Saturday, March 03, 2007

A Critique of Christian Apologetics

In high school I had a stage where I got very interested in apologetics. If you don't know what it is, Christian apologetics is making an argument for Christianity based on logic and reason. But I no longer get much comfort from most of the philosophical arguments that are made. Why? Here's a few reasons:
1) A great deal of apologetics is based on "straw-man" arguments. By straw man I mean that Christians will misrepresent the secular viewpoint as being simplistic and then will make easy work of demolishing "their" viewpoint.
2) Apologetics is often based on poor interpretations of science. I will limit my argument to evolution. Evolution does not mean that humans were created by chance. Evolution is a systematic law that makes sense. One can argue that it would take tremendous time to come together or that their would be roadblocks to evolution (like human consciousness) but that is based on solid science. Again, this is creating a straw man but it is particularly aggravating to me when science is portrayed as being irrational.
3) Arguments often rely on intuition and pathos. The one I hate is "I can't believe we evolved from monkeys." Like it or not, that doesn't influence it's truth.
4) Most importantly, apologetics look primarily at the God of creation but not at the God of Subsistence. Sure, we can argue for a first cause of the universe till the cows come home, but where is God in the world today? In a world where science seems to have an explanation for everything, where does God fit in? I want to know that God is present in my life and hears my prayers.

While I've found great comfort in a limited amount of apologetics, particularly reasons to believe in the resurrection of Christ (particularly relevant considering the latest archaeological "findings"), I am in a place where I must rely in part on a non-rational faith. Instead of knowing the truth, I must live the truth. I do not know that God truly exists but I have chosen to live His life, accepting the truth as best I can, because the one thing I do know is that my life is better when I live it as he revealed it to us. I cherish that Paul commanded us to be "stewards of God's mysteries." (1 Corinthians 4:1)

3 comments:

Jeff Keys said...

Very interesting...When I studied anthropology in school I found Evolution to be sound. In fact, when learning of some of the earliest human beings we discovered that human life began in a particular area of Africa. In that same area scientists say is the Garden of Eden. Evolution can be true, God just allows change to happen.

Anonymous said...

Curtis, I hear you. I'd be interested in whether you were primarily exposed to evidentialist apologetics or presuppositional apologetics. Both can be arrogant. Both can look to reason and logic. However, I find the best forms of presuppositionalism allows me to have solid footing in philosophy of science conversations and critique of modernist assumptions. I wonder if we should dump both for more missiological conversations and analaysis of culture (which requires both emersion and critique).

Curt said...

Phil, I believe it was both the evidentialist and presuppositional apologetics. I think the church herself is the most important apologetics tool. People want a religion they can believe in. However, like you said, we need a solid philosophical footing so I suppose we can't avoid it.

I think its Acts 17 where Paul is in Athens and uses the "unknown God" to proclaim Jesus as the Christ. I would like to learn how to do that in our culture.