Best Method of Apologetics

[djeter]

Fr. John Cihuk had an answer for this based on his understanding of the Catholic Theologian Hans Urs von Balthazar. I’ve combined some Michael Novak and posted it here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/01/engaging-atheism/

Something really important to see in that post is a youtube video of Penn (Penn & Teller fame) speaking on the gift of a book of Psalms. It contains the most important piece of advice on Apologetics you will ever hear and it comes from a well known atheist, so listen up!

In the same vein another piece lists about a dozen reasons for atheism so you should be prepared to refute all of them (some sadly are irrefutable, more like a disease … irrational God Hatred being one of them). David Carlin’s essay is here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/motives-for-atheism-%e2%80%93-david-carlin/

Lastly a book review of “The Language of God” by Francis Collins, he the head of the genome project and the reviewer a theoretical physicist who has written extensively about science and religion, Steven M. Barr. That is here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/book-review-the-language-of-god-by-francis-s-collins/

More of Barr’s writings can be found in the science and religion posts. I am hard at work. Hope you are too.

Regards

DJ

 

[reggieM]

Fr. John Cihuk had an answer for this based on his understanding of the Catholic Theologian Hans Urs von Balthazar. I’ve combined some Michael Novak and posted it here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/01/engaging-atheism/

Something really important to see in that post is a youtube video of Penn (Penn & Teller fame) speaking on the gift of a book of Psalms. It contains the most important piece of advice on Apologetics you will ever hear and it comes from a well known atheist, so listen up!

In the same vein another piece lists about a dozen reasons for atheism so you should be prepared to refute all of them (some sadly are irrefutable, more like a disease … irrational God Hatred being one of them). David Carlin’s essay is here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/motives-for-atheism-%e2%80%93-david-carlin/

Lastly a book review of “The Language of God” by Francis Collins, he the head of the genome project and the reviewer a theoretical physicist who has written extensively about science and religion, Steven M. Barr. That is here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/book-review-the-language-of-god-by-francis-s-collins/

More of Barr’s writings can be found in the science and religion posts. I am hard at work. Hope you are too.

Regards

DJ

Thanks for these references. I read Steven Barr’s book, *Modern Physics and Ancient Faith * this spring and found it to be excellent in every way. I think that would be a very good book for apologetics to atheists.

As for Francis Collins – I have a lot of problems with his views and I can’t see how his ideas would help refute atheistic claims. I don’t know for sure – his book may be very helpful to some, but I find his notions to be contradictory and not well-considered. His theology is not well-grounded and he accepts virtually every Darwinian claim.

He points to the cosmos as giving evidence of God’s creation and design power – and yet, in his own field of expertise, biology, he finds no evidence at all of God’s intelligent design.

As John West points out here:

Theistic evolution proponents who do not openly deny that God guided the development of life typically insist that His guidance is unobservable in biology. Francis Collins proposes this view in The Language of God, suggesting that from God’s perspective the outcome of evolution could “be entirely specified… while from our perspective” evolution “would appear a random and undirected process.” [The Language of God (2006), p. 205]

 

[reggieM]

The video with Penn was very good also – thanks.

 

[fulbert4605]

Above all, remember that you will be likely speaking to hearts that are harder than stone wherever you go. You can preach holy and just things to a stone till time’s end and not convert it. So also is the fate of those people whose hearts are so hardened. For those people whose hearts are harder than stone, you must pray that God might soften their hearts. And even for those whose hearts would convert were the right words or actions presented to them, pray that their hearts be made even softer yet so they may be able to make that leap toward the true Faith.

i believe the best evangelization consists of not only preaching holy and just things through the mouth and showing by example, but it should be paired with private prayer with the specific intention that God may soften the hearts of those of whom you will come in contact with.

For all of you shy people out there: even if you feel you are not able to overcome your shyness to speak out, you still have a role to play in evangelization. That is, praying that God may soften the hearts of men who are receiving God’s Truth through others. For specific hearts of stone or in general for hearts of stone. God might apply those prayers/sacrifices to where He feels need if you offer in the general sense.

 

[djeter]

As for Francis Collins – I have a lot of problems with his views and I can’t see how his ideas would help refute atheistic claims. I don’t know for sure – his book may be very helpful to some, but I find his notions to be contradictory and not well-considered. His theology is not well-grounded and he accepts virtually every Darwinian claim.

He points to the cosmos as giving evidence of God’s creation and design power – and yet, in his own field of expertise, biology, he finds no evidence at all of God’s intelligent design.

As John West points out here:

Theistic evolution proponents who do not openly deny that God guided the development of life typically insist that His guidance is unobservable in biology. Francis Collins proposes this view in The Language of God, suggesting that from God’s perspective the outcome of evolution could “be entirely specified… while from our perspective” evolution “would appear a random and undirected process.” [The Language of God (2006), p. 205]

Excellent points. I hope you noticed that it was Steven M. Barr’s review and he makes some excellent points about Francis Collins in it.

