My esteemed comrade in arms, John Loftus, who actually was a theologically trained minister and apologist, but who has since seen the light and is brilliantly shining it, graciously classified religious apologetics methods into five categories:
1. Apologetics based on supposed evidence
2. Apologetics based on rationalistic theistic proofs
3. Apologetics based on assuming that which needs to be proved
4. Apologetics based on private subjective experiences
5. Eclectic Apologetics.
He was kind. My labels for these same five classifications are as follows:
1) deceitful bullshit
2) sophist bullshit
3) solipsistic bullshit
4) delusional bullshit
5) plain ol' bullshit
You have to excuse me I'm not eloquent and I only have 6 credits of theological training, half of which was obtained in a private tutorial with a dozing elderly Jesuit.
But the fact remains: it's all bullshit nonetheless, no matter how you cook it, package it or otherwise attempt to make it appealing.
All engaged in apologetics are trying to make sense of non-reality: taking myths created by superstitious ancients and using them as a roadmap for life and a substitute for responsible living. This is why, otherwise intelligent individuals such as Alvin Plantinga, when faced with the contradictions of their theodicies with phenomena such as gratuitous suffering, need to introduce counter supernatural agencies (demons) to explain why bad things happen to innocents such as fawns in a forest fire. I bet you didn't know that devils have nothing better to do than go around hurting fawns in a forest.
And when you think of it, the explanations of the great apologists are not a far cry from the explanations for earthquakes made by a certain Islamic scholar (they are caused by women who flaunt their legs and are otherwise burqa free).
The problem is that the sources themselves are ignorant of empirical facts, inconsistent and contradictory. That's why you wind up with Mark's gospel telling you that Jesus was crucified Passover morning around 9 am and John telling you that he was crucified around 2 pm the day before and the apologists telling you that there is no contradiction because Romans and Jews measured time differently! By the way, the last point is technically true but it doesn't account for the contradiction. Don't confuse me with the facts though, right?
The very best a religious apologist can do is obfuscate the issue of textual and doctrinal inadequacy by hiding behind clever twists of logic of their own or others' making.
But in the end, neither the most devout believer, the most brilliant theologian nor the most clever religious sophist, can claim any more knowledge of what they declare to be supernatural than can the most uneducated, irreligious, earthy street urchin or boor. The former simply does not "know" anything more about the reality they purport to be expert in than does the latter.
It is because of this that anyone claiming expertise in matters of divinity (whatever THAT is is) and the accompanying credentials trumpeted by those same self proclaimed "experts" (unless those studies are along the lines of critical historical, anthropological or sociological analysis) are pretentious at best and deceitful in fact.
And it is because of this that it would always serve you well to question what is presented to you and to subject yours and others' most cherished professions to critical inquiry.
No one has a corner on the truth and, until demonstrated otherwise, no truth needs apologetics to defend it.
1. Apologetics based on supposed evidence
2. Apologetics based on rationalistic theistic proofs
3. Apologetics based on assuming that which needs to be proved
4. Apologetics based on private subjective experiences
5. Eclectic Apologetics.
He was kind. My labels for these same five classifications are as follows:
1) deceitful bullshit
2) sophist bullshit
3) solipsistic bullshit
4) delusional bullshit
5) plain ol' bullshit
You have to excuse me I'm not eloquent and I only have 6 credits of theological training, half of which was obtained in a private tutorial with a dozing elderly Jesuit.
But the fact remains: it's all bullshit nonetheless, no matter how you cook it, package it or otherwise attempt to make it appealing.
All engaged in apologetics are trying to make sense of non-reality: taking myths created by superstitious ancients and using them as a roadmap for life and a substitute for responsible living. This is why, otherwise intelligent individuals such as Alvin Plantinga, when faced with the contradictions of their theodicies with phenomena such as gratuitous suffering, need to introduce counter supernatural agencies (demons) to explain why bad things happen to innocents such as fawns in a forest fire. I bet you didn't know that devils have nothing better to do than go around hurting fawns in a forest.
And when you think of it, the explanations of the great apologists are not a far cry from the explanations for earthquakes made by a certain Islamic scholar (they are caused by women who flaunt their legs and are otherwise burqa free).
The problem is that the sources themselves are ignorant of empirical facts, inconsistent and contradictory. That's why you wind up with Mark's gospel telling you that Jesus was crucified Passover morning around 9 am and John telling you that he was crucified around 2 pm the day before and the apologists telling you that there is no contradiction because Romans and Jews measured time differently! By the way, the last point is technically true but it doesn't account for the contradiction. Don't confuse me with the facts though, right?
The very best a religious apologist can do is obfuscate the issue of textual and doctrinal inadequacy by hiding behind clever twists of logic of their own or others' making.
But in the end, neither the most devout believer, the most brilliant theologian nor the most clever religious sophist, can claim any more knowledge of what they declare to be supernatural than can the most uneducated, irreligious, earthy street urchin or boor. The former simply does not "know" anything more about the reality they purport to be expert in than does the latter.
It is because of this that anyone claiming expertise in matters of divinity (whatever THAT is is) and the accompanying credentials trumpeted by those same self proclaimed "experts" (unless those studies are along the lines of critical historical, anthropological or sociological analysis) are pretentious at best and deceitful in fact.
And it is because of this that it would always serve you well to question what is presented to you and to subject yours and others' most cherished professions to critical inquiry.
No one has a corner on the truth and, until demonstrated otherwise, no truth needs apologetics to defend it.
No comments:
Post a Comment