Perils of Being a Mormosphere Influencer

[Whiskey]

I think PG had some good observations in general. The inevitable counter is that anybody arguing for anything at all can be labeled an apologist. See whiskey. Even the way I teach long division could be labeled as apologetics by someone who prefers a different method. There is no absolute demarcation between apologetics and whatever else. We could ask what is meant exactly by apologetics; if it’s just bad reasoning then it’s not a very useful label. If it’s not possible for apologetics to be persuasive to reasonable people then I think it’s a problematic label. However, if it is possible for apologetics to be persuasive to reasonable people then the problem isn’t that it’s apologetics per se.

I think a starting point is: does the apologist consider themselves an apologist? It’s not unusual, and so how do they view what they do as qualifying the label? That way if whiskey wants to make it about anything at all any person justifies then it could be said he’s in serious disagreement with those he’s trying to defend.

The apologist is making an explanation, plausible or not, for a conclusion. The hell are you calling it?

[Gadianton]

I have no idea Whiskey, but a discussion on what "apologetics" means would be in order.

[Philo Sofee]

Thanks for the response, Shades. It is interesting to see how this lands with you. I am eager to see how others respond, too.

I suspect it is the non-stop, incessant analysis which is usually on the negative end that has caused most apologists to become snarly. Some go for vicious imagining this is what valiant in a testimony is supposed to be. It is one of the main reasons I have just ceased talking to Mormons at all anywhere on line for any reason. I have just about arrived at that spot with ex-Mormons as well for a real reason. I see it all as an effort to tear down. There appears to me to be precious rare little growth in souls anymore online no matter what part of the great divide you land. Therefore, I am much happier simply letting it go and moving onto something I love and am finally able to share with others who appreciate it and makes them feel better, which makes me feel better, which makes them feel better which in turn makes me feel better......and well..........if you couldn't tell, its addicting, and I am loving being where I am online these days. It is no surprise really that you were unfriended. It is sad, but no surprise. I personally took the initiative and simply said no to it, turned and walked away, much to the betterment of my mind and soul. I am actually learning things again and able to share exciting ideas and mull things over with folks without worrying whether I am right or not. It is beyond delightful for me. I peek in every now and again at the Mormons, but never discuss anything with them. Why would I? They already know everything and the truth and are hard as rock and dumb as stone. Kind of like me. I do wish you the best, you are one of my favorite online persons, and enjoy reading your contributions.

[Whiskey]

I have no idea Whiskey, but a discussion on what "apologetics" means would be in order.

Seems so. We have decades of carrying on about apologists here and we don't know what the hell is an apologist? Gotta say..... kinda funny really.

[Whiskey]

Thanks for the response, Shades. It is interesting to see how this lands with you. I am eager to see how others respond, too.

I have just about arrived at that spot with ex-Mormons as well for a real reason.

There is a consistency in the tone and content. Same dopamine hits are happening for about the same intellectual effort - on both sides.

As for me, my response to all this, the process is fascinating, the content is boring as crap. That is true for the Book of Abraham, the Epstein files, the CES letters, Climate Murder, Murder Climate and Climate Murder Murder Climate, and trans fascist fobiacism. Boring as crap. Same apologists doing the same crap for all of it, with some getting a greater dopamine hit than others. The process though, can't stop watching it. Huge interest in the process.

[Morley]

I think PG had some good observations in general. The inevitable counter is that anybody arguing for anything at all can be labeled an apologist. See whiskey. Even the way I teach long division could be labeled as apologetics by someone who prefers a different method. There is no absolute demarcation between apologetics and whatever else. We could ask what is meant exactly by apologetics; if it’s just bad reasoning then it’s not a very useful label. If it’s not possible for apologetics to be persuasive to reasonable people then I think it’s a problematic label. However, if it is possible for apologetics to be persuasive to reasonable people then the problem isn’t that it’s apologetics per se.

I think a starting point is: does the apologist consider themselves an apologist? It’s not unusual, and so how do they view what they do as qualifying the label? That way if whiskey wants to make it about anything at all any person justifies then it could be said he’s in serious disagreement with those he’s trying to defend.

I agree that the definition of apologetics, as only applying to discussion of matters of religion and faith, is quickly disappearing. I think that's too bad. The reason religions need an apologetic defense is that they're on such thin ice empirically. Their devotees often can’t argue from evidence. They need a different approach. Apologetics.

To adequately explain the why and how of bread and wine truly becoming the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist, I need apologetics. Nothing I can chart in Excel is going to quite do the job. When I argue that the Prophet Mohammed (blessed be his name) needed a nine-year-old for his bride, no appeal to standard ethics is going to work. I'm going to have to grind out some apologetics. I can't plug data from questionnaires into SPSS to determine the statistical significance of near-death experiences as they relate to the perceived reality of actual heaven. No, in order to argue the value of NDE, I need to manufacture some serious apologetic BS.

The contemporary tendency to assign the concept of 'apologetics' to theories in disciplines like history, psychology, politics, economics, and (now, even) epidemiology is an attempt to dilute the legitimacy of various approaches in those disciplines. Under apologetics, every argument is deconstructed to be nothing more than a statement of opinion--the parallel of faith. This way, Hitler can be seen as no worse than Churchill. Science is no more prove-able than religion. The Theory of Evolution is, ahem, just a theory. It can't be proven, and is no more legitimate than the stories in Genesis (which by the way, are true fact). The research into gun violence should be discarded because, you know, you can get research published to support any position. Autism is caused by Tylenol, vaccinations, and interrupted wet dreams--because, duh, common sense, something-we-don't-have-enough-of-today-wouldn't-you-agree. Yes, when everything is apologetics, there’s a leveling effect that some find quite appealing.

