Two Approaches to Apologetics Every Christian Should Know

3 Comments

1. Greg, I've watched a bit of your "course" in STR "University" on how to talk to atheists.

   (I use quotation marks because a small number of short videos is not a course, and you do not have accreditation for STRU as a university, college or school. You're just following in the footsteps of PragerU, which is not a university, either. It's a fallacious tactic to try to make your platform seem more logical, credible and reliable. This tactic only works with ignorant, naive and stupid people.)

   You surrounded yourself with a background of a workshop. Many of the tools are designed using scientific principles, and/or employ scientific principles to function. Even if you own no electrical devices, this is still true.

   I fully believe that YOU believe what you are saying is true, logical and correct. I do not sense that you are deliberately making any effort to deceive people. You come across in a reasonable way. I feel as though, as long as we both scrupulously avoided the topic of religion (I'm a Deist), that we could be good friends. Sadly, I don't think that you could do that.

   Unfortunately, appearing reasonable and sincere is not enough when your logic is full of holes and, sometimes, entirely absent of knowledge. Here are a few examples.

   1) You claim that the Soul is the seat of memory, because, well, what else could be? 100 years ago or so, when a person was schizophrenic or had other major mental health issues, they were often assumed to be possessed by demons, in league with the Devil, or otherwise personifying evil. The solution usually involved exorcisms, torture and murder – often very brutally. These tactics are a direct affront to the teachings of Jesus, and showed just how little people really understood about human behavioral biology, which includes a lot of different fields. Scientific research has amply answered the question of the seat of memory many years ago using advanced technology, as well as a much better understanding of the roles of electricity and chemicals in the brain, as well as physical aspects. Yet, you completely ignore this and make a claim that is based in superstition. Superstition, as you know, comes from the lack of understanding of "things," and that is supposed to be an intellectual answer? No.

   You discuss the idea that morality is from God, because where else could it be from? Well, that is quite simply answered: humans. You assume that only a transcendent being could've created the laws upon which morality are based, but any careful scrutiny of morality through the ages, within the Judeo-Christian faiths or across faiths will show you a few fact. For example, most religions hold very similar beliefs in the broad measures, but the details are where there are differences (that often have led to inter-sect and inter-faith violence, which is in violation of God's law "Thou Shall Not Kill"). This suggests that either God has been working through ALL religions that match that criterium, or that such beliefs arose in separate societies organically as people figured out what rules were best to keep a society going at least somewhat healthily. Another example is the admonition in Judaism, Christianity and Islam to cover the woman's head – most Jews and Christians have abandoned this practice, but Muslims have largely not. Why did Jews and Christians start to abandon this moral stance? Did God hand down an edict? No, humans decided it was no longer important. Culture has a huge influence on religion, and vice versus. There are numerous other examples of morals that have been left by the wayside. Yet, Christians are not universal in what they believe is moral – some sects eschew alcohol, dancing, and even music and sex (entirely), while others are pretty free-wheeling. And then there are mainstream and nominal Christian sects, some of which are so polluted by corruption and hate that Jesus would weep nonstop at their sight. You can brush these aside as being false Christian sects, but where's the proof that it is YOUR sect that is NOT false?

   Then there's the whole thing about how the faithful congregations still fall ill and have problems of other kinds. If God so loves his flock, why does God not protect them at the very time when priests and other clerics are saying that God will? Oh, wait, you'll say something about God's infinite wisdom. I was raised Christian – I know this excuse.

   You claim atheists are morally bereft and miserable. I'm not an atheist, but I know atheists who have no such problems, and they're nice people. Even though I'm a Deist, I'm pretty darned moral and donate time to Christian food pantries, both of which welcome people of other faiths to help out. Since morality doesn't come (only) from God, your argument holds no water.

   You claim that everyone has morality, and feels guilt. As with the previous claims, you show your ignorance of society, psychology and other fields. Psychopaths do NOT feel guilt. Before you start talking about serial killers, keep in mind that only some of them are psychopaths. Your lack of understanding of how the human mind works is astounding.

   Your "Some thing or no thing" question in regards to the existence of "things/stuff". There are other options – "I don't know" is one, but the other one is presented in your options, at least in the singular. Things/stuff! These don't necessary have to be sentient or even alive in ANY sense of the word, but non-living "things" can amply explain the creation of our universe. And, oh, by the way, most members of science do NOT teach that all of existence started with the Big Bang. They have no way to measure what might've happened before the Big Bang, and the closer you get to the Big Bang

   There are a lot of other things wrong with your illogical, poorly informed attempts, but this should suffice and others have done a great job of revealing all the inadequacies of your arguments. Further, I have little hope that my comments will spur a reasonable, logical and intelligent conversation with you because it's clear your faith is baked hard into your…cough…soul. Perhaps, however, what I've written might save a few people from falling for your suckerpunches. But, hey, I would be delighted to be surprised by you. 🙂

   Log in to Reply

2. Do Christians talk to nonbelievers about this stuff? Not that I've really seen. Even the missionaries who used to come to my door (before the pandemic), couldn't run away fast enough if I told them I was an atheist. (I used to just tell them I wasn't interested, and they'd frequently stick like glue, then.) Admittedly, they were always either Mormons or 7th Day Adventists.

   But for me, either approach would work, if you actually had evidence backing up your claims. Typically, I ask Christians for one piece of good evidence that their god is real, rather than just imaginary, or one piece of good evidence that any of the magical/supernatural stories in the Bible actually happened. Their choice. (I will give them a guy named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans.)

   When talking with Muslims, I say something similar, though I don't know much about the Quran. Still, when they insist – as they usually do – that it's obvious that Islam is the only true religion, I ask them for one piece of good evidence backing that up. And they typically react the same way Christians do, either by leaving the conversation immediately, just making a bunch of vague claims that there's evidence, or just stalling until I get tired of trying.

   Any way you look at it, I need something specific. All I ever seem to hear are vague claims. Well, claims are easy. Every religion makes claims. It's not hard.

   Log in to Reply

3. Thank you for an intelligent conversation on how to approach people. It boils down to meat each person's need based on where they are in their thinking.

   Log in to Reply