Here's an Interesting Blog on Apologetics and Sophistry

[MineralMan]

The author is Benjamin David Steele. I think it's worth reading. I'll quote a bit of it. To read the rest, just click the link below:

https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/the-love-of-truth-vs-the-sophistry-of-apologetics/

The Love of Truth vs. the Sophistry of Apologetics

A major reason I blog now is because apologists annoy me. I used to post on discussion boards, but the discussions tend to get dragged down to the lowest common denominator.

Apologists are annoying in that they can often be anti-intellectual, but not always. Sometimes they’re quite intellectually capable even when their focus is very narrow. It can even take a while to realize you’re dealing with an apologist because many believers prefer to not express their beliefs openly. That is even more annoying because I can sense that the person is filtering everything they think, but it takes effort to realize they’re not actually open to new viewpoints. The most intelligent apologists have a knack for creating convoluted arguments and false herrrings.

What is even worse is when they demand you defend your argument when they can’t defend their own. I’ve spent years studying religion, and it’s a complex field. Why would I want to deal with people who’ve only read very narrowly? Why would want to try to spoonfeed information to those who have no respect for knowledge? And apologists can be persistent, going around and around with the same tired ploys.

Beyond all of that, what really annoys me is that apologists are very talented at perverting the truth. To me, truth is my faith. When someone uses rational logic falsely or deceptively, then it pisses me off. I just don’t understand how someone can act rationally while at the same time having little respect for rationality.

[wasupaloopa]

1. You got me at truth is my faith. Is that also like saying my faith is truth.

I don’t think any of us can know what truth is most of the time.

Unless you can support your truth with facts and evidence there is no reassurance you know the truth about something. To me when you believe something is true without being able to support it then that is faith.

[MineralMan]

2. Some people equate faith and truth.

That is at the base of most of their premises. For Christian apologists, their faith that God exists is the starting point in every argument. If you ask for proof of that, they will just say something lame like, "What is the proof that God does not exist?"

Trying to explain the impossibility of proving a negative is a waste of time with such people. The only possible response, really, is to walk away, since there is no logical argument possible.

If the initial premise is that an all-powerful God created everything, the rest of the argument is simply going to be fallacious. There's no point to continuing, because that person has "faith" that God exists. They will never admit that their opening premise might be faulty. So, no logical argument is possible.

[wasupaloopa]

5. My brother is a Catholic priest and I am Buddhist so we stay off the religion topic for

the reasons you pointed out.

For them the god created everything leads to god is in control of everything. "God's will" folks drive me nuts. Praying for god's intervention is ridiculous but it is my brothers stock in trade.

[longship]

3. Amongst the worst is William Lane Craig.

He comes at things in a pseudo intellectual, philosophical direction. But when one listens to him, it's all rubbishy cognitive bias like the argument the Bible informs one that the Bible is true.

Plus, the idiot debates just about everybody.

[MineralMan]

4. I used to try to refute their nonsense

with logic. I gave up. They will simply dig deeper into their tautological nonsense for as long as you stick around. So I stopped bothering with Christian apologists. I simply say it's rubbish and move on. Here, I'll try a little harder, but only briefly.