In this way, every discipline is reduced to being 'just apologetics.' There really is no knowledge, per se, just theory, and that means that my intuition is as good as your years of education and expertise. It’s kind of nice now that I know that those so-called experts don't know as much as they think they do. I may be as smart as they are. Experts and laymen alike, we’re all just apologists “asking questions.”


It’s dysfunctional.

[Morley]

I have just about arrived at that spot with ex-Mormons as well for a real reason.

There is a consistency in the tone and content. Same dopamine hits are happening for about the same intellectual effort - on both sides.

As for me, my response to all this, the process is fascinating, the content is boring as crap. That is true for the Book of Abraham, the Epstein files, the CES letters, Climate Murder, Murder Climate and Climate Murder Murder Climate, and trans fascist fobiacism. Boring as crap. Same apologists doing the same crap for all of it, with some getting a greater dopamine hit than others. The process though, can't stop watching it. Huge interest in the process.

You’re right, my friend. It’s all about process. The real beauty is always in the process.

The act of painting the picture is more important than the picture.

[Physics Guy]

Even the way I teach long division could be labeled as apologetics by someone who prefers a different method. There is no absolute demarcation between apologetics and whatever else. We could ask what is meant exactly by apologetics; if it’s just bad reasoning then it’s not a very useful label.

I think that apologetics is a broad term which could cover a lot of things, but I can try to reverse-engineer a definition by asking myself whether I would or would not use the term "apologetics" in various scenarios.

I think would indeed use the a-word for a defence of a particular way of doing long division, if the defence were arguing that the particular method was objectively the best way, in the face of a common belief that it was only one valid way among many. And I think I would also call it apologetics if the division apologist were arguing that the method was valid, though not necessarily optimal, against a common view that the method didn't even work.

So from this I infer that apologetics is about trying to uphold an objective statement, as something that everyone should believe. This could include statements like, "There is nothing objectively wrong with holding the following subjective opinion." That statement itself is supposed to be an objective fact, even though it deals with opinions. So pinning down what the objective issue is could be subtle, but I think that a claim to objectivity has to be there in some form. Merely asserting a personal preference doesn't count to me as apologetics.

And on the other hand I don't think it counts as apologetics to assert things to an audience which does not doubt the assertions. The audience to which apologetic arguments are addressed might be a fictitious audience, but I think that a disbelieving audience has to be assumed as part of the grammar, as it were, of apologetics. There can be multiple audiences; as in apologetics theatre, the real (and paying) audience may be believers, but if there isn't at least a notional audience of unbelievers to be addressed formally, while the believing crowd listens in, then it's not even apologetics theatre, but some other kind of theatre instead.

I think that's about as narrow as I'm going to go, in defining "apologetics": telling an audience that doesn't believe something why everyone ought to believe it. In particular I don't think that the definition requires apologetics to be bad reasoning. I think that what my definition implies is rather that apologetics has to be trying to be good reasoning. I think that apologetics is associated with bad reasoning for the same reason that boxing is associated with getting hit in the face. Reasoning well is difficult. Apologists are all trying not to get hit in the face, but it's hard, and so often they fail.

[bill4long]

I have no idea Whiskey, but a discussion on what "apologetics" means would be in order.

With regard to reglious apologetics, esp Christian, the term stems from the Greek apología in 1 Peter 3:15. It means a reasoned defense.

Whether or not one is a professional apologist or not, when engaging in a defense of a doctrine, church, etc., one is engaging in apologetics and is therefore an apologist whether or not they identify as such. Similarly, I am not a pro golfer, but when I golf, I'm a golfer when I'm engaged in the act of golfing, at very least. If I golf on a regular basis, it would be fair to refer to me as a golfer even when I'm not golfing (although, not a very good one.)

[Gadianton]

I agree that the definition of apologetics, as only applying to discussion of matters of religion and faith, is quickly disappearing. I think that's too bad. The reason religions need an apologetic defense is that they're on such thin ice empirically. Their devotees often can’t argue from evidence. They need a different approach. Apologetics.

Right -- it's almost hard to imagine it not taking this path. Becoming the defense attorney for "matters of faith" to be charitable, is unlikely to work out very well, and therefore the entire category of such defense becomes an insult. That's step one. Step two is now that we have a good word that describes a person steeply engaged in chronic bad reasoning for matters difficult to prove, it's liable to get thrown around easily as an insult. Step three is for those engaged in such a profession to generalize it as anyone giving a passionate opinion about something in order for anything to become a matter of faith, as in your last paragraph.

Stanton Friedman used to say, "Don't be a UFOlogist apologist." The question is, is that possible?

To adequately explain the why and how of bread and wine truly becoming the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist, I need apologetics. Nothing I can chart in Excel is going to quite do the job. When I argue that the Prophet Mohammed (blessed be his name) needed a nine-year-old for his bride, no appeal to standard ethics is going to work. I'm going to have to grind out some apologetics. I can't plug data from questionnaires into SPSS to determine the statistical significance of near-death experiences as they relate to the perceived reality of actual heaven. No, in order to argue the value of NDE, I need to manufacture some serious apologetic BS.

All perfect examples. A chemist who writes an encyclopedia on transubstantiation, lol.

The Theory of Evolution is, ahem, just a theory. It can't be proven, and is no more legitimate than the stories in Genesis (which by the way, are true fact).

Stephen Jay Gould, serious evolutionist, but if his theory isn't quickly embraced then the entire establishment is a sham engaged in apologetics.