as to convince others to your cause no matter the cost?

Yes again. But once again they are often unaware of their own tactics. The reason they take this path is precisely because their actual religion and dogma is indeed indefensible, therefore the only tactic they have left is to try to bring some doubt to anything they see as being in conflict with their dogma. This also side-tracks from the extreme problems associated with their dogma. As long as they have you arguing with them that their might be some sort of doubt associated with scientific knowledge they feel that this implies that if they could assure you that this doubt is real, this would somehow then support and vindicate their God and religious dogma. Of course that's not the case. But it is the tactic, even when they are unaware that this is what they are doing.

Because after all, if their God and dogma made any sense on its own merit they wouldn't need to resort to trying to bring doubt to scientific knowledge.

The mere fact that they even need to resort to this tactic only verifies that their dogma is indeed indefensible on its own merit.

Why convince someone of something you dont actually believe?

Apologists are actually looking for reasons to convince themselves. They already have more than enough reasons to doubt their religious beliefs. But they aren't interested in those reasons. So they are focused solely on any potential reasons to believe. And that's why they are into apologetics. If they actually believed in their religion they wouldn't be concerned with apologetics at all.

In fact, apologetics used a an evangelical technique is actually contrary to what the religion teaches. The religion itself teaches that its God who is keeping the unbelievers blind on purpose. Therefore for an evangelists to try to convince someone who doesn't believe would be going against this God's very methods and plan.

So an apologetic evangelist is an oxymoron in Christianity.

[bluethread]

I think the key difference is that some apologists are honest enough to admit that they don't understand everything about science, while some nonbelievers will go to great lengths to pretend like they know stuff about science when, in reality, they don't.

This is not only true in science. It is also true in economics and theology. Even when one uses accepted secular principles to explain somethings, the critic insists that is not how things work, or what is being said. These critics, who require in depth scientific knowledge, argue that "common sense" is the superior approach when it comes to economics and theology. After all, it is presumed that, if one has sufficient understanding of the physical sciences, the social "sciences" should be a no brainer.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 3 by WinePusher]

I have repeatedly pushed Kahn Acadamies as a great resource as you yourself have pointed out in your post. This in no way reflects my education level and what resources I have used to educate myself in science. Nor is this OP saying that apologists are uneducated and ignorant.

The question is about those apologists who refuse to take any basic education in a subject and then debate on it. Not everyone can be an expert on everything. It's not about people being ignorant, it's about ignorance being used as a weapon. I don't expect you to understand the difference between a pejorative intention vs a benign one, but please take a moment to actually address the topic and not me.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

In another thread Abiogensis a theist apologist readily admitted to not knowing the science and then randomly ascribed a straw man argument about bacteria forming from rocks. Yet the apologist is not alone. this seems to be a common tactic deployed in debate. where ignorance of a subject is displayed as a valid position to have. Much of the debate ends up trying to set the record straight and educate the apologist on what the subject is about.

With a plethora of free resources available is the ignorance intentional? Is intellectual dishonesty the tactic itself as to convince others to your cause no matter the cost?Why convince someone of something you dont actually believe?

Theists do at times seek to educate themselves. It's just that by the end of the process many of them have often become committed atheists.

[otseng]

You accuse apologists of being uneducated and ignorant, yet you yourself have admitted that you basically got all your "science knowledge" from KHAN ACADEMY, a web based resource meant for high school and early college students.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid the personal comments about others.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[William]

Theists do at times seek to educate themselves. It's just that by the end of the process many of them have often become committed atheists.

Q: What exactly do you mean by the phrase "committed atheists"?

[Kenisaw]

In another thread Abiogensis a theist apologist readily admitted to not knowing the science and then randomly ascribed a straw man argument about bacteria forming from rocks. Yet the apologist is not alone. this seems to be a common tactic deployed in debate. where ignorance of a subject is displayed as a valid position to have. Much of the debate ends up trying to set the record straight and educate the apologist on what the subject is about.

With a plethora of free resources available is the ignorance intentional? Is intellectual dishonesty the tactic itself as to convince others to your cause no matter the cost?Why convince someone of something you dont actually believe?

Unfortunately I don't think there is a consensus on something like this. I've known believers that honestly thought they were well informed about things like the theory of evolution. I've known others who have had accurate information presented to them many times and yet they still made the same unfounded statements over and over. I've known others who literally didn't even know about some of the science that I point out in these discussions.

It's like anything else in life - If you are interested in it, you will take the time to learn it. I find it rare the person that investigates something that disagrees with their worldview or that isn't directly related to something in their life.