The Cult of Sophisticated Western Apologetics: A Tale of Two (or more) Deities

[TheLovesoul1]

religion is all bullshit!

[vbfl920]

Hmm....doesn't WLC typically provide Resurrection arguments in almost every single one of his debates? On top of his general theistic arguments, Craig argues for what he calls, "Mere Christianity" ie. pretty much the most reducible form of Christian Theism that the majority of Christian traditions and denominations share.

So I'm not sure why you say that apologists don't argue for the God they actually believe in.

[RobTheMonk8]

@vbfl920

I don't think I said it exactly like that. I think I said they provide a collection of arguments none of which argues simultaneously for the complex of ideas required to be an argument for the whole of "God" nor any argument which binds these disparate arguments to one another.

His resurrection "arguments" appear to be little more than special pleading, as his god is not the only one resurrected, nor does make one god. Moreover, ignoring these, how does it address unity and identity?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Great vid, Rob. One nit picking thing, though: the word 'myriad' is pronounced 'Meer-y-ad', not 'My-rad.'

[RobTheMonk8]

@SisyphusRedeemed

I'm a product of the California public education system... you should hear mispronouncing in Spanish.

[tharbk01]

the truth is the majority of us, are too lazy/apathetic to even question anything. many of my friends, and for some time, also myself, listen to these apologists, and without even actually paying attention, or fully understanding what has just been said, immediately agree. most of us are too preoccupied with our surroundings that we never really stop to truly think about what it is we believe in.

[PrimusInterInpares]

I see you've enrolled at the Michele Bachmann School of Not Looking at the Camera.

[RobTheMonk8]

@PrimusInterInpares

Haha, at least I'll admit to reading from a script.

[Khuno2]

OH yeah! Rob's back to kick some theist ass! Hail to the chief. Yer, apologetics is almost completely divorced from the conceptions of faith and god that the vast majority of believers subscribe. It's almost like the challenges to faith have caused the conceptions of the deities they're defending to EVOLVE over the centuries... Until the conceptions they defend are nigh meaningless. Unfortunately, WLC and the St. Alvin aren't going to lose any sleep over these uncomfortable facts.

[RobTheMonk8]

@Khuno2

You sexy bastard! I oughta ban your ass until you make a video and join the fray.

[Khuno2]

@RobTheMonk8

I am a sexy beast. I won't argue with that, Boss. But you know as well as I that if I were to dust off and don my battle armor, it would usher in the youtube apocalypse! The tubacalypse ( not to be confused with that summer at jewish fat camp)! Well, maybe not the apocalypse, because that is fictional and thus not real according to no greater source than dr. johnson. But it would be michael bay drama! Which would be subpar and confusing camerawork.

[HConstantine]

Myriad has 3 syllables.

[shotinthedark90]

Apologetics is a defense, not an attack. Even if the arguments for God's existence fail, there is still a place for apologetics.

[RobTheMonk8]

@shotinthedark90

Regarding your first line, I never said otherwise. As for the second, what place is that?

[insidetrip101]

@shotinthedark90

That's true. For one, Aquinas, Averroes and many medievals believed that the key for this sort of discussion isn't to prove the truth of your beliefs, but to show that they are not untrue.

[RPFS2008]

It seems very strange to me when apologists define omnipotence, with regards to their God, as 'the ability to that which is in God's nature'

By that definition, a cockroach must be omnipotent.

[zarkoff45]

I'm not so sure you can simply divide the Christian God into a mere two different definitions. Fundamentalists have a different God than more liberal Christians and both are fairly common and not the apologist's God.

It's really 3,000 blind men and an elephant.

Even using a different, more deistic, definition of God the apologists still feel the need to attack naturalism:

watch?v=eU-wpNOyuas

[RobTheMonk8]

@zarkoff45

That's only taking my point further. I quite agree.

[tintiringa]

Great video...see you next year!

[SSJ3Ulcer]

Well, its about time, Rob. Welcome back.

[insidetrip101]

Since when has common belief ever been something that was defensible? You could say the same thing about common beliefs for physics, biology, psychology, astronomy... I could go on and on. Just because Einstein was a physicist does not mean that he defended Newtonian physics.

