Talk:Christian apologetics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
WikiProject Bible This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Origins

I saw there was a Mormon apologetics and so I thought a "Christian apologetics" was a excellent category to create and such a category has precedence. User:128.205.191.60


[edit] Plato's Apology

My understanding of the translation of the greek into apology in the title "Plato's Apology" is typically more like "Plato's Explanation". --Cplot 07:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No...it's Plato's "Apology," as in, Plato wrote it and it is titled Apologia. The most accurate translation of the Greek word is "defense," since the work purports to record Socrates' defense of himself at his trial.

[edit] Questions/Suggestions

This subject is long overdue for an article; glad its here...I altered the category to "Christian theology" rather than just "theology". I might suggest a trim in some ways; C.S. Lewis, for instance is the pre-eminent apologist of the 20th century, and yet is kind of just granted a passing mention. Also, the bibliography is far too long; I might suggest a second article be created called "Christian apologetics bibliography" or something. But most of this has to go. KHM03 18:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Bibliographies will be vfded and deleted. I agree though that Christian apologetics can be a subpage of apologetics, (and likewise the subjects Jewish apologetics, Muslim apologetics, Buddhist apologetics, etc). I hope that there are enough users around here with the appropriate knowledge and ability to adhere unwaveringly from the NPOV policy for this article to be improved. I do not think that the vfd trolls will bite this one though. Dunc|☺ 21:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I reduced the size of the bibliography to a few key texts by a few key authors (Lewis, Ramm, Schaeffer, et al - the giants, really). We can edit that as needed. KHM03 21:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The section on Criticisms is rather sloppily written. Could someone with knowledge of this area take a whack at it? For example, I know of at least one website devoted to fisking Josh McDowell, but I don't have it bookmarked.

I strongly agree with the above. It needs to be sharpened up considerably as it is rather muddled at the moment. Starless and bible black 22:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

while i won't do it myself, i think that whoever rewrites the criticism section should keep it short and simple. I think one good, simple thing to say is that while this branch of academics trys to justify belief in christianity's veracity by human reason, most christians will tell skeptics that man cannot discern the christian god with his own falliable reason, but only with his heart Helio462 07:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] to KHMO3

I agree the subject is long overdue. Please feel free to make changes as this was just a rough draft. I may make some revisions myself today perhaps.

ken 18:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I reformatted things so the page didn't look ugly anymore.

By the way, great contribution. I added a few books plus created a category for people who want additional reading with the bigger book list. I also reworded things so things flowed better. That was a great idea to get rid of the huge list as the main reading list. Better to have classics and introductory works.

ken 00:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] Looking good

The page is taking shape and starting to look a whole lot better. Could probably still use a trim here or there but I will gladly leave that up to you experts. Looking good. KHM03 20:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Conservative Christianity and its Critics"

I removed this section. Why was it part of this article? There are more liberal apologists, and criticism of conservative Christianity belongs on the articles for fundamentalism, evangelicalism, dispensationalism, etc....not here. KHM03 21:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ontological argument

There is as yet no statement of the ontological argument in the article. The quotation there from Anselm has nothing to do with the ontological argument. Jeremy J. Shapiro 15:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About List of Christian apologetic works

This is article is nothing more than a bibliography of several 20th century works, with no explanation why these works were included -- & others excluded. And only this article links to this list; so its existence is puzzling.

It has been sitting on Cleanup now for several months, but this has drawn little attention shown to improving it (after 2 months an anon editor removed the tag, but it was restored a month later). Can someone who believes in this article take it under her/his wing, add the details needed to improve it -- or merge it into an appropriate article? Continued neglect will only lead to it being listed on AfD. -- llywrch 22:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fine. I removed the cleanup tag. ken 00:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
As the creator of that article, of course you consider it to be fine. I have added the tag back. I think AfD should be a definite consideration for it. ju66l3r 23:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of James Orr

I removed James Orr in regards to defending the historicity of the Bible as he was a theistic evolutionist. [1][2] [User:Kdbuffalo|ken]] 00:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Creationism is not required for defending the historicity of the Bible. For example, someone can argue for the existence of a historical Jesus while freely admitting that humans evolved from other primates. For this reason, I am restoring Orr. Thank you for understanding. Al 01:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Genesis chapters one and two are historical. [3][4] Reverting. ken 01:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

With all due respect, this is your personal view, and one shared by many conservative Christians. However, it is quite possible to defend the historicity of the Bible while excluding Genesis from the list of historical sections. Some sections are instead understood as metaphorical or as literture literature. Please separate your personal POV of "all or nothing" from the issue at hand. I'm reverting again, and hoping you don't turn this into an edit war. After all, you've tried to make this change a few times now and multiple people have reverted yoru attempts. Please take this as a sign that the consensus weighs against your actions. Thank you for understanding. Al 01:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be much more impressed with your post Alienus if you could spell the word literature. ken 01:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

