My Grand Apologetics Project Part 1

This is the first in a series of posts, which will probably span the next few weeks and months. It is an extended effort at apologetics. 

Part 1: The Limitations of Apologetics, and, Why Most Apologetics Sucks
a. A Caveat

The first thing that I want to establish is that apologetics is a work of theology and philosophy. Both theology and philosophy are fields that, for the most part, do not allow much certainty. Proving things in science is relatively simple. You create theories to explain phenomenon and then test those theories to see if they can hold up to extreme scrutiny. This process is simply awesome, because it allows us to gain some level of certainty about a range of issues. But those issues are not all inclusive. There are some issues that are just not in the purview of science and cannot have the scientific method applied to them.

Deductive reasoning allows us a similar level of certainty as does mathematics. But again, these aren't universally applicable. Even in the case of strict deduction, one cannot attain certainty unless one has all true premises and a valid argument. Validity is easy to check. True premises often are not. Most premises are to one degree or another controversial. In those fields where strict deductive reasoning do not apply or where it's conclusions are questionable (and it usually is), and we can't apply science, we have to make due with more halting and imprecise processes of reasoning. You may be able to form beliefs based on some real processes, but they will not give you the certainty that science or strict deductive reasoning does. There are some who will take issue with this attitude. They will insist that only science can give us beliefs that can be rationally held, or knowledge at all. This is, ironically enough, pretty easy to prove false. Take the proposition: "only science can bring us knowledge". Well, do you KNOW this? How do you know it? It isn't science, there is no experiment one could do to falsify the statement. On it's face it can't meet it's own standard of evidence and so cannot be known to be true.

Of course one doesn't need fancy turns of logic to see that what I am saying here is true. There are a plethora of issues where different sides give equally good reasons for believing what they do. In politics, in ethics, in philosophy and elsewhere, the general standard by which one judges whether a belief is reasonable or not is not whether the belief can be proven true in a scientific or strict deductive sense, but whether one can make a strong case in one direction or another.

So in what is to follow, that is what I intend to do. I do not think what I will say on these matters is completely unassailable. There may be good objections. But I do not think the objections are obviously superior to the case I make here or to the counter-objections that could be raised. This caveat, this moment of awareness, brings me to my second point in this section....

b. On Why Most Apologetics Sucks

The first reason most apologetics sucks is it doesn't take account of my point in (a). Most apologists aim too high, they aim for a goal that could never be reached in almost any area of life. They use reasoning that seems to be, by all objective standards, what I called above 'halting and imprecise'. Religious apologists usually make a pretense to a level of knowledge that is reserved only for areas like math, science and those few deductive arguments that command almost universal rational assent. Apologists make arguments that could give some reason to believe in God. But they act like they have given a proof, as in some absolute certain ground for belief, that God exists, or that Jesus is God, etc. This pretense is easy to spot, and gives most apologists, who I think are sincere, an air of unreliability. They act like the proposition that God exists is obviously true and that only a sinner or moron could fail to see it. But nothing they say gives them reason for that kind of confidence.

The second reason that the apologetics projects of most people is rather less than satisfying is that most apologetics seems completely disconnected from the way most people's religious and spiritual lives works. People start from some fact about the world and then reason to the conclusion that there must be a God. They use the fact that the universe had a starting point, for instance, as a piece of data that proves that someone must have initiated the universal process. Or they point to the order in the universe and reason their must be an orderer. Now some of these efforts, taken not as proofs but as incomplete and limited arguments do have some weight behind them. They are not simple and obvious fallacies. But they bare little resemblance to the reasons most people have for believing in God. For most people, most of the time, religion is a matter of experience, and encounter, and relationship. People shy away from this kind of defense because they fear the subjectivity of human experience. There is no way, though, to escape from such experience. It is the locus of most people's beliefs.

c. Is There Any Good Stuff Out There?

In a word, yes, there are some great apologists out there and some great books I highly recommend. And I will be relying heavily on all of them to help make my case here. But their approaches are not simple or for the weak of mind. They realize the depth of the subject they tackle and the importance to share one's personal experiences with others if any kind of real progress is to be made. One of the books, MYSTERY WITHOUT MAGIC, by Russell Pregeant, spends the first 100 pages or so talking about the nature of human experience. The conclusion that it makes sense, perhaps the most sense, to believe in God isn't even established until halfway through the book. That is why it is hard to imagine trying to engage in apologetics in some kind of classic debate forum. In good apologetics, the very nature of human experience or human knowing has to be fully examined before the reasons for belief can be grasped. This series of blog posts will be an attempt to give as bare bones an argument as is possible, from this experiential kind of approach.

For those who are interested in good works of apologetics, I suggest: MYSTERY WITHOUT MAGIC by Russell Pregeant, A RUMOR OF ANGELS by Peter Berger. For those who have a stronger background in philosphy, I'd add Alvin Plantinga's WARRANTED CHRISTIAN BELIEF and Alfred N Whitehead's RELIGION IN THE MAKING. And with that nod to the shoulders upon which I stand done, I look forward to getting deeper into this subject over the next few weeks.