I know… some of you are going to mount a defense against this…
apologetics. The rational defense of Christian faith. Historically, apologetic arguments of various types have been given: philosophical arguments for the existence of God; arguments that the existence of God is compatible with suffering and evil; historical arguments, such as arguments from miracles and fulfilled prophecies; and arguments from religious experience, including mystical experience. (See argument from prophecy; evil, problem of; mysticism; theistic arguments.) Some distinguish positive apologetics, which attempts to argue for the truth of Christianity, from negative apologetics, which merely attempts to remove barriers to faith by responding to critical attacks.
On at least on UMC FB group, there is a discussion about “apologetics.” To be truthful, while I know people who enjoy apologetics, I myself find the (well, a particular subset of the) field completely unusable — as a Christian, as a theologian, as an academic. There is simply no proof offered for God that I find convincing except for praxis, nor do I need everything to align in an “either/or” fashion in order for me to 1.) believe in God or 2.) be a Christian.
This is not meant to discount the Apologists of the early Christian era — St Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian; however, look at what they argued and how they argued. They had no real need to fit Christianity into a box but focused on proving to Rome that Christianity and Christians could exist as a not-new religion (i.e., they weren’t atheists), and answering the basic questions about Christianity that allowed it to exist (this is “historical apologetics,” according to the ]]). Contra this today when you have the need to use apologetics as a tool of conversion.
Apologetics is the vindication of the Christian philosophy of life against the various forms of the non-Christian philosophy of life.
It is frequently said that apologetics deals with theism, while evidences deals with Christianity. For that reason, it is said, apologetics deals with philosophy while evidences deals with facts.
Apologetics forces God to be rational according to human terms. I have no need for a rational God, one that can be proven by well-crafted words, calculations and latticed scaffolding. Rather, while God is known — that is not all God is. God is also Mystery.
“Religious belief should be assessed as a rounded whole rather than taken in stark isolation. Christianity, for example, like other world faiths, is a complex, large-scale system of belief which must be seen as a whole before it is assessed. To break it up into disconnected parts is to mutilate and distort its true character. We can, of course, distinguish certain elements pin the Christian faith, but we must still stand back and see it as a metaphysical system, as a world view, that is total in its scope and range.”
This is a good working quote about what it means when we once said God is Rational:
God is personal. When we say this we assert that God is rational, self-conscious and self-determining, an intelligent moral agent. As supreme mind he is the source of all rationality in the universe. Since God’s rational creatures possess independent characters, God must be in possession of a character that is divine in both its transcendence and immanence.
But can we through rationality and reasoning come to know God?
Into this debate about his existence, I will not pretend to enter. I must take up humbler ground, and limit my ambition to showing that a God, whether existent or not, is at all events the kind of being which, if he did exist, would form the most adequate possible object for minds framed like our own to conceive as lying at the root of the universe. My thesis, in other words, is this: that some outward reality of a nature defined as God’s nature must be defined, is the only ultimate object that is at the same time rational and possible for the human mind’s contemplation. Anything short of God is not rational, anything more than God is not possible, if the human mind be in truth the triadic structure of impression, reflection, and reaction which we at the outset allowed.
By the way, ]], while calling this argument “quintessentially modern” also sees in this the same arguments as advocated by people such as a certain John Wesley:
Yet its spirit is to some degree anticipated by numerous Christian writers who have appealed to “doing” the truth as a basis for understanding it (notably Baxter, Wesley, Phoebe Palmer, and Kierkegaard), stressing the importance of praxis in the knowing of God’s greatness and goodness (esp. John Cassian, Ignatius Loyola, and Teresa of Avila).
Returning to James’ argument, he is not saying that God is irrational (in the classical sense), only that the there is no argument logical enough to prove the existence of God. We believe and we do; we do and we believe. Lex orandi and all of that.
Now, go back to the first definition offered. If you are looking at certain apologetics, dealing more with philosophy and theology, count me in. Indeed, as ]] argues in his handbook on apologetics, we Christians are called to “apologetically reason.]]] But, more often than not, this is not the type of apologetics I see.
Do you like apologetics? If so, what type? Who is your favorite apologist?