See, that was just a personal attack, and not at all constructive. People make typos on occasion, and I'm as guilty as the next person. Often, I notice my errors and correct them. Sometimes, I don't. This is one of those times. Thank you for understanding. Al 01:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism and weasel words

I added the weasel and unsourced templates as I counted 5 unsourced statements, 4 weasel phrases, and 2 POV (so-and-so should do so-and-so) in this section. There may be valid content here, but as written it is very weak. Would suggest that the editors involved read up on WP:WEASEL. The Crow 03:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Have removed all controversial unsourced statements, reduced wordiness of non-controversial statements, reduced the unsourced "apologists say X but critics say Y but apologists say X", and remove the "apologists ought to..." statements. In addition to being unverified, this kind of language and style is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The Crow 14:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


It seems that the page is lacking content with respect to criticism. Specifically the notion of falsifiability. This is critical to Creationist ideals and is a reason for lack of scientific responses to Christian apologists’ claims. In addition I didn’t notice much reference to debate within the apologist community such as with reference to evolution’s role in creation. These seem vital so as to point out the lack of homogeneity within the various facets of the phenomenon of intellectualized religious beliefs.


It seems to me the very title of this page is weasel-worded- It suggests that Christians have alot to apologize for- true, but not npov. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.64.142.13 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Please see "The term "apologetics"". In this context, "apologetics" means simply "defence". EALacey 07:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tertullian

Shouldn't Tertullian be mentioned as one of the major early Christian apologists?


(FJA)Yes, I think the History section is weak in general. Not only Turtullian, but also, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Origen, and Jerome should be mentioned along with who they wrote to, what they wrote about, and why. Some of these wrote to government officials to show that Christianity was good, consistent with the philosophy, and should be tolerated, others to expose what they considered unorthodoxy/non-catholic forms of Christian belief, i.e. Gnosticism. As Christianity became legal and promoted within the Roman Empire, the latter type was more generally employed. During the Reformation, Catholic and Protestant writers used apologetics against the other; this still continues. In addition, in modern times, Christian apologitics is used to show that the religion and science are compatible, or that the Bible is right and science is wrong.

The early church fathers should be included. I added a sentence in the history of apologetics section. 136.183.146.137 10:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul on Philosophy

I suggest the removal of the sentence in the History section which says: "The apostle Paul, who was well-educated, said to beware philosophy (Colossians 2:8), though there is evidence that he was acquainted with Greek philosophy himself (Acts 9:29)." The full text of Colossians 2:8 says: "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." (NAS) There's no explicit "beware philosophy!" content, and even if some think it's implicit it needs to be in its own talking point and not asserted as an aside. c0bra 22:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to fix it up. Jonathan Tweet 15:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] scientific apologetics

I added this line, which was prmptly deleted as "unneeded."

Historically, Christian apologists have also defended the flat earth, geocentrism, heliocentrism, the extraordinary life spans of people in Genesis (e.g., Methuselah), the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Joshua halting the sun and moon, and the division of humanity into three races based on descent from the sons of Noah [5].

This statement seems both true and relevant to scientific apologetics. Jonathan Tweet 05:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The use of the word "extraordinary" above is prejudicial in my estimation. I also believe it is unclear to readers how prevalent the three race theory based from the sons of Noah was. I also believe that there are many miracles in the Bible and focusing on just a few is not helpful. Lastly, the flood link above is poor. I believe the whole section should be scrapped as it is unneeded. ken 02:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Thank you for finally coming to the talk page instead of just deleting something over and over. What do you mean by "unneeded"? Do you mean that the section is good enough without it, or that my addition serves no purpose whatever? The policy of Wikipedia is "abundance and redundancy." That something is "not needed" is not enough of a reason to delete it. If it's true and fair and relevant, it gets included, even if it also appears elsewhere. This policy specifically gets around revert wars, which is what you and I have been doing. I'd be happy to delete "extraordinary," use a better "flood" link, and maybe even drop the three races reference if it would make you happy. Jonathan Tweet 05:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I composed a comprise. - kdbuffalo

I deleted this line as POV. "proven science has never contradicted the Bible in any way, which is certainly true" A better take might be something like Most modern-day scientific apologists assert that the Bible does not teach flat earth or geocentrism. They regard evolution as not yet proven and in fact plainly false. As to the age of the earth, they debate among themselves whether the earth is "young" or "old." Jonathan Tweet 05:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No one has raised an objection to the material that another editor deleted. If someone else would revert it for me, I'd owe you one. Jonathan Tweet 05:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lead paragraph

Changed lead paragraph in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Jonathan Tweet 15:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

KD, if you don't like my lead paragraph, write a better one. See above link on what a lead paragraph should be. Jonathan Tweet 15:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we achieved a compromise regarding the articles introduction. ken 02:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Let's agree to keep the lead section as is then. Jonathan Tweet 05:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Christian Apologetics

The first line of this Heading is:

"Evidentialist apologetics, such as today's Gary Habermas or the more introductory Christian apologetic works such as Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel, are the most popular apologetics and have been historically. This can be seen from the earliest times in Christianity(bold added), as the New Testament records the apostles appealing to eyewitness testimony."

