Apologetics: Why bother?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Incidentally, I think Jersey Girl has Kerry right; I know that her comments apply very well to a lot of others.

And I apologize for playing along with the Scartchmeister's attempt to steer this thread away from substantive discussion.

[_JustMe]

For Jersey Girl and Dan Peterson. That is precisely what I mean when I say I don't lose faith in what I know because of what I don't know. Jersey Girl your explanation about its meaning is very well written and gets to the point.
I mean there are literally untold trillions of things scientists don't know..... yet. But do they wake up in the morning and say I quit, I can't go on because of what I don't know? LOL!

[_Daniel Peterson]

For those who've forgotten what this thread is about, following Scartch's attempted hijacking of it as yet another venue from which to conduct his interminable campaign to blacken my character and defame me, here's Jersey Girl's opening post:

I've been on these boards for (too long) quite some time now and I am often left wondering why (some) LDS spend so much time engaging in apologetics.

Who is the target audience of the apologist?

Isn't apologetics really a response to critics? If so, then why bother? Why do apologists feel a need to "prove" their religion to non or ex-LDS? If the position of the critics are inferior, why do these positions warrant any response at all?

And if you go about attempting to "prove" your religion, does that mean your faith is weak?

You tell me.

[_Yoda]

Moderator Note---Per the thread-starter's request, I have split the IRS conversation to a new thread. Please continue the conversation about Apologetics here. ;)

[_Jersey Girl]

Lord love ya, Liz.

Thank you!

[_Yoda]

Lord love ya, Liz.

Thank you!

Told ya I only split it because I love you! LOL

[_Jersey Girl]

Really tired from driving 100 miles after working a full day, don't ask, so expect no miracles here with regards to the following. Not that anyone does...

I had asked this:

And if you go about attempting to "prove" your religion, does that mean your faith is weak?

I don't think that all apologist are particularly out to "prove" their religion. Honestly, I am most familiar with what Kerry does and I think there is a part of that, that has nothing whatsoever to do with "proving" anything. I had stated in a previous post that I think he's often misunderstood. I think he plainly likes reading a book and following the trail that it leads him on.

You know the Frost line (don't get me started on Frost quotes) "two roads diverged in a wood"? I think he is one that seeks the road less traveled and becomes fully jazzed when he finds two roads that converge.

He's also got that "BS" ;-) degree in History. (That's a joke based on one of his videos, by the way) and I think he simply enjoys learning about other cultures and their traditions.

So, no, I don't think that apologetics are simply for the purpose of "proving" one's religion.

I think some of the apologists enjoy the "dig".

You could probably line up 10 apologists and learn that while one is engaging in apologetics solely based on scripture, another (like Kerry) draws from their academic focus and such.

I see this guy on RFM, who from time to time, posts and old-old-old series of exchanges between himself and Kerry and uses that to prove Kerry wrong or what have you. He's not aware that Kerry has continued to "dig" in the (perhaps) 10 years following those exchanges, has revised his thinking on old theories and assertions, and that his thinking and theories have become more sophisticated.

My point is that he thinks.

These are my observations and opinions.

[_Jersey Girl]

I wanted to say too, based on my observations on boards like this for a number of years, that anti's/critics and especially ex-Mo's rely heavily on stereotyping when they comment on apologists and their work.

[_Some Schmo]

If you look at his comments in context, he is responding to a person who said that when she was a believer, she spent alot of time trying to patch up weak spots in her testimony.

Kerry says that he does have weak spots in his own testimony but he doesn't feel a need to patch them up. He trust what he believes he knows about God based on his own perceived encounters with God or responses FROM God, and I'd have to say, what and LDS man would call his "personal revelations" about God. He believes that certain things "ring true" with regards to his religious traditions.

These are the things he believes he knows.

In those areas where he feels either uncertainty or unsureness, he relies on faith. He accepts that there are some things that he will never know or can never know in this life time. He's a little agnostic in that regard. (So am I)

These are the things he doesn't know and they don't cancel out what he believes he does know to be true about God and his religious tradition.

He feels a responsibility (actually, I think he feels "called" to do it) to continue learning from the best sources he can find to increase his knowledge. He values the process of learning and discovery. He feels a responsiblity to use and grow the intellect that he believes God gave him.

I think that all things considered, Kerry "walks on faith" (this is an Ev term), acts on what he believes to be true about God and for what he doesn't know...he gives that to God.

Kerry?

p.s. I think Kerry goes misunderstood by many.

I don't have my regular keyboard attached to my laptop, and I hate typing on this little keyboard, so I'll make this brief for now.

So it turns out this really is just a difference in terminology. I mean, much of what you said applies to me (aside from the god stuff) with respect to what I know and don't know. I just wouldn't use the word faith in any of that to describe how I handle the gaps in my knowledge. It's just too irrational for me. I recognize my ignorance and let go of the fact that ignorance is an inevitable fact of everyone's life. I don’t know everything. Nobody does (as much as some pretend to). Big deal, right? That's been my experience. It's based on evidence. No faith is required.

If anything, I believe this way of thinking makes a person more open to revising and making distinctions about the things they think they already do know, because they don't put some imaginary restraint on their "knowledge", claiming they need “faith” in it. Having faith sounds like close-mindedness to me, and motivated by simple comfort.

There's little doubt that "knowledge" is illusory and fleeting. Holding on to what you think you know can lead to the heights of arrogance (as we regularly see on this board, for instance), especially observable when someone is so wacky and "out there."

I fail to see the benefit or any place for "faith" in this equation. All I see is potential for unnecessary embarrassment.

[_SUAS]

I don't have my regular keyboard attached to my laptop, and I hate typing on this little keyboard, so I'll make this brief for now.

So it turns out this really is just a difference in terminology. I mean, much of what you said applies to me (aside from the god stuff) with respect to what I know and don't know. I just wouldn't use the word faith in any of that to describe how I handle the gaps in my knowledge. It's just too irrational for me. I recognize my ignorance and let go of the fact that ignorance is an inevitable fact of everyone's life. I don’t know everything. Nobody does (as much as some pretend to). Big deal, right? That's been my experience. It's based on evidence. No faith is required.

If anything, I believe this way of thinking makes a person more open to revising and making distinctions about the things they think they already do know, because they don't put some imaginary restraint on their "knowledge", claiming they need “faith” in it. Having faith sounds like close-mindedness to me, and motivated by simple comfort.

There's little doubt that "knowledge" is illusory and fleeting. Holding on to what you think you know can lead to the heights of arrogance (as we regularly see on this board, for instance), especially observable when someone is so wacky and "out there."

I fail to see the benefit or any place for "faith" in this equation. All I see is potential for unnecessary embarrassment.

Exactly

That is why there are non-fiction and fiction sections in the library.

Without the evidence to back something up then it would be classifed FICTION

NON-FICTION means that there is cold hard or warm evidence to back a claim up.

Also could be why that there is religious section as well.