Apologetics does not begin with the answers?!

[_EAllusion]

He demonstrates perfectly why apologetics will never be scholarship....

Of course apologetics is not scholarship, nor is it supposed to be. Apologetics is the art of defending one's faith against criticisms by unbelievers, and it makes use of various disciplines including scholarship to accomplish that. Its primary objective is to point out the flaws in the critic's argument, and thus to neutralize their criticisms. Its purpose is not to "do scholarship," but to prove the critic wrong.

The purpose of apologetics is to demonstrate that faith in the religion the apologetics is for is rational or persuasive. Reducing apologetics into refutation of critics is a retreat that slights what apologetics aims for.

[_zerinus]

The purpose of apologetics is to demonstrate that faith in the religion the apologetics is for is rational or persuasive. Reducing apologetics into refutation of critics is a retreat that slights what apologetics aims for.

Apologetics wouldn't exist if the criticism of the critics never existed. Apologetics literally means a defense. There would be no need for a defense if there was never an attack. If the objective is simply to persuade people to believe and accept your religion on a rational basis, there is another name for that, it is called expository teaching or preaching. But when you call it apologetics, you are presupposing some kind of criticism or attack against which you are offering a rational justification or a defense. The two concepts may be closely related, but they are not the same.

[_Gadianton]

Apologetics wouldn't exist if the criticism of the critics never existed. Apologetics literally means a defense. There would be no need for a defense if there was never an attack. If the objective is simply to persuade people to believe and accept your religion on a rational basis, there is another name for that, it is called expository teaching or preaching. But when you call it apologetics, you are presupposing some kind of criticism or attack against which you are offering a rational justification or a defense. The two concepts may be closely related, but they are not the same.

http://biblehub.com/greek/627.htm

627 /apología ("reasoned defense") is the term for making a legal defense in an ancient court. Today 627 /apología ("biblical apologetics") is used for supplying evidences for the Christian faith.

[_mentalgymnast]

In practice, however, there doesn't seem to be a real framework for studying the non-natural, and so apologetics does seem to simply engage in bad science.

In many cases, that is probably true. But you do have folks such as Steven Peck that engage in 'good' science as they practice their faith.

Does Steven Peck do apologetics?

I would consider him an apologist.

Here is a podcast that might help you determine whether or not you think he is.

http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/08/ ... rodactyls/

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

In practice, however, there doesn't seem to be a real framework for studying the non-natural, and so apologetics does seem to simply engage in bad science.

In many cases, that is probably true. But you do have folks such as Steven Peck that engage in 'good' science as they practice their faith.

Does Steven Peck do apologetics?

I would consider him an apologist.

Here is a podcast that might help you determine whether or not you think he is.

http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/08/ ... rodactyls/

Regards,
MG

I think you missed the point of my post. Did you see Gadianton's post, right after mine?

Well that reference sure came from nowhere MG. You missed the context (surprising as that may be). The context was specifically those who assume the church is true and work backwards to justify it and claim something along the lines that their assumption of the Church is just as valid as an assumption of naturalism. At first blush, whatever issues this Peck guy might have, it doesn't seem this is his problem. It looks more like he's a wild theological speculator. Totally different animal than an apologist.

[_mentalgymnast]

I think you missed the point of my post. Did you see Gadianton's post, right after mine?

Earlier in the thread Gadianton said:

In practice, however, there doesn't seem to be a real framework for studying the non-natural, and so apologetics does seem to simply engage in bad science.

I'm simply pointing out that here we have a fellow that may not fit that mould.

You can take it for what it's worth. He's a respected scientist. He's a believer. He does a podcast and writes books to 'defend the faith'.

I don't expect that you will necessarily listen to the podcast I linked to. But others may. It is for them that I posted the link.

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

I think you missed the point of my post. Did you see Gadianton's post, right after mine?

Earlier in the thread Gadianton said:

In practice, however, there doesn't seem to be a real framework for studying the non-natural, and so apologetics does seem to simply engage in bad science.

I'm simply pointing out that here we have a fellow that may not fit that mould....

Ok. Could you give a specific example of where he specifically exercises good scientific principles within his apologetic writings?

[_Gadianton]

MG,

You literally torque-wrenched that quote from me out of context. Did you read the first paragraph and did you understand it? (no, and no, of course).

"Apologetics does seem to simply engage in bad science (in this context, meaning apologetics as defined by some prominent apologists as assuming the church is true and working backwards to support it. Nearly by definition, using standard tools of science, this would be bad science)".

So what does the link to Peck say about that? Is your argument that Peck doesn't work backwards yet he's still an apologist? Is your argument that he does work backward yet this is still good science? What is your point, MG?

[_Jersey Girl]

MG,

You literally torque-wrenched that quote from me out of context. Did you read the first paragraph and did you understand it? (no, and no, of course).

"Apologetics does seem to simply engage in bad science (in this context, meaning apologetics as defined by some prominent apologists as assuming the church is true and working backwards to support it. Nearly by definition, using standard tools of science, this would be bad science)".

So what does the link to Peck say about that? Is your argument that Peck doesn't work backwards yet he's still an apologist? Is your argument that he does work backward yet this is still good science? What is your point, MG?

I'm just putting this out there. You are not dealing with someone who isn't teachable. You are dealing with a game playing obnoxious child-like overly defensive person who doesn't see the value of intellectually honest and forthright exchange of ideas and information.

That is all.

[_grindael]

... when you call it apologetics, you are presupposing some kind of criticism or attack against which you are offering a rational justification or a defense.

Yeah, and it is totally RATIONAL to claim the Book of Mormon is true WITH NO EVIDENCE (only a CLAIMED supernatural experience)?

It is totally RATIONAL to focus your apologetics on your personal CLAIMED supernatural belief and then "fit" whatever one deems as evidence to this paradigm?

None of this is rational. (based on or in accordance with reason or logic.) FAITH is personal believe in things unseen or unknown except by others who claim them by faith, and is not based on reason or logic.

That is why apologetics with this as a basis is dishonest. The honest thing to do is the claim that all the evidence there is, is the CLAIMED supernatural experience.

If you want reason or logic or actual evidence, then lets start seeing Mormon "prophets" raising the dead, making the lame walk, giving sight to the blind, calling down fire from heaven, etc., etc. But we will see none of that, there is always some excuse why it never happens. Let's see DNA evidence, evidence of steel, horses, and the remains of battles fought with millions of people involved. But alas, there is no evidence for any of these Book of Mormon claims.

As for the Book of Mormon, it has been proven BY REASON AND LOGIC over and over again to be a fraud. Case closed.