First, there is no reference, and second, it doesn't follow with the rest of the article. This is the HISTORY section. Are these guys really the most popular apologetics historically? I think this is no more than a bias opinion, and think that these two lines should be removed.

Cjbeyer 20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Wikipedia is not a link farm, and this article has passed the spam event horizon. Given that this article has many sources, the only valid links would appear to be those that offer additional context over and above what a great article would contain. Most of these are simply putting one or another point of view, and an awful lot are simply spam. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General/various apologetics:

[edit] recent link edits/conflict

Sorry about that, it took me longer to finish going over the other sections. I think we came to very similar conclusions - take a look at the new edit and see if you like those. I'm open to criticism/suggestions. Phyesalis (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical apologetics:

[edit] Historical/legal/evidential apologetics:

[edit] Creationist apologetics:

[edit] General:

[edit] Specific issues:


I think the links offer some noteworty resources and should be kept. 128.205.191.55 04:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:External links. It is not the purpose of an External links section to provide a comprehensive list of "noteworthy resources". I've replaced the links with a link to the relevant category of the Open Directory Project, as suggested at Wikipedia:External links#Important points to remember. EALacey 22:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I gave a moderate amount of links that was shorter than the original but longer than the individuals who listed almost no links. In short, I offered a compromise. 128.205.191.57 04:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific Christian Apologetics

In the subcategory labeled "Scientific Christian Apologetics", the information given does not speak of how Christian apologists have defended and are defending there faith through science and scientific eveidences; rather, the article mainly discusses several disputing beliefs concerning church dogmas that involve the science of the world. I implore educated members, even Christian apologetics, to add to this subcategory information discussing the ways Christian apologists and scientists have used evidences in science to prove or uphold Christian beliefs. I know for myself that there are many books and scientific observations that have been written to defend many aspects of Christianity - unfortunately, some are only located in the Christian or Religious section of your nearby library or bookstore (sometimes, this is because Christian apologetic books are considered to be read mostly by Christian readers), so most "non-believers" never hear about them. For those up to the task, you must research intensely from apologetics both inside and outside the faith. There is a good amount of information to work with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mymines229 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Sherwin-White

I've corrected the apologists' misquotation of A.N. Sherwin-White on Acts, as per the Sherwin-White page itself.

[edit] Requesting articles

To estabish notability at Criticism of Mormonism, I'm requesting a few articles.

A more complete list can be found on the talk page of that article. Any more notable sources of Christian apologetics that will improve citations would also be appreciated. Sorry if this is intrusive, and thank you. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Types of apologetics

I came to this page as I was redirected from "classical apologetics." I think the article is well written, but would like to offer a couple suggestions. Interestingly enough, this article says very little about the classical apologetic approach as such (referred to here as Thomism). It mentions different arguments Thomas Aquinas used (teleological, etc) but does not set classical apologetics apart as a whole school. There is a book published by Zondervan called Five Views on Apologetics. The five views that it looks at are Classical, Evidential, Presuppositional, Reformed epistomology and Cumulative case. (The epistomology and cumulative methods are not mentioned at all here.) I think these are good divisions, and someone could possibly incorporate this into the article. Kristamaranatha (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mobbing

I deleted the rebuttal from this paragraph:

There has been significant academic treatment of Christian apologetics in scholarly institutions and publication, which generally deal with fact and dissent in a transparent manner. However, views that dissent from politically correct ideas (e.g. those held sacred by campus elites) may be suppressed for fear of acquiring a stigma and the effects of mobbing. [citing "The Unkindly art of mobbing"]

