Tal Bachman wrote:Everyone who posts here is an apologist.
---What would you say Tarski, for example, is an "apologist" for on this thread?
About BYU and its undergrad degrees in history, philosophy, etc., yes they are recognized by other universities. BYU is an accredited university.
I also have a soft spot for C.S. Lewis, although I do think his argument, I think in "Mere Christianity", that the nonsensical nature of the Christian myth is evidence that it's true, is about as lame as anything we might find in on the MADness board. It's amazing how creative bright people get when they wish to defend ideas incompatible with everything else we know about the world, and even logic itself.
Universities are not accredited; departments are. I searched the BYU website pretty hard and found no accreditation claims for those majors, though I DID find claims for many other departments. In the history department I thought it was interesting that they proudly called out that they offer an accredited degree in "Family History and Geneology," but that other traditional history degrees were not cited.
CS Lewis is definitely not perfect. But he does practice full disclosure and generosity. In your example, I do not believe Lewis argues that the strange stories in the New Testament prove Christianity is true, but that they invalidate the argument that the New Testament is propoganda. A propagandist does not include a Christ who apparently doubts on the Cross, an apostle who denies his Messiah, another apostle who is a murderer, apostles who argue about who gets to be on the Messiah's right hand, etc. Nor would they fail to get their story straight; who saw Jesus after the resurrection, when, where, etc. These problems say that whatever else you may believe, the theory that a "bunch of liars made it up to gain followers" is really weak.
The human capacity for deception - and self-deception - is astonishing. Scientists have an astonishing track record of self-deception. Kuhn cites numerous specific examples in "The Structure of Scientific Revolution." This is just historical fact.
The other understanding that comes out of Kuhn - and other luminaries such as Michael Polanyi - is that Science operates as a system of faith. Scientists "believe in" theories... or not... often based on incomplete evidence. The difference is that science eventually allows the accumulation of new evidence to change what is seen as true. Sometimes, as Kuhn points out, all the "powers that be" in the scientific world must die or retire for the new paradigm to be accepted. So science as a whole does not ascribe to dogma, though individual scientists do so all the time. Religions do have certain dogmas that no amount of external evidence will ever change.
So yeah, Tarksi is an apologist, as were Carl Sagan or Bertrand Russel when discussing religion. They attempt to convince others that their system of thought is rational and valid.
I'd like to end with a question: Do you find that atheists react with more hostility to Christianity than to Buddhism or Hinduism? You cannot be really angry with that which you believe to be fictional. You might dislike Harry Potter fans, but you don't loath Voldemort. I think the hostility signifies something deeper going on in the psyches of those who fight hardest against - or for - Christianity. Real belief does not generate anger but calm curiousity.