Killing faith--Apologetics style

[Nimrod]

Faith is a hope/belief in a proposition for that which is not seen. Propositions that logically result from empirical observation do not require faith; in fact, such leaves no room for faith. Thus, for faith to thrive, it needs a vacuum of no empirical observations and the logic therefrom.

Apologetics attempts to 'reason' a defense of the faith. By so 'reasoning,' are not the apologists attempting to leave no room for faith? Is not then their effort one aimed at killing faith?

[drumdude]

I'll put on my DCP hat. It's a very nice Alpine one, from his mission when he was a teenager.

DCP believes that God chooses to remain hidden in certain ways and chooses to expose himself in other ways. Joseph, for example, was quite readily given a full and complete knowledge of the existence of God. Lucky him.

The rest of us plebs have to "see through a glass darkly" as DCP's old chestnut goes. DCP's arguments speak to those with hearts to hear. You, dear anti-Mormon, have hardened your heart through your power of agency and no amount of evidence will now be able to convince you.

DCP genuinely thinks that his arguments are bringing people into the religion, or at least keeping people in the boat.

[Rivendale]

Epistemic distance is the catch word here. Human emotions are susceptible to the Martin Harris effect. But the majority of humans alive today catch the Carl Sagan/Lucy Harris ability to use the baloney detection kit.

[Gadianton]

Apologetics attempts to 'reason' a defense of the faith. By so 'reasoning,' are not the apologists attempting to leave no room for faith? Is not then their effort one aimed at killing faith?

The DCP answer to this is that apologetics evens the score to roughly 50-50, although I've caught DCP pushing the odds higher. And then faith takes it from there to win every time.

Now that you know the formula, you know that faith wins in advance, however, and so it ends up still being self-defeating, a way to cheat and say you don't know for sure when you really do, but the apologists aren't going to think it through that far.

[Doctor Scratch]

Dean Robbers is (as always) correct, but I would also point out that there is apologetics and then there is also *Mo*pologetics, which is less about rationality and more about smear campaigns and attacking critics and perceived enemies. Believe it or not, they really think that doing this is going to preserve faith, and what’s disturbing is that in some cases, it actually seems to work.

[dastardly stem]

Apologetics and mopologetics are nothing more than ad hoc rationalization after ad hoc rationalization without any real effort to follow it through. For many believers all it takes is a mere conceived of reality to defend the faith. “It’s possible god made some magic happen…so you can’t say there’s no way it happened that way”. Somehow magic and pretend become helpful arguments in that world.

[Moksha]

Dean Robbers is (as always) correct, but I would also point out that there is apologetics and then there is also *Mo*pologetics, which is less about rationality and more about smear campaigns and attacking critics and perceived enemies.

LDS apologists believe they were divinely commissioned by Apostle Neal Maxwell to defend the faith through any means necessary. Many grew up in the Vietnam era where they realized that an effective defense meant slogging through the mud of the Ho Chi Min Trail to attack enemy critics they encountered, using whatever cover they could find. Sometimes they were aided by alien spaceships who enjoyed beaming the apologists aboard their ship, rigorously probing them, then returning them to BYU where they felt oddly satisfied.

[malkie]

Dean Robbers is (as always) correct, but I would also point out that there is apologetics and then there is also *Mo*pologetics, which is less about rationality and more about smear campaigns and attacking critics and perceived enemies.

LDS apologists believe they were divinely commissioned by Apostle Neal Maxwell to defend the faith through any means necessary. Many grew up in the Vietnam era where they realized that an effective defense meant slogging through the mud of the Ho Chi Min Trail to attack enemy critics they encountered, using whatever cover they could find. Sometimes they were aided by alien spaceships who enjoyed beaming the apologists aboard their ship, rigorously probing them, then returning them to BYU where they felt oddly satisfied.

And when the encountered a Chino Blanco on the trail, they tried to Scratch him out - they made war a living hell for some folks.

[Nimrod]

Dean Robbers is (as always) correct, but I would also point out that there is apologetics and then there is also *Mo*pologetics, which is less about rationality and more about smear campaigns and attacking critics and perceived enemies. Believe it or not, they really think that doing this is going to preserve faith, and what’s disturbing is that in some cases, it actually seems to work.

I have witnessed it working. I recall attending a few Wilkinson Center 'firesides' or talks or whatever by Nibley eons ago. When he would get a bit 'in your face' with critics' arguments--and yes, he got personally snarky at times even if he didn't call anyone Butthead--several in attendance would become gleeful merely that Nibley was pushing back on critics. It did not matter that many of his comments did not hold water. He was throwing red meat out there for the young, LDS minions who would walk away emboldened in their faith. At each of these events, you could count on seeing many of the same in attendance, I guess needing a new infusion for their faith.

[Philo Sofee]

I'll put on my DCP hat. It's a very nice Alpine one, from his mission when he was a teenager.

DCP believes that God chooses to remain hidden in certain ways and chooses to expose himself in other ways. Joseph, for example, was quite readily given a full and complete knowledge of the existence of God. Lucky him.

The rest of us plebs have to "see through a glass darkly" as DCP's old chestnut goes. DCP's arguments speak to those with hearts to hear. You, dear anti-Mormon, have hardened your heart through your power of agency and no amount of evidence will now be able to convince you.

DCP genuinely thinks that his arguments are bringing people into the religion, or at least keeping people in the boat.

Well, if one end happens or the other he can point to it as a WIN! Either way he wins! No wonder he doesn't have to care about actually having good arguments and sound reasoning.