Talk:Apologetics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

For previous discussions:

Some things:

  • I removed the paragraph on the historian because it is not properly apologetics but probably Christian propaganda quite common in those Centuries after the Fall of the Empire.
  • Apologetics (Christian) is precisely the effort to use reason in favour of Faith. The expression used before was not clear for me.
  • I have changed another thing but I am quite tired right now and do not recall.

Feel free to revert, but take into account the above: not faith and no reason but precisely the contrary. See Chesterton's works: those are apologetics, while the one previously quoted is just propaganda (in the technical sense and probably in the despreciative one). My English is beginning to rot, sorry. Pfortuny 13:18, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, the Catholic Encyclopedia calls Orosius an apologist, so I think it's fair to label him as such. Certainly to a non-Christian the difference between Christian propaganda and Christian apologetics is a subtle one ;-).—Eloquence 13:24, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
Historian and apologist, but I do not know his works. After reading the C.E. article I've come to the conclussion that he is not relevant for this article (I mean, Augustine would be worth including, but not Oroisus: like including Shakespeare in a short article on theatre and not Marlowe), but as anywhere my opinion counts one. BTW thanks for a) turning my mind to other things, and b) pointing this article out.Pfortuny 13:33, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I admit it's somewhat selective because I recently dealt with his works when researching the Library of Alexandria. It is more intended as a stubbish start for what should ultimately become a list of apologists of the various traditions.—Eloquence 13:38, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Is this apologetics?

I'm unfamiliar with this writer, but is Zacarias' book a work of apologetics at all? If it is, this is not the aspect of it that is relevant at Apologetics: "Another modern apologist is Ravi Zacharias, scholar of world religions from India, and author of The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha which compares Christianity with world religions and other modern movements."

Does the article need to be made clearer, or just this reference? Or is the new edit just a muddle that can be reverted? --Wetman 20:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Zacharias is a modern apologist. I will therefore reinstated the edit, and will place a link to his organizational web page for your info. He is a very popular speaker at universities (worldwide - because of his extensive knowledge of eastern religions) as an apologist for Christianity. Pollinator 00:45, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Ooops - I see someone has already taken care of it... 01:00, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 'Intellectual and social function of religious apologetics'

Made some small changes to increase the accuracy of the article.

It was describing apologetics as only have the purpose of strengthening the faith of believers. This is wrong since one can othen find letters or articles directed at skeptics at many internet sites of believers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.107.140.222 (talk • contribs) .


Yhello, the in the first few lines we find "the title...therefore has both connotations." The word 'both' here is arbitrary, without two clear referents. This really should be clarified.

[edit] External Links

Do you think that the external links section of this article should also have non-Christian apologetics websites? This article should be more open-minded.

Absolutely! I don't personally know of any, though -- if you do, please add them, and make sure to be clear in the link title what type of apologetics they exemplify. Jwrosenzweig 23:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.107.140.222 (talk • contribs) .

I think someone should take a scythe to the external links and bibliography sections. Both are so indiscriminate that they don't help the man on the Clapham omnibus to find good authorities. Experts are not going to come here for this. What's needed is a few outstanding examples. Just my $0.02. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Per the above, this is the list of external links as of 20:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC):

I would say that is manifestly excessive and indiscriminate, but I don't really know enough about the nuances of the issue to sort the authorities from the b logs and monographs. Help appreciated. Unless there genuinely are tens of different strands of apologetics, I'd say we should aim for at most four or five links. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tactics of Apologia

Ran across Tactics of Apologia in clicking on random articles... that article is in need of major work and could perhaps be merged into Apologetics. -- NYArtsnWords 20:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rebuttal (moved from article)

"This is an inaccurate picture of apologetics. While it captures some of the truth behind the concept, it unnaturally assumes that the individual who engages in the apologetic will omit truth as an attempt to deceive the hearer. This is not necessarily accurate. We see every day that individuals in political circles use rhetoric to convey a message or agenda.

A message can be deceptive but that does not necessarily mean that all messages are untruthful or inaccurate. Above you find the statement, “Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause”. True apologetics is primarily concerned with arriving at the TRUTH and not deceiving the listener or reader.

The statement above is actually an example deceptive propaganda rather than apologetics. It uses a type of logic but is lacking context and support of its claim.

Example:

If some A’s are B’s and all B’s are C’s then all A’s are C’s.

This is a false statement but unfortunately, it is the logic used by the above writer."

(written by 199.8.16.1 (talk · contribs)) This seems like an issue with the content rather than content itself. If someone wants to rephrase this to conform with NPOV go ahead. --Daniel Olsen 00:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Apologetics and World War I

The reason I put links, in the apologetics article, that are strange and to do with World War I, in an edit, was because I was making a metaphor and a comparison.

First, I compare all the contradictions and exclusivity between all the religions and their beliefs and claims in the world and the fact that it is difficult to know and find out which religion is the "one true religion" to the stalemate in the trenches, battlefields, and battlefronts of World War I. Second, I compare the fact that many of the arguments made by religions for them to be the one true religion are very weak and easily refuted and that there are more counter-arguments than arguments to the very heavy casualties of World War I. Third, I also compare that and many of the unsuccessful attempts by religions to give arguments for their beliefs (e.g. Intelligent Design) to many of the early unsuccessful attempts of the warring nations to break the stalemate (e.g. Gallipoli, Battle of the Somme, Battle of Passchendaele).

Now let me talk about the comparisons to do with my edits: Fourth, I compare the arguments of the Christians for the existence of a theistic God and Christianity to be the one true religion, the Christian countercult movement, Christian missions, and their criticisms and arguments against other religions, pantheism, parapsychology, and the New Age, etc, to the Spring Offensive of World War I, by Germany. I compare the fact that the Christians are (or at least seem to be) pretty successful in their attempts to show that their religion is true and that they are false, right now, to the fact that the Spring Offensive was actually pretty successful, and it achieved great results, at first. I compare the arguments of the Christians to the tactics used by Germany in the Spring Offensive. I compare the fact that, at least now, Christians do (or at least seem to do) have more arguments and apologists for their religion and against others than other religious believers, to the fact that Germany had more troops than the Allies, at first. Fifth, I compare the apologists for other religions and pantheism (e.g. A. L. De Silva, Gunapala Dharmasiri, Red Jacket) to the commanders of the Allied armies (e.g. Ferdinand Foch). I compare organizations for the apologetics of pantheism (e.g. World Pantheist Movement, Universal Pantheist Society) to the United States during World War I. Sixth, I compare their statements to (or at least try to) refute and counter Christianity and its arguments and to defend belief in pantheism to the Second Battle of the Marne. Seventh, I compare their statements to (or at least try to) "fight back" against the Christianity and even challenge, reject, and refute it, to the Hundred Days Offensive of World War I. Eighth, if they succeed in refuting Christianity and showing their religion or pantheism to be true, then I compare that to the Allied victory in World War I.

The Anonymous One 10:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plato

The Plato section doesn't mention how he's an apologist. --Arperry 21:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)