Apologetics is Testimony masquerading as scholarship

Post by **_Mercury** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:35 pm

Its hard to call apologetic work science let alone scholarship. Embedded at the core of every apologetic work is a testimony, a statement wherein the apologist states that facts are not important and testimony Trump's evidence. The purpose of apologetic work is to shield the questioning faithful from the clear evidence against said faith. When consumed, the apologetic information is digested in the language of religion mingled with pseudo-academia.

There is nothing different between a Mormon apologetic piece and a gospel doctrine lesson. They all rely on faith as the ultimate voice of authority for the piece.

_rcrocket · Post by **_rcrocket** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:38 pm

If I am not mistaken, you are still a member of the Church and you accept home teachers. No?

So, you do one thing in your home and on Sundays, and another here? Why?

Post by **_Mercury** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:40 pm

rcrocket wrote:If I am not mistaken, you are still a member of the Church and you accept home teachers. No?

So, you do one thing in your home and on Sundays, and another here? Why?

That is irrelevant to the points I am making. Please contribute to the ideas I am posting to the forum instead of playing wannabe Mormon cop.

Post by **_Doctor Steuss** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:49 pm

“In Judaism, how can the worshiping of the invisible G[-]d be defended as reasonable? In Christianity, how can the belief in Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified and resurrected Lord, be defended as a reasonable type of religious belief? They cannot. Therefore, apologetics is the defense of the indefensible.”

Hans Dieter Betz, “In Defense of the Spirit: Paul’s Letter to the Galatians as a Document of Early Christian Apologetics,” in Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, ed., University of Notre Dame Press (Notre Dame, Indiana, 1976), pg 100.

Betz's entire article is pretty insightful in regards to the overall role of apologetics and its inherent flaws outside of those who are coming to the table with a priori beliefs. There are certain things (whether they are metaphysical, scriptural, ethereal, etc.) that belief is needed in in order to for apologetics to be viewed as “reasonable.” Without these beliefs, it is essentially the “defense of the indefensible.”

Also from the same author (and page for that matter), "Those who were sophisticated enough always knew the apologetic demonstrations depend primarily upon the believer’s naïveté, rather than upon the soundness of the case. Rhetoric works only as long as one does not know how it works." (Italics in original).

Betz does take a few liberties in his article, and he is mostly speaking of 1st-5th century Jewish and Christian apologetics, but nonetheless I think this essentially still applies to apologetics today (although there are some areas in apologetics where scholarly standards have probably improved).

[edited for spelling and crap... a lot]

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:49 pm

Actually, Prof. Peterson has admitted to this himself. Here are a pair of excerpts from his rather stupid essay entitled, "Apologetics by the Numbers":

DCP wrote:Critics of FARMS and FAIR commonly make several claims. Among them is the notion that writers for each organization offer neither evidence nor analysis in support of Mormon beliefs, but simply bear their testimonies. Honest readers of the FARMS Review or articles on the various FAIR Web sites will know how seriously to take that allegation.

We who write such things engage in apologetics because we believe that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, that the two of them appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove of trees near Palmyra, New York, in the spring of 1820, that the Book of Mormon is the record of ancient inhabitants of the Americas, and that the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored. And, what is more, we believe that defending these and related claims against attack, misunderstanding, and distortion--very often from writers who offer a great deal more in the way of evidence and reasoned analysis (it would be difficult to offer less) than anything Alvin, Beaver, Caleb, Doogie, and Eeyore have provided thus far--is a worthwhile thing to do, and something that we're obligated to do.

(emphasis added)

Post by **_The Nehor** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:53 pm

Mister Scratch wrote:Actually, Prof. Peterson has admitted to this himself. Here are a pair of excerpts from his rather stupid essay entitled, "Apologetics by the Numbers":

DCP wrote:Critics of FARMS and FAIR commonly make several claims. Among them is the notion that writers for each organization offer neither evidence nor analysis in support of Mormon beliefs, but simply bear their testimonies. Honest readers of the FARMS Review or articles on the various FAIR Web sites will know how seriously to take that allegation.

We who write such things engage in apologetics because we believe that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, that the two of them appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove of trees near Palmyra, New York, in the spring of 1820, that the Book of Mormon is the record of ancient inhabitants of the Americas, and that the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored. And, what is more, we believe that defending these and related claims against attack, misunderstanding, and distortion--very often from writers who offer a great deal more in the way of evidence and reasoned analysis (it would be difficult to offer less) than anything Alvin, Beaver, Caleb, Doogie, and Eeyore have provided thus far--is a worthwhile thing to do, and something that we're obligated to do.
(emphasis added)

What is stupid about that? Would you put a Liberal Democrat in charge of defending the Republican plaform? I'd rather listen to a believer.

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:55 pm

The Nehor wrote:What is stupid about that? Would you put a Liberal Democrat in charge of defending the Republican plaform? I'd rather listen to a believer.

I felt that the rhetorical stance in the essay was silly and rather "stupid." You have read the essay, right Nehor?

Post by **_The Nehor** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:59 pm

Mister Scratch wrote:
The Nehor wrote:What is stupid about that? Would you put a Liberal Democrat in charge of defending the Republican plaform? I'd rather listen to a believer.

I felt that the rhetorical stance in the essay was silly and rather "stupid." You have read the essay, right Nehor?

Yep, made perfect sense.....and if you say that proves your point I will refer to you as Petunia for the duration of my being on this board.

_rcrocket · Post by **_rcrocket** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:32 pm

You might remember that Scratch has argued in the past that FARMS review should not hand-pick its peer reviewers, and should publish alternative points of view.

I keep asking him to name a single academic journal that does not hand-pick its reviewers; he hasn't. The invitation is still open. Maybe there's a journal out there. Somehow I don't think Scratch reads academic journals nor knows what they might be.

Post by **_Doctor Steuss** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:43 pm

rcrocket wrote:[...] FARMS review [...] should publish alternative points of view.

Wouldn't be cool if they published an alternative point of view by someone like... I don't know... say, Michael Heiser?

I think that would be cool. They should do that.