Where can I find a first-class apologist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lys
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lys

Guest
Someone who is not only well-versed in philosophy and theology, but also is able and willing to think outside the box. And, of course has time and desire to have an honest conversation? Books, articles, you-tube presentations are not something that are interesting for me. Been there, done it, have a t-shirt to prove it. 😉

I have no real expectation to find someone, but if I don’t try, I definitely will not succeed.

Merry Christmas.
 
That would depend. If you’re looking to engage in general ongoing conversation, you will have to search. If you want to have a conversation on a specific topic, call Catholic Answers. Apologist there spend a good amount of time interacting with people.
 
Right here 🤣 No, but seriously. If you aren’t interested in those sorts of mediums for learning more about theology and philosophy, what did you have in mind? I don’t know where you live, but you may find it helpful to try to email someone whom you watched online or read a book by, and if you’re really lucky, they may be willing to have a chat with you. Try sending out multiple requests to various people nearby. You may just get one. I’ve had some luck doing this for different purposes (thanks to GCSE Journalism)

The other option is to pull a complete Gandhi and instead of trying to find a grade A apologist, you could try effectively debating with yourself to make you into a grade A apologist. Mind-map out some ideas/ General starting points and basically always counter your own points.
 
Mtatum1958 said:
That would depend. If you’re looking to engage in general ongoing conversation, you will have to search. If you want to have a conversation on a specific topic, call Catholic Answers. Apologist there spend a good amount of time interacting with people.
Click to expand...
How can I reach that site? Under the old arrangement there was an “ask the apologist” subforum, but it was just one question, and no follow-ups. Not really a conversation.
Daniel27 said:
If you aren’t interested in those sorts of mediums for learning more about theology and philosophy, what did you have in mind?
Click to expand...
Actually, I am very well read and educated in philosophy, and I see many contradictions in Christianity. I am simply interested if there is someone who is able to engage in a rational discussion about some points. Rational means no reference to authorities, or faith, or revelation - only reason and logic.

Before someone says that it is incorrect to speak of religion on rational / secular grounds, I will just explain that it is possible to reach the same conclusion starting from different points of view, so such an endeavor is not impossible. The best example is the “golden rule” which leads to the same conclusion whether one believes that it was something that Jesus said, or Confucius.

Of course I suspect that my search will be futile, but at least I tried. 🙂
 
I think (not 100% sure) if you call the main Catholic Answers number in El Cajon Ca., they can transfer you to an apologist. I understand they always have one or two (sometimes more), there during business hours. Catholic Answers Live periodically tells callers to phone in and speak more at length to one of the apologists for more detail than can be obtained in a call in radio show.
 
Lys said:
Of course I suspect that my search will be futile, but at least I tried. 🙂
Click to expand...
Well, you don’t know. A lot depends on the discussion you are looking toward. You can begin by initiating contact through the CA main website: there is an topic for apologetics Catholic Answers. I don’t know the main phone number, but 888-31-TRUTH would get you started. However, the apologetic staff do many things and I couldn’t say how willing they are to carry on a long term conversation. But, you never know.
 
Ask your pastor who is the best apologist in your parish, sit down for a real conversation. There are many excellent apologists in my parish.
 
Lys said:
I am simply interested if there is someone who is able to engage in a rational discussion about some points. Rational means no reference to authorities, or faith, or revelation - only reason and logic.
Click to expand...
Ahhhh. I would suggest engaging some of the bloggers over at www.strangenotions.com
 
Are you also a famous personality that a professional apologist might like to engage in a professional debate? Because you may be asking for quite a commitment.

There are some people on these forums who can provide intelligent, reasoned responses to some of your questions, I’m sure. It may not be one on one or formalized in any way, and it is a public forum so everyone can chime in, but you may want to make a topic about one question and see what you get and if it starts to meet your needs.

Note: Making one topic with all 100 or so questions at once tends to cause eyes to glaze over, the topic doesn’t have any focus, and the idea of spending days addressing everything all at once can just turn someone off. Not that you can’t bring up all your questions, but I suggest limiting it to a few at a time.
 
Lys said:
One would be fine as a starting point. A good argument to explain the problem of “evil”. And if that is still too large a topic, just an explanation how can the very bad pain and suffering of teething be reconciled with God’s benevolence and infinite power. Because that is the quintessential gratuitous suffering.
Click to expand...
There’s been a few topics on this already, but there’s no rule against another. Do you want to create a new topic or discuss it here?
 
Last edited:
Lys said:
Someone who is not only well-versed in philosophy and theology, but also is able and willing to think outside the box. And, of course has time and desire to have an honest conversation? Books, articles, you-tube presentations are not something that are interesting for me. Been there, done it, have a t-shirt to prove it. 😉

I have no real expectation to find someone, but if I don’t try, I definitely will not succeed.

Merry Christmas.
Click to expand...
Why not start a thread here and see if one pops up?
 
Wesrock said:
There’s been a few topics on this already, but there’s no rule against another. Do you want to create a new topic or discuss it here?
Click to expand...
Emeraldlady said:
Why not start a thread here and see if one pops up?
Click to expand...
These are good, valid suggestions. So, let me start with a minor “deflection”. 😉 A good apologist must argue on the “playing field” of the other party. If a Protestant would argue based on “Sola Scriptura”, those arguments would not be acceptable, since Catholics do not subscribe to that approach.

Do you agree that the basic arguments must be based upon what the other party accepts? Otherwise they would be talking past each other.

Do you consider this a viable method? I am serious in presenting this question. 🙂
 
I can discuss philosophical arguments and not appeal to authority or scriptural quotes.

