M
Maranatha
Guest
Edwin posted this in a different thread and I though it deserved it’s won thread.
Are most apologists dishonest?
- Status
H
heisenburg
Guest
A true apologist will admit when they are wrong, as ultimatly, the purpose of apologetics is the spread of truth. If what one is teaching and/or claiming is false, if he/she is true to Christs command that we always seek truth, they must change their position…
If they do NOT change their position, even after being shown false then they are not appologists, but liars and false teachers…
If they cannot bare to hear the truth, or refuse to hear it, then they must be prayed for.
I reiterate, it is the purpose of apologetics to spread truth, but you must also be willing to accept truth, even if it is counter to your belief
In Christ
If they do NOT change their position, even after being shown false then they are not appologists, but liars and false teachers…
If they cannot bare to hear the truth, or refuse to hear it, then they must be prayed for.
I reiterate, it is the purpose of apologetics to spread truth, but you must also be willing to accept truth, even if it is counter to your belief
In Christ
D
Della
Guest
I cannot agree with Edwin’s conclusions–not because I am an amateur apologist but because I have no other reason to be here except to help others know the truths of the Catholic faith.
I have never fudged facts or glossed over difficulties. If I don’t know something I say so or say nothing, and if I am mistaken, I admit it. I’d like Edwin to quote a single instance in which I was ever dishonest in my responses to him or anyone else on the forum.
Apologetics isn’t about winning a case. It’s about telling the truth in charity. No doubt we’ve failed from time to time to be as charitable as we ought or been wrong about some point here or there. But I know of no Catholic apologist in good standing who deliberately tries to mislead anyone.
I have never fudged facts or glossed over difficulties. If I don’t know something I say so or say nothing, and if I am mistaken, I admit it. I’d like Edwin to quote a single instance in which I was ever dishonest in my responses to him or anyone else on the forum.
Apologetics isn’t about winning a case. It’s about telling the truth in charity. No doubt we’ve failed from time to time to be as charitable as we ought or been wrong about some point here or there. But I know of no Catholic apologist in good standing who deliberately tries to mislead anyone.
M
mchale
Guest
I would say that if one can not make a defense of one’s faith without resorting to dishonesty, then one is either a poor apologist or hold to a faith that is deficient in some way, shape or form.
An apologist must, by their very nature be as truthful and accurate as possible. Mistakes will undermine any authority in their arguments and dishonesty will undermine their credibility and worse make their faith look worse.
I would therefore say that good apologists are in fact honest.
–
Bill
An apologist must, by their very nature be as truthful and accurate as possible. Mistakes will undermine any authority in their arguments and dishonesty will undermine their credibility and worse make their faith look worse.
I would therefore say that good apologists are in fact honest.
–
Bill
L
LilyM
Guest
Well, one difference between an apologist and a lawyer is that most apologists don’t have a direct pecuniary interest influencing their use of their argument. In fact a lot of 'em do it for pure love and faith rather than with the idea of making money out of it.
And I think the number of apologists who have switched denominations at some point is evidence that the majority of them are quite genuinely on a quest for truth and knowledge rather than performing a cynical exercise.
B
BrianH
Guest
I think a lot of the discourse is very self serving and Edwin has a point. I do not like it but I tend to agree with him more than I disagree.
P
Pug
Guest
I don’t see how we can know. I don’t think being an apologist requires dishonesty. Perhaps, though, it lends itself to feeding the love of a good argument, pursuing the clever turn of phrase, and the like.
K
Keikiolu
Guest
Apologetics is only “demoralizing” if you don’t act from true morals. If you simply “must win” via whatever methods available, which is the definition of im-morality, then the morals of the perpetrator are shown quite clearly, and he has been “de- moralled”,… as it were.
Apologetics are about exposition, not subjugation.
I wish to “expose” you to my beliefs and reasoning, not to “convince” you of anything.
I also wish to have you expose your beliefs and reasoning to me, so that I might learn something.
We don’t “battle”,… we “feast”. (In a “pot luck” sort of way!)
A dishonest apologist is not an apologist. He’s a liar and a terrorist.
K
Keikiolu
Guest
We can know by what the apologist exposes of himself.
If the “discussion” doesn’t tend toward clarity and understanding, then the “apologist” is not an apologist but a bully.
By simply talking for a while, then “sniffing the resultant atmosphere for the stench of confusion”, you can come to know the character of the “apologist”.
V
Verita
Guest
I don’t think it’s fair to compare apologists to lawyers. Lawyers are hired to defend a certain side regardless of whether that side is right or wrong. To them it’s merely a job. But apologists take up apologetics specifically because they believe in the truth of their position and they wish to defend that truth. People don’t do apologetics because of the money.
E
exiled
Guest
I think that most apologists, on both sides of the aisle, are very, very honest. Some of them may be very stubborn, or someone may have a style that doesn’t appeal to another’s sense of proper debating etiquette (for lack of a better term), but dishonest? I don’t think so.
Sometimes we wonder how perfectly reasonable evidence for a doctrine is brushed off (speaking from the Catholic perspective), and my take on it is this…
If all of the protestants/Bible Christians here were converted to Catholicism based on the Biblical, historical, and reasonable proofs presented on CA forums, then Satan might start filling the Catholic apologists here with some sort of pride in themselves. God’s way of preventing this is by allowing seeds to be planted which, we hope, will blossom at another time, when they (the apologists) will not see the fruits of their labors.
This is not meant to be a slam. It is how I have explained to myself how it is that NOBODY I’ve ever shared Catholic Truth with has said, “Oh! Now I see! I’m joining RCIA right away!” I figure that God knows I might get really full of myself and then forget that it is the Holy Spirit that moves the heart, not me.
