EAllusion wrote:(Still, it goes against Aquinas then, doesn't it? So at least that part of my post holds up.)
Yes. Really it is just an issue of taxonomy. Here is how I divide apologetical strategies:
Evidential: This technique tries to point at some phenomena or event and posit that it is best explained by Theism via methodological naturalism's own standards. Bill Craig is the champion of this style obviously and I think it's most popular with Evangelicals because it is easy to use in evangelism. I think it developed as a response to increased Scientific literacy and popularity that is evidence driven, so this style tends to be driven by empiricism.
Existential: This strategy tries to overwhelm people with their own inability to answer big question about the meaning of life or evil. People who have studied literature in my opinion really use this to good effect. Apologists can draw on a huge pool of written works from Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Rilke, Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, and others. Theology students who have been educated in Continental Philosophy can make good use of the category drawing on Heidegger, Karl Jaspers, and the like, if anyone can even understand what they are trying to say.
Classical: When people think of Christian Philosophy, I think most of them have this kind in mind. Basically, the Theological-driven works of Abelard, Ockham, Duns the Supreme Court, Eckhart, Aquinas in the Middle-ages and into more modern types like Descartes, Leibniz. These types tend to try and build a culminative case with Ontological, Transcendence and Teleological type arguments. Tend to be arguments begun a priori.
Presup: Related to the Classical strategy, I tend to think this is very specific tactic in starting with God and ending with God, who make it a point to create a circular argument and have absolutely no problem with that. You cannot understand anything, anywhere at anytime without presupposing the Trinitarian God.
Folk: This is the typical reasoning and argumentation from the person on the street. I put Way of the Master in this category, and the typical presentation of Pascal's Wager (note: Blaise would think most people who use his argument absolutely demonic) and the loaded questions about going to heaven and hell. Bearing a testimony and talking about miracles you've seen and how God has changed your life for the better gets lumped in here too.
Obviously, people borrow from 3 or 4 strategies at a time in presenting their entire case and very few people fit exclusively into one category. One of Bill Craig's favorite moves is that shotgun blast presentation he can give in his opening statements that draw on Classical, Existential and Evidential strategies and a person is left to scramble to counter them all.
I don't know Patrick Madrid very well, since he does more biblical based apologetics with Protestants and deals more with history, theology and hermeneutics than straight philosophy, so he probably piggy-backed like Dan on to Bill's successfully method. It's interesting because a lot of Catholic Philosophers are almost always rigid Classical-types when it comes to defending their faith. Thommist to the bone.
This gives me an idea though.......