BTW, for those of you on the apologetics front I have a couple of new things up on the site. Have you seen the Prof Robert George/Doug Kmiec debate that the World Over Live is featuring this week. It is so good. I have captured much of Prof George’s comments (can’t stand Kmiec) where he basically takes the wheels off the pro-life Obama Catholics while asking for their support now.

Also have some of Micah Wilson’s most recent comments on what a strange situation pro-lifers find themselves in now: ““The lines of disagreement in the philosophical debate over abortion have never been clearer. While the politics of abortion remain as tumultuous and contested as they have ever been, the underlying philosophical, ethical, and scientific issues have been clarified to the extent that any careful person can examine the arguments of both sides and come to a principled and informed position.”

So while they are winning the argument, the most dedicated pro-abortion President takes office – unable to pass FOCA but completely committed to advancing step by step the abortion industry’s agenda.

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/06/the-intellectual-chops-communication-skills-charisma-and-savvy/

I also have reading selections for Prof George’s Clash of Orthodoxies. It is THE handbook on abortion, euthanasia, pornography, embryonic stem cell research, marriage and sexual morality, and the role the of the courts in resolving such issues. If you are engaging the great liberal unwashed on these issues, feel free to copy and paste.

payingattentiontothesky.com/reading-selections-from-%e2%80%9cthe-clash-of-orthodoxies%e2%80%9d-by-robert-p-george/

Regards,

DJ

 

[Convert66]

Hello all, I’m brand new here but this one caught my attention straight away. Great thread with many excellent resources and comments. My own humble suggestion is that outside of a personal relationship with the potential convert you may be spinning your intellectual wheels. The problem with belief is not, per se, a philosophical or intellectual problem. Rather, it is one of consistency: that is, how to reconcile the attractive parts of faith (i.e. moral teaching; belonging; meaning) with the unattractive and/or difficult parts (take up your cross; hypostasis; the problem of evil and suffering; etc.) in the potential converts mind and, more importantly, in their heart and soul. The only way to demonstrate the coherence of such paradoxes is by living them out faithfully in sight of the skeptic and even then a sovereign revelation may still be the only thing that wins a soul to Christ. For the latter we can trust in the Lord’s goodness. For the former, we must do as Christ commands and “love your neighbor as yourself. . .” We must be the embodiment of the “contradictions” that skeptics find difficult (revelation shows them to be paradoxes and not contradictions at all) and by word AND deed repeatedly pull them back from the division of contradiction into the harmony of paradox by demonstrating how large faith is, and how small skepticism looks in comparison. I think we can only do this effectively by relationship, or, in the least, demonstration.

 

[reggieM]

Excellent points. I hope you noticed that it was Steven M. Barr’s review and he makes some excellent points about Francis Collins in it.

Yes, he did raise similar concerns. Steven Barr supports the idea that science gives evidence of God’s intelligent design in the universe – he does a great job in showing the mathematics behind that claim also.

… what I didn’t realize was that I was reading your blog (I should have noticed the footer on your posts). I enjoyed reading your posts there – it’s quite an excellent production all the way around. Thanks.

p.s. Where did you find the David Carlin post on atheism? I know him from his books.

 

[reggieM]

Hello all, I’m brand new here but this one caught my attention straight away. Great thread with many excellent resources and comments. My own humble suggestion is that outside of a personal relationship with the potential convert you may be spinning your intellectual wheels. The problem with belief is not, per se, a philosophical or intellectual problem. Rather, it is one of consistency: that is, how to reconcile the attractive parts of faith (i.e. moral teaching; belonging; meaning) with the unattractive and/or difficult parts (take up your cross; hypostasis; the problem of evil and suffering; etc.) in the potential converts mind and, more importantly, in their heart and soul. The only way to demonstrate the coherence of such paradoxes is by living them out faithfully in sight of the skeptic and even then a sovereign revelation may still be the only thing that wins a soul to Christ. For the latter we can trust in the Lord’s goodness. For the former, we must do as Christ commands and “love your neighbor as yourself. . .” We must be the embodiment of the “contradictions” that skeptics find difficult (revelation shows them to be paradoxes and not contradictions at all) and by word AND deed repeatedly pull them back from the division of contradiction into the harmony of paradox by demonstrating how large faith is, and how small skepticism looks in comparison. I think we can only do this effectively by relationship, or, in the least, demonstration.

That was very good. I agree that it’s difficult to show the consistency of the faith through merely intellectual means. Over a long period of time though, it can shine through – but it takes patience and a lot of communication.
But usually, our most slam-dunk arguments get a strong push-back and may actually cause the person to get more defensive.

Sometimes, it may be better to keep striving to show a person where the similarities of belief are. This is especially for Protestants. Showing them that they already accept the tradition of their own denomination and that they have a history, can help them look back to the origins of their faith.

Then, possibly, offering a sympathetic view rather than an antagonistic one – that can build a friendship rather than just an enemy.