I guess that’s a bit of a segue. Sorry.
Sometimes we wonder how perfectly reasonable evidence for a doctrine is brushed off (speaking from the Catholic perspective), and my take on it is this…
If all of the protestants/Bible Christians here were converted to Catholicism based on the Biblical, historical, and reasonable proofs presented on CA forums, then Satan might start filling the Catholic apologists here with some sort of pride in themselves. God’s way of preventing this is by allowing seeds to be planted which, we hope, will blossom at another time, when they (the apologists) will not see the fruits of their labors.
This is not meant to be a slam. It is how I have explained to myself how it is that NOBODY I’ve ever shared Catholic Truth with has said, “Oh! Now I see! I’m joining RCIA right away!” I figure that God knows I might get really full of myself and then forget that it is the Holy Spirit that moves the heart, not me.
I guess that’s a bit of a segue. Sorry.
M
Maranatha
Guest
I agree with this assessment. Some apologists are paid but not usually very much. Some attorneys do pro bono work and they may defend clients that they believe are guilty. The difference is that apologists believe in what they are defending.
M
Maranatha
Guest
I agree that Apologists explain and correct. Evangelists attempt to convince. Just because evanglelists attempt to convince, does not mean that they are dishonest.
P
pnewton
Guest
I believe the statement is cynical to the point of absurdity. There are the exceptions which will lie to make a point, but most have no vested interest in any one side. I think the only real danger is self-delusion.
M
Maranatha
Guest
In regards to apologists being self-serving, I think that as long as the people being apologised to understand that they are getting a biased view, then we can’t call the apologists dishonest. If you understand that I am Catholic and I explain why I think Catholicism is correct, then I don’t need to give any information that might undermine my point of view.
An academic inquiry is different from an apologetic defense in that the academic should attempt to be unbiased and present all sides of an issue.
If the apologists attempts to come off as an unbiased academic then the apologists should be considered dishonest.
M
Mijoy2
Guest
On face value this assersion makes no sense. There is no reason to fudge what is true. Anytime a Catholic apologist feels the need to resort to dishonesty, he needs to rethink his assersion.
Dishonest when expressing Truth is contradictory.
Dishonest when expressing Truth is contradictory.
R
rtconstant
Guest
Exiled, I think I agree with you. We are often denied seeing the immediate fruit of our labor. I also agree that this is to prevent pride. We are made to understand that it is God that is making the difference and is moving people’s heart. Nevertheless every action, statement and seed we plant is important to God’s over all plan. We’re sometimes allowed to be the tools of God’s handywork, and He seems to do His best work with broken tools. 
C
Contarini
Guest
I admit that I have an animus against apologists in part because I’m a church historian. I am not claiming that historians are personally better or smarter people than apologists. But the rules and principles of our discipline work to make us more honest–they teach us to look at evidence that goes against our position and to try to reach a balanced view. Of course we often fail, but the nature of the discipline helps us be more intellectually honest. And because the discipline is structured (these days at least) in such a way that people from very different perspectives review each other’s works and work together in a collegial way, it is relatively easy to see things from other people’s perspectives and relatively hard to stay shut up in one’s own biases.
Apologetics is the opposite of this in every way. Apologists work adversarially–in order to do their job they have to show that the other guys are wrong. An apologist who gets up and makes a hundred qualifications to the case for Catholicism is not going to be popular. Apologists become famous and successful by presenting a clear, simple, persuasive argument that makes people feel comfortable in their beliefs. This is a recipe for intellectual dishonesty.
I regret using the word “dishonest” because it gave the wrong impression. I’m not talking about deliberate lying. I’m talking about the much more subtle kind of dishonesty that consists of only looking at the evidence that supports what you want to say and overlooking things that give a more complicated picture or even contradict your argument.
With that qualification, I stand by what I said.
Edwin
Apologetics is the opposite of this in every way. Apologists work adversarially–in order to do their job they have to show that the other guys are wrong. An apologist who gets up and makes a hundred qualifications to the case for Catholicism is not going to be popular. Apologists become famous and successful by presenting a clear, simple, persuasive argument that makes people feel comfortable in their beliefs. This is a recipe for intellectual dishonesty.
I regret using the word “dishonest” because it gave the wrong impression. I’m not talking about deliberate lying. I’m talking about the much more subtle kind of dishonesty that consists of only looking at the evidence that supports what you want to say and overlooking things that give a more complicated picture or even contradict your argument.
With that qualification, I stand by what I said.
Edwin
D
Della
Guest
And I still disagree with you. Just because an apologist argues for a certain set of beliefs doesn’t mean he must overlook other points of view or other “truths” (as if there were such a thing!) A good apologist (like a good lawyer) already knows the opposition’s positions and why they are not satisfactory. No need for dishonesty (and yes, you used the word again!) in order to defend what one knows to be the truth.
C
Contarini
Guest
I rest my case. If you are making an argument, whether in an academic forum or not, then you have to give both sides. That’s not some special rule that applies only to academics–it’s basic intellectual honesty.
Any apologist who works on your principles is incapable of saying anything worth hearing, because by your own admission they are deliberately only giving one side of the truth. This is an intrinsically corrupt practice, because the truth doesn’t have “sides.” The “sidedness” is in our limited, sinful humanity, not in God’s truth. If Catholicism is true, then the evidence that appears to work against the truth of Catholicism is as much a part of the truth of Catholicism as anything else.
Edwin
- Status