Sunday, October 6, 2013

The prefailure of apologetics

He makes a very good point, doesn't he? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But theists don't even attempt to provide extraordinary evidence - or any evidence at all, normally. Why not? Well, they don't have any.

The best they can do is some esoteric philosophical argument which even philosophers largely dismiss. Well, you hardly even need to point out the logical fallacies in those, because it wouldn't be anywhere near the kind of thing you need to demonstrate the truth of such an extraordinary claim anyway.

On the other hand, if 'God' actually wants people to believe that he exists, as you claim he does,... well, he's supposed to be all-knowing and all-powerful, right? So he'd know exactly what it would take to get me to believe in him, and he'd have no problem supplying the evidence. At least, if your god is even close to being how you describe him.

But that doesn't happen. Instead, we get apologetics which only convince the people who already believe. Christian apologetics only convince other Christians (if you can even use the word "convince" here, since they're not changing any minds). Note that Muslim apologetics don't convince Christians, even though it's the same kind of argument.


Grundy said...

Apologetics is really just the second best strategy believers have come up with to retain their beliefs when met with secular arguments. The first is holding their fingers in their ears.

WCG said...

You know, that's funny, but it's really pretty accurate, Grundy. I've had experience with that just recently, so I think you've given me another idea for a blog post. Thanks!

And thanks for the comment, too.