Are most apologists dishonest?

[mark_a]

Who did Edwin have in mind?

 

[Revelation13_16]

I realize your comments were about all apologists, I was just using the Catholic as the example.

I don’t think apologists are as dishonest as you think. I do think that many may be decieved by themselves but I think that most would be willing to change faiths if they came to a new realization. It takes sort of a revelation for a person to change their position and to change their faith. You can’t simply make logical conclusions and come up with a reasoning that one church is the truth. Those logical conclusions may be valid and true but that is not enough to get a person to change. People will always view those facts from their own perspective. A switch of faith usually is a switch of viewpoint. One fact obtains a whole new meaning.

Oh I believe they may change once, but not twice.

For instance, I doubt Jimmy Akin would go back to Protestantism unless some earth shattering thing happened.

Imagine the criticism he’d face.

Furthermore, I don’t mean apologists are dishonest per se, just terribly biased.

Love,
Rev

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu
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”.

If they give themselves away, yes, we can know. Your remark about clarity in discussion brings to mind some I’ve watched, for example, those about what type of certainty Catholics have that they know the truth. Those don’t seem to yield clarity. I am tempted to figure the (other) Catholic is being deliberately obtuse, but that doesn’t mean they actually are. Perhaps I am merely blind, I freely acknowledge. But lack of clarity to me is not a sure signal of foul play on their part. It can be an indicator, I agree.

Eventually it always reduces to “I believe this because I can accept the apparent inconsistency (mystery) derived from my reasoning, while my discussion partner can’t.”

That tells you the difference between the core beliefs of the discussion partners.

Those who proclaim that they NEVER ACCEPT ANY MYSTERY (or at least never grant YOUR mysteries as truly held by you) are the ones who have no core beliefs that they are willing to expose to others, and who will be thoroughgoing bullies at the least opportunity.

These are generally simply argumentative agnostics.

( Most protestants fall into this category. )

 

[pnewton]

Oh I believe they may change once, but not twice.

For instance, I doubt Jimmy Akin would go back to Protestantism unless some earth shattering thing happened.

Imagine the criticism he’d face.

I think you are right, but for the wrong reason. It is rare for someone of note to switch back, but not because of criticism. The process of conversion from the faith one has held for most of their life is demanding and intense. One does not lightly abandon ones views, even in search of truth. It is unlikely that someone like Jimmy Akin is unfamiliar with any arguement against the Catholic Church.

From my own point of view, I read a lot of Protestant apologists before becoming Catholic, so if there was anyway I could stay Baptist, I would. I often joke that John MacArthur is the reaso I converted, because I read much of his material to get an opposing view. In the ten years since, I have yet to see one arguement I did not cover prior to conversion. If I do, I will examine it, of course.

 

[Verita]

I don’t get it. If truth doesn’t have sides (which it doesn’t) how can one give both sides. Wouldn’t it be more dishonest to argue a point of view one new to be untrue just for balance?

This is an incredibly insightful comment which it seems was unfortunately overlooked.

There are no sides to truth!

Remember that apologetics isn’t really about “convincing” or “arguing” at all. It is simply about “defending”. In apologetics, they are defending what they fervently believe to be the truth. There is no such thing, when defending the truth, as recognizing alternate sides.

Quite contrary to being biased or self serving, my experience of Catholic apologists so far has been that they are infinitely willing to recognize truth no matter where it is found. They recognize and praise the areas of Protestantism and any religion where they have got it right and provide a solid defense for when and why they haven’t gotten it right. Yet it’s all about Truth, which the Catholic Church says can be found anywhere.

The bottom line is that saying that apologetics or apologists are guilty of bias or self serving or dishonestly or anything like that is making a sweeping generalization, it is a logical fallacy. Those are qualities that depend on the individual person, not their profession.

 

[Contarini]

Who did Edwin have in mind?

That is a question I categorically refuse to answer. I did not have anyone in particular in mind, but I think you can see a certain demoralizing effect in anyone who makes apologetics one of their main pursuits–even in C. S. Lewis, perhaps the greatest apologist of the 20th century. He was great in large part because he recognized the dangers of what he was doing.

Edwin