Also, Monotheism is an attempt at a solution to the problem of the One and the Many, not an additional problem. Polytheism would shatter that view. Polytheism would imply the world is unintelligible like the Muslims claim.

[RobTheMonk8]

@insidetrip101 l

Common belief drives the need for apologetics. Physicists aren't doing research and publishing to make common belief about physics seem defensible; apologists are.

Would polytheism make the world entirely unintelligible? Or would it makes sense that parts are incomprehensible and others are perfectly coherent? How would such a world differ markedly from ours?

[insidetrip101]

@RobTheMonk8

It depends on the apologist. Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, and so on, should not be likened to the same camp of WLC who have reduced philosophy to sophistry. Don't believe me? WLC makes a living off of "Philosophy" that's the very definition of a sophist. People like WLC reduce the meditations of brilliant men to create profit. It is true that these meditations often cause a new belief, but that doesn't mean it isn't a true view. It all comes down to what we mean when we say "God".

[RobTheMonk8]

@insidetrip101

No, actually, that is NOT the definition of "sophist," either classically or colloquially. Even if it were, it would be so inclusive as to make figures like Wittgenstein and Saul Kripke sophists.

Moreover, Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas's arguments were terrible. Worse, in fact, than Craig's who has had the benefit of seeing them dismantled.

No, I don't think it depends on the apologist: apologetics is "rational defense."

[insidetrip101]

@RobTheMonk8

You're wrong. Making money from education is one of Plato's criticisms of the sophists.

True, the goal of a Sophist is to "make the weaker argument stronger", which leads to a type of relativism, but the only reason they did that was to exploit rhetoric for their favor. I would actually argue everyone about post 1500 is a sophist in some sense, but unless you think Wittgenstein was a rhetorician parading as a philosopher, then he can not be said to be a sophist.

[insidetrip101]

@insidetrip101 (cont)

Are you suggesting that people haven't discussed Anselm's argument for the existence of God? Are you really that unread? Besides, even if you think they fail, which in some contexts they do, then it still doesn't follow that Craig's is better merely because Craig has just borrowed these arguments from these people (and Aquinas/the Muslims from Aristotle admittedly).

Besides, what really matters is that these people have different concepts of God and share them.

[insidetrip101]

@insidetrip101

"No, I don't think it depends on the apologist: apologetics is "rational defense.""

But a rational defense for what? Why is it that apologetists MUST defend traditional "understandings" of God. I think people think that appologetics must defend a certain perspective, when that is certainly not the case. The good philosopher provides a new perspective or insight into these problems.

[RobTheMonk8]

@insidetrip101

Well, in the case of "Christian Apologetics" it is a rational defense of Christianity... what else could it be? I never said that Apologists MUST defend anything (go ahead, rewatch the video and see); but if you want to claim that you've "made faith reasonable", then you need to be defending faith and not something else. If you want to claim that you've preserved the foundations for a belief in the christian god, then you need to be defending THAT god. That's all. (cont...)

[RobTheMonk8]

@RobTheMonk8 (...cont)

I thought the analogy about the elephants made that perfectly clear. The second man is not REQUIRED to defend the beliefs of the first; but IF (and a big 'if') he were to gain ground or prove HIS contention, in what sense can he reasonably be said to have fought for the contention of the first man? It's perfectly plain: if you believe X and I believe Y, and then you PROVE X, how is it at all justifiable to claim that you have proved Y?

[insidetrip101]

@RobTheMonk8

"then you need to be defending THAT god."

Or maybe you could come to a better understanding of THAT God. Rhetoricians try to defend their position, philosophers want to answer questions and solve intellectual problems. There is always more than one way to solve a problematic answer. You can understand your own position in a new light, or you can ditch your position all together. Why is coming to a more sophisticated understanding of God a betrayal of Christianity?

[RobTheMonk8]

@insidetrip101

Never said it was a betrayal; never said they couldn't participate in dialectic (argument aimed at truth rather than persuasion)

Imagine a lawyer is defending a person accused of murder and secures his release. Authorities find another suspect: does it make sense for him to claim, "But that lawyer proved my innocence as well!" The fact that SOMETHING has been defended doesn't mean EVERYTHING has been defended. Same is true of the apologist's god vs. the common believer's god.

