Counter-Evangelization: The Arguments

[NekoNecro]

Hello

Right…I’m sure as anyone who is into apologetics knows there is an abundance of books concerning Catholic doctrines and how to defend them, along with a growing youtube community who make little podcasts and cartoons to share and argue their views.

But what about the “dark side”? The videos and works arguing in favor of non Catholic viewpoints like Mormons, Deists, Muslims or gasps Athiests!

One thing I’ve noticed while studying at university is that when it comes to debates some groups (especially Athiests, Agnostics, Omnists and Deists) are very well versed on a wide array of literature on both sides of the fence, they’ll have read works by Hitchens and Dawkins but they’ll be just as well versed in knowledge of the works of Chesterton and Augustine.

When it comes to Thiests, or rather believers of a single religion though, the knowledge tends to be considerably thinner. The Catholics I debate in real life are veritable repositories for quotes and arguments as proposed by the likes of Sheen and Akin but as soon as I pull information from Islamic or Athiest Scholars depending on what I’m arguing for (The existence/non existence of God, which is the true faith, as a secular Theologian I am expected to be able to argue for and against from any viewpoint regardless to what I believe, a kind of doctrinal spin doctor if you like) all I get is blank stares.

Do you ever look outside Christian materials to assess what the merits and flaws are in the arguments of non-belivers? I find it helps in strengthening ones own by knowing what to defend against but a lot of Christians really don’t seem very familiar with many of the newer ones formulated by the opposite camp.

If yes or no, why do you do that?

 

[Cricket2]

I have done so in the past, but not recently. I did this to gain a better understanding of my own faith as compared to others and to have the ability to debate, if need be, the merits of my faith over others. By studying other views and ideas one can reflect on their possible similarities and differences.

I have often advised students that I have tutored, to always approach doing a paper from the view different than their own. So for example: If you are in favor of the death penalty, research the opposite position and write out statements supporting it first. Then go back and do the paper according to your own believe. I have suggested this for such things as abortion, birth control, political views, scientific theories and so on.

I explain that this is a good way to practice (mentally) any debates that might occur, a certain way to increase one’s own knowledge of the matter in question, and to discover better arguments in support of their own position. It can also change a person’s view by awakening ideas and knowledge previously ignored or dismissed.

The more you understand the opposition the better you can defend your own position. And the more you are willing to being open about the possibility that you are wrong, the more soundly you can change your own position if need be.

 

[Joe_5859]

Hello

Right…I’m sure as anyone who is into apologetics knows there is an abundance of books concerning Catholic doctrines and how to defend them, along with a growing youtube community who make little podcasts and cartoons to share and argue their views.

But what about the “dark side”? The videos and works arguing in favor of non Catholic viewpoints like Mormons, Deists, Muslims or gasps Athiests!

One thing I’ve noticed while studying at university is that when it comes to debates some groups (especially Athiests, Agnostics, Omnists and Deists) are very well versed on a wide array of literature on both sides of the fence, they’ll have read works by Hitchens and Dawkins but they’ll be just as well versed in knowledge of the works of Chesterton and Augustine.

When it comes to Thiests, or rather believers of a single religion though, the knowledge tends to be considerably thinner. The Catholics I debate in real life are veritable repositories for quotes and arguments as proposed by the likes of Sheen and Akin but as soon as I pull information from Islamic or Athiest Scholars depending on what I’m arguing for (The existence/non existence of God, which is the true faith, as a secular Theologian I am expected to be able to argue for and against from any viewpoint regardless to what I believe, a kind of doctrinal spin doctor if you like) all I get is blank stares.

Do you ever look outside Christian materials to assess what the merits and flaws are in the arguments of non-belivers? I find it helps in strengthening ones own by knowing what to defend against but a lot of Christians really don’t seem very familiar with many of the newer ones formulated by the opposite camp.

If yes or no, why do you do that?

I guess I haven’t run across many Augustine-reading atheists in my day.

I do think it is important to see what the “other side” says. If we expect non-Catholics to turn to Catholic sources for explanations on what Catholics believe (rather than reading through the filter of what non-Catholics say we believe), then we owe them the same courtesy.

I try to do this, but I haven’t been doing it as much lately. Not as much free time for reading. My “other side”, though, tends to be heterodox Catholic books. One of my bookshelves has handy little cabinet doors on the lower two shelves. It’s a good place for me to “hide” all my Curran, Schillebeeckx, and McBrien books.

I do understand why people don’t do this, though. With so many truly wonderful Catholic books from the past 2,000 years, and so little free time, it’s hard for me to fault someone for spending their time on the Catholics books that build up their faith. Further, for someone whose faith is more fragile, reading arguments from the “other side” may endanger their faith. So avoiding such books may just be them not wanting to go down that road.

Not everyone can be an expert on everything, of course. But if you plan on carrying on conversations with someone of a certain belief system, it does help to be able to speak their language and be familiar with their arguments. Otherwise, you’re not likely to make much headway with them.

 

[Mumbles140]

I’ve found that, to understand the foundation of anti-religious / anti-Christian / anti-Catholic, I need simply carry on conversations with fallen away Catholics, non-Catholic Christians, non-Christian believers, agnostics, atheists, and the apathetic. Most of those eager to attack religion / Christianity / Catholicism have done their reading and present the arguments.

I thoroughly enjoy, though, the point made by Chesterton - that all of the ‘new heresies’ and ‘new’ arguments against God (some in general, but particularly the belief in the Christian God) have existed since the Incarnation, and always been outmatched. Then they die down until someone ‘rediscovers’ them and launches a ‘fresh’ assault with blunted weapons and broken shields.