Non-Christians ONLY Poll: Are Christian Apologetics Alive or Dead?

[angellous_evangellous]

If you don't consider yourself a Christian, I wonder if Christian aplogetics are alive or dead.

By alive I mean:

Do Christian apologists have a logically consistent argument that God exists?

Do Christian apologists generally speak to contemporary philosophical life?

By dead I mean the opposite - that Christian aplogists are unable to defend that God exists in a way that is able to interact with contemporary philosopy.

========

Note that the poll is public and you can choose more than one option.

 

[Fluffy]

If there is anything interesting to be said in apologetics then I expect it to be said by Alvin Plantinga.

Out of all the arguments for God, I feel that his ontological argument comes closest (I might go as far as to conceed that it does show that belief in God is rational but I'd need to research it further before shifting off the fence). And I hardly think that his writings can be accused of failing to interact with contemporary philosophy.

I'd have to vote alive on both counts.

 

[Quagmire]

The arguments of most apologists I've heard are sort of like Jason from the Friday the 13th movies; you can shoot them full of holes and they get right back up in the next scene.

 

[Tigress]

As Quagmire also stated, most of the apologetics I've read haven't been all that convincing in the least, and are much like a B-rated horror film-fun to watch, but chalk full of muck-ups, and ridiculousness (which is of course part of the fun). However, most is not all, and I've no doubt that there are some reasonably good apologists out there, so I'm voting 'Angellous is my Daddy,' to stay on the safe side of this one.

 

[Smoke]

I voted dead on both counts, since you asked about apologists. Christian theologians and philosophers may be able to interact with contemporary philosophy, but I don't think apologetics or "proofs" of God's existence have much relevance outside the churches.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So it seems that some apologetics are alive (Christian philosophers?), and most are dead (popular apologists). The living apologetics may not have continuance with orthodoxy... I guess I'll have to check.

 

[RevOxley_501]

aww crap, i misread the dang things i chose b, d and f


take a way B.

It is alive...in the fact that so many christians base their faith either off of apologetics (like i once did) or blind faith (like i did previous to the former (huh))

Dead, because it rarely strikes a Chord with many non-christians and is often laughed at and ridiculed (for good reason) by the scientific community


Christian apologetics is, to me, Both alive and dead. Alive because there are so many Christians

 

[Buttercup]

Considering I was a Christian just two years ago, I'd say contemporary apologetics is null and void these days, for me anyway.

I think what happened is I grew up and realized I don't want the red tape that starts being wrapped around your legs and works it's way up to your throat with religion. If there is a God and Jesus was his son....that's awesome. But, some new theological leader needs to emerge to bring relevance to both of them today.

 

[Random]

Apologetics is Defense of the Faith. Considering how many Christians of wildly differing philosophies and doctrinal persuasion are here present on the 'Net and RF, I would say defenders of the faith are very much alive.

But alas, OP apparently sees that in terms only of Arguments for/against the existence of GOD, so...the question doesn't make sense.

 

[Buttercup]

Apologetics is Defense of the Faith. Considering how many Christians of wildly differing philosophies and doctrinal persuasion are here present on the 'Net and RF, I would say defenders of the faith are very much alive.

But alas, OP apparently sees that in terms only of Arguments for/against the existence of GOD, so...the question doesn't make sense.

I believe he's asking those who don't believe what our thoughts are concerning the issue for US.

 

[Random]

I believe he's asking those who don't believe what our thoughts are concerning the issue for US.

Oh. And that is different...how? :help:

 

[Buttercup]

Oh. And that is different...how? :help:

Because Christianity is alive and well with many people.....why not us?

 

[Quagmire]

So it seems that some apologetics are alive (Christian philosophers?), and most are dead (popular apologists). The living apologetics may not have continuance with orthodoxy... I guess I'll have to check.

Yeah. I think these days when someone says "apologist" most people think "Lee Strobal" or "Josh McDowell" or "that crazy guy on the forum I go to who types everything in size 4 boldface" rather than "Justin Martyre" or "Thomas Aquinnus".

Which is kind of a shame really. Except fot Justin Martyre and Psuedo Dyionisus my aquaintance with the classic apologists has been pretty superficial, but even so it looks (to me) like most of them are talking about the same concepts and to some extent saying the same things that mystics and poets from any other thought/belief system are saying, they're just defining these things in terms of their religion.

As far as whether or not their arguments do anything to prove God's existence, ya got me, that's not what I was looking for when I started studying any of this--I already believed the Universe/reality/existence had and was it's own mind and I've never felt any need to verify that or have it affirmed--so I never paid much attention to those arguments.

What they did was help me to look at Christianity and the Bible in a different light--ie, as something more than propaganda and fairytales---which, I think, is the exact opposite of what modern "apololgists are doing.

Guys like Strobel, McDowell (and even Chesterton to some extent) are just confirming what alot of skeptics already believed; "this is just vaudeville and "beleivers" are really just fans. This flavor of faith is like the Rocky Horror Picture Show for the "pius" ").

 

[Random]

Because Christianity is alive and well with many people.....why not us?

I suppose so...

 

[Buttercup]

I suppose so...

Well, that's just my take on the OP, sweetness. We'll let Nathan come back in and smack me if I'm off base.

 

[Random]

Well, that's just my take on the OP, sweetness. We'll let Nathan come back in and smack me if I'm off base.

No, you're probably right. Too late to change my vote though...

 

[Smoke]

So it seems that some apologetics are alive (Christian philosophers?), and most are dead (popular apologists). The living apologetics may not have continuance with orthodoxy... I guess I'll have to check.

But Christian philosophers and theologians aren't necessarily apologists. I think somebody like James Cone, Uta Ranke-Heineman, or Hans Küng can be relevant and respected outside the church, but I don't think any non-Christians are taking Christian apologetics seriously, except in the case of Muslim fundamentalists who find Christian Creationism useful. Apologists are preaching to the choir, for the most part.

"Proofs" of the existence of God have always been interesting mainly to people who already believe in God.

 

[Melissa G]

Dead as a Dodo

~M

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't think any non-Christians are taking Christian apologetics seriously

That's basically what I thought, too.

If non-Christian's aren't taking it seriously, why should Christians?

 

[farfignewton]

Hmmm.... Well, I cant really vote one way or the other, because an apologetic still views the world through the eyes of faith, be it faith through fact not withstanding, it is still faith. Being a person of faith, I know that faith leads to a skewed perspective. Despite what ever evidence they might bring forth, they are still trying and wanting to "prove" God.

They have all the faith of Evolutionists trying to prove Cro-Magnon man. That is the biggest problem with science/faith mixture. Your constantly making leaps in logic to back up your own arguments.

So, to say whether the apologetics are alive or dead is a mute point. It will, as with all philosophical, religious, and science based questions, depend on the viewer to decide if what they see is fact, or merely a skewed perspective.