The cited source supports the assertion made, but applying it to Christian apologetics and criticisms thereof is a synthesis since the article doesn't talk about Christian apologetics. The implicit premise is that Christian apologetics ideas are politically incorrect, and therefore subject to supression, stigma, and mobbing as discussed in the article. Even if a source were supplied for the implicit premise, it would still be synthesis to combine that source with the one on mobbing. What is needed is a source that brings these ideas together explicitly. --Flex (talk/contribs) 00:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain your synthesis concern. It could be argued that the source applies directly to this topic because of its broad coverage. It probably doesn't matter, however, since the focus of the section is not the reliability of academics who criticize apologist ideas. I updated the section to focus more squarely on the reliability of the apologists and the impact thereof. --Ed Brey (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No, making specific application of a broad principle is original research. We're not formulating arguments here; we're cataloging what is (verifiably) out there as "accepted knowledge."
As for the new criticism section, I think there must be plenty more stuff out there on various aspects of this subject (e.g., general criticism from the rabid atheist contingent like Dennett and Dawkins; S. J. Gould's Rocks of Ages on creational apologetics; someone on evidential apologetics [perhaps on the historicity of the Bible or of the resurrection or whatever]; Michael Martin on presuppositional apologetics; etc.), but I personally don't have the time to go digging around for it right now. I'm sure we could get cited material by asking at Talk:Atheism etc. if you don't have time or interest.
As for the AiG bit, that doesn't seem to address the issue of "dilute[d] scholarly publication" unless one assumes "scholarly publications" is equivalent to "good evidence" and the opposite of "'doubtful' arguments." Scholars can use bad evidence and make doubtful arguments too. It's not a synthesis; it just seems not to be all that relevant to the given criticism. Besides, which Christian apologists are publishing in scholarly arenas anyway? Some philosophers like Alvin Plantinga are, but is AiG? --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I intended the first sentence as an encyclopedic summary of the whole article, not only the quoted portion. I agree with the proposed expansion, although I can't volunteer to implement it. Whether AiG is scholarly is a controversial topic that I don't think can be decided here. They say that they are, while many traditional academics (my term) disagree. But then there are those who question the usefulness of scholarly works by traditional academics due to the effects mobbing, as recently highlighted, for example, in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. --Ed Brey (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not AiG is scholarly is not primary the point I'm debating (though I doubt one would be able to do better than nauseating wording like "AiG says they are, the vast majority of mainstream scholars say they aren't" -- such is life in the WP). Rather, it is that the quotation from them doesn't answer the proposed criticism without equivocating on the meaning of the terms I mentioned above. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is a matter of lack of political correctness but a lack of rigour. Alvin Plantinga is a legitimate philosopher of religion, and so knows the rules of the game. As far as I know, AiG does not have, at least among its more visible staff, anybody with similar qualifications in evolutionary biology, palaeontology or geology. I would therefore no more expect to see them publish in academic journals in these fields than I would to see Dawkins publish in philosophy of religion academic journals. But then neither AiG nor Dawkins are aiming their views on science and religion, respectively, at academia, but to the general public. I also object to characterising an inability to be competitive in the academic marketplace for ideas as being the victim of "mobbing". HrafnTalkStalk 17:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
A fair point on intended audience, but this is not an explicit issue in the current "Criticism" section and, to reiterate, my complaint about the material is different (see above). --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creationist Apologetics

I propose renaming this heading "Scientific Apologetics." Creationism refers to those who support a literal 6-day creation, but this is not the full extend of scientific apologetics. Intelligent Design is in contrast to biblical creationism in that it may claim that God "used" evolution instead of a literal 6-day creation. Archeological apologetics may also fit under this heading - i.e. using historical and archeological records to prove the accuracy of the Bible. Another method of scientific apologetics used by both young and old earthers as well as ID is the argument for the fine-tuning of the universe as pointing to an intelligent Creator. I think these different ideas in apologetics warrant a renaming and adding-on to this section. Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, creationism refers to any belief that posits the world or life was created as a deliberate event by entities or entity for a teleological purpose. Intelligent design is a form of creationism as is 6-day "young earth creationism".--Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I would object to such a renaming as (i) Creationism (including ID) is pseudoscientific, not scientific and (ii) there exists a body of work that produces Christian apologetics based on legitimate science -- examples of which are in Christian apologetics#Scientific. Creationism is not just "those who support a literal 6-day creation" -- it also includes Day-Age creationism, Progressive creationism and Neo-Creationism (the latter category including ID). The "claim that God 'used' evolution instead of a literal 6-day creation" is not ID, it is Theistic evolution -- a position very much at odds with ID (with TE scientists and theologians testifying against ID at Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District). HrafnTalkStalk 06:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The laundry list

This lengthy & unencyclopaedic embedded list has been templated for some time, so I'm moving it here to talk.

Choices are to:

  • work the information into the article prose (if they are genuinely "notable", then it shouldn't be hard to find something noteworthy to say about them) per advice in template:Cleanup-laundry; or
  • create a standalone list for this information (preferably with a thumbnail on each)
  • Replace it with a subcategory on 'Christian apologists' in Category:Christian apologetics

HrafnTalkStalk 06:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Some notable Christian apologists include:

[End material mved from article HrafnTalkStalk 06:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ]