"Contemporary popular apologists tend to look for any way to salvage the text, no matter how unlikely or untenable the argument. They'll use scholarly sources selectively, or pounce on one scholar's argument and run away with it, without any concern for the fact the vast majority of scholars haven't been persuaded by it. They're not interested in what's plausible, only what's "possible," if it serves their immediate purposes. They trade in eisegesis, wild speculation, and fanciful interpretations, reading into the text what isn't there, indeed, what's often contradicted by the very passages they cite...I've noticed the same tendencies myself, which is one of the many reasons that I've taken pains to distance myself from apologists in recent months. I've said it many times in the past and I will say it again: Truth never needs falsehood to defend it. If you have to lie to support your position, it is a very good indicator that your position is wrong.
"But they seem oblivious to the real harm they're doing. Not only are they giving permission for Christians to be dishonest with the material, they're reinforcing delusions that disconnect well-meaning Christians from reality...
"These apologists are perpetuating an insular Christian culture, giving well-meaning Christians permission to switch off their brains and their consciences and go about their business, pretending everything is all right. The apologists don't care to convince those struggling on the margins of faith - they're preaching only to the converted, only to those who are looking for easy answers to questions others are asking them, but which they aren't asking themselves."
Thom Stark, Is God a Moral Compromiser?
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Why I don't like modern apologists
(h/t: Otagosh)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'd like to have a few examples to go by rather than just Thoms sweeping generalisation.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. I can think of people like Abp Lazar Puhalo's "sweeping generalizations" of a monolithic "West" vs the glorious "East," theologically speaking, where truth and falsehood is often painted as black and white, regardless of the inaccuracies and caricatures on either side. (As an aside, I do think the man has some good things to say re: the use of modern medicine/psychology, but his historical theology stinks). Just an example.
ReplyDeleteDoes Stark go into concrete detail, David? (I would assume as much).
The book that this quote is from is actually a response to Paul Copan's Is God a Moral Monster?, so the "concrete details" come from that book. I haven't read either book in whole (yet), but have read some lengthy excerpts from each. I think that both men make good points. Copan certainly introduces the New Atheists to a much-needed dose of biblical scholarship, free from the anti-semitic, outdated tripe that still gets touted about by some, like Christopher Hitchens. But he also whitewashes much of the violence of the Old Testament, trying to find excuses for it and make it look like it was really okay. I think that Stark's greatest achievement in his book is to point out exactly what he does here -- apologetics too often distorts the truth in favor of a viewpoint. I cited this quote because I've seen it myself so many times. In the Orthodox world, for instance, one all too often hears the apologetic claim that "Orthodoxy has never changed," which is wildly historically inaccurate if meant and taken literally (which it generally is intended to be); it seems hard for some people to hear that the Apostles didn't perform the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Stark's problem, however, is that he doesn't seem to recognize that his statements on apologetics apply equally to atheist apologetics -- Dawkins and Hitchens distort reality just as much as Craig and Copan.
ReplyDeleteI've taken pains to distance myself from apologists in recent months. I've said it many times in the past and I will say it again: Truth never needs falsehood to defend it
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what you're talking about...
David W,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the mention.
David B,
Yes I go into considerable detail. My critical review of Copan's book is 303 pages long.