[insidetrip101]

@RobTheMonk8

If you didn't think that new understanding or perspectives into Christianity betrays the foundations of Christianity it seems we are arguing over different subjects.

That said, I really don't like any comparison to law. Mostly because of the obvious use of rhetoric. We can't compare philosophy to a trial. The whole point of philosophy is to get away from that mindset.

With that said, I never once held the opinion that you are trying to dispel in that analogy.

[RobTheMonk8]

@insidetrip101 That's fine, but many christians and apologists do. They think that christian apologetics is actually making the case for common christianity; they think their work has something to do with the bible and its god. That at the end of one of WLC's books, their faith has actually been affirmed: they're mistaken.

[insidetrip101]

@RobTheMonk8

"That's fine, but many christians and apologists do."

I cited Aquinas, Augustine, and Anselm. I think they all provide new insights into Christianity for their time. They are not merely rhetoricians unless you have an ideological bias.

"They think that christian apologetics is actually making the case for common christianity"

After studying medieval political philosophy (including Muslim and Jewish philosophers) I'm convinced there is on "common" religion about anything.

[RobTheMonk8]

@insidetrip101

Um, no... when did I say Anselm's arguments haven't been discussed? In fact, I rather implied the opposite, didn't I, when I said Craig has had the benefit of seeing those arguments deconstructed?

[RobTheMonk8]

@insidetrip101

Sophists believed that logic could be employed to establish the truth of anything, they didn't reject but rather embraced formal and informal fallacies; to call someone "sophist" these days suggests that they deliberately use fallacies to mislead; sort of an anti-dialectic. It's irrelevant, though: the word has become an intellectual pejorative. Arguing about who is a sophist and who is not is little more than arguing about who is a "good guy" and who is a douchebag.

[insidetrip101]

@RobTheMonk8 (cont)

I think the reason why reality would be intelligible because there is unity. Without some unifying principal, be it reason, God, Mind, whatever. This is why I believe something like strict materialism ultimately leads to philosophical skepticism, I would put polytheism and dualism in the same camp as well.

[fallingskyz]

the only person who disliked this was god... wait.

[gothatfunk]

really well thought through. good vid.

[IxFrozenTombxI]

Awesome a RobTheMonk video on my birthday. =)

[RobTheMonk8]

@IxFrozenTombxI Happy birthday!

[llllijentina]

Fear of death, ignorance and magical thinking. Common Man's God.

Money and power WLC's and other apologists God.

Of course. with a big sprinkle of tribalism, national and cultural identity.

[Lynchpinn101]

Hope your "hiatus" was wonderful and that being fully rested are prepared to offer some more gems as we're use to seeing from you. A nice bit of work here...thank you and welcome back...peace be with :)

[dalinean]

thank you excellent stuff.

now I know why hinduism's multiple gods work

[Creedonator]

As a Christian, I pretty much agree with everything in here. I've always seen most apologists as basically little boys playing games and getting men of weak faith to pay them for it. It's absurd and it has absolutely nothing to do with the tradition of the Church. No man who will honestly try to make rational arguments for God is truly religious.

[truthzen]

Worth the wait! Hope the hear more from you.

[cowpacino]

Honestly, I have no recollection of every subscribing to your channel, but after watching this video, I know why I did in the first place.

[tricklessmagic]

Great to see you back

[wimsweden]

Isn't this where they usually invoke the ontological argument to ensure the unity of the properties under the umbrella of perfection? If some being were responsible for morality alone, it would by definition not be a god, because it is not the greatest conceivable being, and no other god would be god either because they would not be responsible for morality. "God" would then also have to be a perfect communicator, though, and I don't see any evidence of that and plenty of evidence against it.

[philhellenes]

You'd get an A from me. :)

[jimbobubbadj]

Hey Its been awhile. Great to have you back. Peace.

[PaperNun]

Good to see you back Rob. 

[RobTheMonk8]

@PaperNun

Well, I have to say I'm a little embarrassed that ten months hiatus and this is all I've got to offer ;-)

[PaperNun]

@RobTheMonk8 ha no worries hun we all need a break. Just don't be a groundhog like Scott and only come up once every few mnths. (^_