Apologetics, and Why I Should Probably Specialize in Something

[shawntc]

I am an apologetics junkie. I say "junkie" because I have yet to actually engage in much apologetic discussion. Largely because most people don't want to, and also because a lot of times I'm just not equipped.

At this point I could give a basic defense of the kalam cosmological argument, or explain how Christianity has a historical backing that most people seem not to know about. But right now I'm a jack of all trades, master of none. There are many different fields of apologetics on different topics. If I want to be confident in my skills, and perhaps last more than five minutes when talking with a skeptic, it might be best for me to pick one of these topics and get really, really good at it. Now, what should I go for? Here are some ideas and responses to them.

Kalam (and other) cosmological arguments: defended to heck and back. The Kalam is an interesting argument but doesn't really get my attention.

Teleological argument: this involves things like the multiverse, intelligent design, and by extension could deal with stuff like irreducible complexity. It's rather science-y and I kind of like it. Consider it an option.

Moral arguments: part of me remains unsold with the moral argument. Mainly because I've yet to see anything that doesn't appeal to experience or intuition, or just plain says "you've got no reason not to think objective morals exist." I sense it would be powerful but I don't want to devote my time to it.

Ontological argument: Um... no.

Social apologetics: dealing with social issues. While this may be practical, it doesn't work with the bigger questions of "Does God exist?" and "Was Jesus who he said he was?" and I'd rather go for the bigger questions.

Internal apologetics: age of the Earth, correct type of church government, Calvinism vs. Arminianism, and so on. These are secondary issues, and when I'm talking to a skeptic there are bigger fish to fry. (Sorry Jonah!)

Presuppositional apologetics: this can be pretty powerful since it seems to undercut an opponent's arguments, but I prefer the way classical apologetics are done.

Historical apologetics: this is the other one I really like. It talks about formation of the Bible, evidence for Jesus as an actual person, and the like. More than any of the others, this one really feels like stuff that is, how do I word it, actually real. It's not philosophical, it's actual.

When it's all tallied up, I think the two which I want to do most are teleological argument and historicity of Jesus and the Bible. I need to further think out what this entails, but both of these pretty well address the issues of God's existence and Jesus as Messiah.

 

[maxwel]

I think the most important, and overlooked benefit of apologetics, is the enormous benefit they have in strengthening young Christians. Young people get into high school, or college, and have their faith shattered because they are battered and ridiculed mercilessly by teachers and peers, and they don't even know REAL evidence exists to support the scripture.

My own opinion is that the teleological arguments, as well as the historical arguments, are the most useful and practical in teaching young believers, as well as having serious discussion with atheists. Most non believers hang their hat on evolution, and once you poke enough holes in it, they can at least begin to question their paradigm. Evolutionary theory drilled into everyone's head from childhood is just an enormous obstacle.

 

[shawntc]

Maxwel, I hope you get some kind of notification for me responding to you, because I have to say, you are so right!!!

In 2011 I had a severe crisis of faith where I teetered on agnosticism. I had heard so many skeptics asking questions about Christianity and either they got no response, or the responses were so weak that the skeptic would smash right through them. Seeing this apparently losing battle made me really question whether God did indeed exist, or if God was just some happy fable invented so we could get through this life with a smile.

For about a month I could find no good sources to answer my questions. Then a pastor who had barely heard of apologetics lent me a book on it, and it was such an incredible thing. I learned that yes, my faith is reasonable! Yes, I could answer questions without appealing to some vague thing my pastor said a month ago! People may talk bad about apologetics but honestly, my faith is stronger now. It's not the core of my faith, but it is a powerful bastion that can help me get through periods of doubt. It's also become a passion of mine, and I want to learn much more and share my knowledge with whoever wants it.