I can’t say everyone who posts in the topic will hold to that, but I will unless you ask me to do otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Wesrock said:
I can discuss philosophical arguments and not appeal to authority or scriptural quotes.
Click to expand...
Wonderful!

So let’s try with the perennial thorn in the side of Christianity: “The Problem of Evil.” And to make easier to concentrate, here is the specific question:

How can God’s infinite power, justice and love be reconciled with the excruciating pain of infant teething?

By the way, Merry Christmas to everyone. 🙂
 
Last edited:
Lys said:
How can God’s infinite power, justice and love be reconciled with the excruciating pain of infant teething?
Click to expand...
If we can resolves the problem of evil in general then it resolves all cases. There is no need then to have to answer each specific example, such as infant teething, separately. If you disagree after we address the general issue we can see where we stand.

First, let’s acknowledge some things. I approach this as an Aristotlean-Thomist and that school of philosophy that’s developed over the millennia (not just Aristotle or St. Thomas Aquinas’ personal writings, but including the contributions of other Thomists). I think it’s safe to say that you do not. There are no doubt differences in our epistemic and ontic suppositions, and in what we consider to be the objects of human knowledge, and whether the problem of universals is best addressed by realism or anti-realism. Any theodicy or criticism will inevitably stem from these background issues. I don’t think it is reasonable that we resolve all those prior questions in this topic. They are worthy discussion topics, but we’d never get around to discussing the problem of evil itself.

I take it that for the sake of argument you’re accepting the propositions that (1) there is a Creator that is (a) omnipotent, (b) omniscient, and (c) perfectly good and (2) that evil occurs in the world he creates. The issue is that you then claim by reductio ad absurdum that this is a contradiction and so not all of these propositions can be true. The best case scenario, in my opinion, is not that I convince you to be an Aristotlean-Thomist, but that I can at least bring you to understand how the Problem of Evil is understood in an Aristotlean-Thomist framework and how, in such an understanding, there is no contradiction between the perfect goodness of an omnipotent, omniscient God and there being evil in creation. That’s still a very lofty objective, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
In order to understand the Thomist perspective, one of the first things we need to look into is the nature of goodness simpliciter. So, what is the good? For those who consider goodness to be objectively real, Euthyprho’s Dilemma posits two possible answers. One answer is that the good is what is commanded by God. This school of thought when held by monotheists is called Divine Command Theory. If a thing is commanded by God it is good. If God commanded the opposite, that would be good. Goodness is entirely arbitrary and subject to divine whim. In this framework God is above any notion of goodness for it itself is what is dictated by him. The other answer to Euthyphro’s Dilemma is that goodness is a standard independent of God, that God considers it to be good because it is good in itself. This posits goodness as some type of Platonic ideal, but poses a possible problem for monotheists insofar as this standard would be an independent entity uncaused and uncreated by God that exists alongside God. As an aside, I think a lot of those who think the Problem of Evil is an issue seem to implicitly adopt this approach as they try to hold man and God to the same standard, and inevitably they also end up anthropomorphizing God. But I digress and get ahead of myself. Back to the two possible answers of Euthyphro’s Dilemma, Thomists reject both of those as explanations of the nature of goodness and take a third way. That third way is that a thing is good insofar as it exists according to its nature. Let’s look more closely into that.

Again, what is goodness? Goodness in general, not necessarily moral goodness. What is it we understand about a thing when we understand it to be good? What makes the triangle drawn by Sally in ink with a straight edge on a flat surface more good than the triangle drawn Sam with a crayon on the back of a bus seat? What makes Harry a better doctor doctor than Tom? Why is Alex’ health more good than Peter’s? What makes the oak tree at my house a better oak tree than the oak tree at my neighbor’s house? Is there a commonality between all these cases and every other case? Sally’s triangle is better than Sam’s because it better manifests the perfections involved in being a triangle. Harry is a better doctor than Tom because he has the skills (the desired perfections) that are required in his profession. Alex’ health is better than Peter’s because Alex through his fitness regimen has better maintained his peak athleticism. The oak tree at my house is better than the one at my neighbors because it has done a better job at doing what oak trees do: burying its roots deep for nutrients. To be good is to be what one is. [cutting this paragraph in half]
 
[continuation of last paragraph] Or to put it another way, for a being to have the perfections proper to its nature, for the perfections proper to its nature to be actual. Badness, or an evil (being used here outside of a moral context), is to lack the perfections proper to its nature, as Sam’s triangle is lacking some qualities of triangularity, or as Tom is lacking certain skills as a physician, or Peter lacking decent cardio and musculature, or an oak tree failing to burrow its roots deep to obtain nutrients. What’s interesting is that insofar as something exist it is actual in what it is in some way. Evil doesn’t exist in itself, but is the absence of some goodness that is proper to a thing. An an absence can only exist in something that is and not in itself, as a hole can only be present in a thing and not just exist by itself.

Is what I described above the same as moral goodness? It includes moral goodness; the same principle applies. Moral goodness is not some separate thing, but a subset of goodness described above. Moral goodness is specifically regarding deliberate choices made by rational beings, but it is still entirely related to how well that thing actualizes what it is. We hold that human beings have certain ends as animals and as rational beings, that is, things they are ordered towards, and that we can gain understanding of these ends by better understanding the nature of being human. Now, teleology in nature and more specifically in human beings could be its own thread. Suffice it to say for this post that these ends are proper to what it is to be a human being in the same way it’s proper to a healthily developed human being to have two arms, two legs, and a sound mind (among other things – though I should reiterate these physical examples are not moral examples), or as three staight, joined sides are proper to what it is to be a triangle. Moral goodness comes into play in regard to whether a human being makes rational, deliberate choices to act towards these ends or to pervert these ends.

[There is more but I’ve reached the 3 consecutive post limit]
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top