Is Apologetics incompatible with Intellectual Honesty?

[_Yahoo Bot]

It is certainly fashionable amongst [Telestial-caliber comment deleted] to sneer at Nibley.

But for his period he was the greatest. His Approaching Zion is a wonderful assault upon the more venal aspects of Mormon culture.

[_Gadianton]

But for his period he was the greatest. His Approaching Zion is a wonderful assault upon the more venal aspects of Mormon culture.

The Review has not been kind at all to Nibley's social commentary. If you are calling them apostate for their sneering, I stand with you in agreement. They are pretty hard-core right wingers over there now. Probably huge fans of the Austrian School.

Approaching Zion was good. After I read The Theory of the Leisure Class, sometime after I had read the standard FARMS editions of Nibley, I felt I finally understood Nibley's entire project from his comments on history to his jabs at the brethren. So he's kind of derivative, but still very good. The few jabs he made at Carl Sagan were far more effective than the official FARMS Review of The Demon Haunted World.

[_Jason Bourne]

Perhaps. I'm still interested in what you consider to be good apologetics.

And to be fair, I used to really like Hugh Nibley style apologetics (I read the first 13 volumes of his collected works). In fact, I owe a lot of my interests and hobbies to Hugh Nibley. I would never have learned Greek nor studied ancient history as a hobby without having encountered High Nibley's writing my freshman year at BYU.

However, after I had finally done what Hugh Nibley inspired me to do (get at least a passing familiarity with the ancient world and its cultures) I went back to Nibley to see if I could understand him better. This was in my NOM phase. I did understand what he was saying better, and I was quite frankly shocked at just how bad his arguments and evidence were. It was like night and day. As a starry eyed undergraduate I was absolutely enthralled with him, now as an adult I was almost embarrassed by my younger self. I say almost because how much can a young person educated in American public schools really know?

Right now I really just don't have the energy or enthusiasm to debate you are Kevin on this. Maybe you both are really right and I just cannot find anything worthwhile. I have found I feel less than excited about any aplogetics, LDS or mainstream Christian. Both seem to me and only interested in defending their position, not at getting at truth. But perhaps that is what apologetics is all about

But briefly, I have liked some of what Blake Ostler writes but a recent argument that the LDS Church has little to know official doctrine as well as a poor argument for polygamy that he made left a bad taste in my mouth. I think Dan Peterson has decimated a few books written by EV critics against the church in the FARMS review as well as a few others. I think Richard Lloyd Andersen's witness book is pretty good though I am not sure that is an apologetic. I liked Robinson and Bloomberg's How Wide the Divide. And I really do like Peterson's Offenders for a Word.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Moderation on this board really sucks. Uneven. Cliquey.

[_Yoda]

Moderation on this board really sucks. Uneven. Cliquey.

Care to give an example?

[_sock puppet]

I think it's uncharitable to hold the apologetic project to the same standards as, say, standard historical scholarship.

I think if the question is simply the relative merits of one apologetic piece versus others, I agree. It would be uncharitable to apply the standard of historical scholarship. But the question was a larger one. Is apologetics incompatible with intellectual honesty. On this larger scholarly landscape, and to answer the title question, arguing for a lesser standard is a mere diversion from the question posed.

Why would a lesser standard be acceptable for listeners of apologetics than say historical scholarship? Apologetics is the defense of religious beliefs, the promoters of which are asking people to accept and change the way they live their lives. Give 10%, don't do this, don't do that, etc. History is the lens through which we view the past, and yes, it informs us about the human nature and mistakes and triumphs man has made so that we can learn from them and factor that in. But it history does not ask as much from individuals as religion does. So why should religious defense get a bye, and allowed a lesser standard?

[_sock puppet]

I have found I feel less than excited about any aplogetics, LDS or mainstream Christian. Both seem the seam to me and only interested in defending their position, not at getting at truth. But perhaps that is what apologetics is all about.

Exactly, Jason. Apologetics, whether LDS or maintstream Chrisiant, is not about getting at truth. Seeking truth, and following wherever the evidence leads, is intellectual honesty. And apologetics is the antithesis of intellectual honesty. I think DrW has made that point well with this excerpt:

In the enterprise of science, [it] is "evidence looking for answers" ... .

In the enterprise of religion (and especially apologetics), one is engaged in generating answers and looking for confirming evidence. Apologetics is an "answers looking for evidence" process.

Apologetics is not the search for truth and answers. It is the contrary of intellectual honesty.

[_Jersey Girl]

Moderation on this board really sucks. Uneven. Cliquey.

Care to give an example?

STS,

I believe the woman asked you a question. I don't see a reply from you. I'll ask it another way.

What is your example of uneven and cliquey moderation on this board?

[_sock puppet]

Moderation on this board really sucks. Uneven. Cliquey.

Care to give an example?

STS,

I believe the woman asked you a question. I don't see a reply from you. I'll ask it another way.

What is your example of uneven and cliquey moderation on this board?

Has Snidely Whiplash--aka Daniel C Peterson--ever once been so much as verbally rebuked by a mod here for his sneering, demeaning condescension? Even once?

[_selek]

In fact, Christian apologia has, for hundreds of years, tried to reconcile scientific findings with Biblical doctrine. Not always successful. I think it impossible to reconcile science and the doctrine of the atonement and resurrection, much less prophets, gold plates and angels.

Agreed. Yet one more reason why, in my estimation, many ex-mos end up agnostic or atheistic. They apply the same scrutiny, logic and reason to religion in general and religion comes up lacking.

Yahoo Bot, your argument is the classic "Their [holy book, church, religion, apologia, etc.] is just as bad as mine" defense. It doesn't support your argument. In fact, it hurts your argument.