About Christian apologetics?

Question

I've read a lot here on R&S about how cristhian apologetics are not credible.
One argument that got my attention was the one about Lee Strobel. He is suposably not credible because he is vey partial in his books and never interviews anyone who disagrees with him.
Is that good enough for all of his books to be discredited? I mean, he does interview only authorities on the subject. Also if the answer to the question is yes, than i can easily just toss all of Dawkins arguments in the trash either: He is partial, his books are clearly biased and he does not present alternatives points of view in them.
Personaly, i believe Dawkins has great arguments, he is a great scientist.
So i don't believe just denying what Christian apologetics write is a good or valid counter argument or a rational point of view.

I'm very interested in all opinions!
Please try not insulting anyone, insulting only shows ignorance ok?

Paz de Cristo

Hey!! Great answers!!

bettyboop - apologetics are people who back up and confirm Christian arguments and, like, say good things about it (i might have misspeled it).

Monica - All people interviewed in the Strobel's books I read seem to have credible argument. Of course, they are mostly Historical and Theological arguments, which lies very far from Dawkins's arguments. Still they are pretty reasonable and do not stick with the: "Its in the Bible then it must be true argument"

Answer 1

No it's not. Many, purhaps most Christian apologetics are not very credible because they write a book simply to fall into an agenda. It's the same thing with any political or religious text really or even much historical and scientific. I think that anyone who refuses to adress the counter-arguement in their books, and actually include their arguments is either insecure about their own beliefs or so entirely egotistical and biased that they question the legitimate existance of another possible more accurate belief and is therefore not a very good source. I think that Hawking, Darwin, and C.S. Lewis are great examples of a way to address arguements well. They admit how their own past mistakes led them to their current conclusions. They actively address and confront the counterarguements. Lewis wrote some books trying to argue by counterargument (Screwtape Letters). Darwin sent his books to be reviewed by those he knew would give him the most grief before he even considered publishing. Even the Bible follows this format for argument were Paul first states what is not the best take and then gives the best answer. Or Jesus asks what other people say that he is before asking who his desciples actually think that he is. Someone who wants to be persuasive should at least mention the fact that their beliefs are not universally held if they want to be considered scholarly in their research. That way we know that they have at least considered the possibilities. Those that refuse to do so might not be completely invalid, but they are certainly not the best sources that exist. So don't throw out the work; just don't consider it an authority either.

Answer 2

Dawkins, especially when he writes about evolution, cites credible authorities who can point to over a hundred years of research and (here's the key) evidence. Strobel cites religious authorities for whom the Bible is considered a credible source--these "authorities" are far outside the mainstream.

We can all verify what Dawkins says for ourselves, if we have the time and resources. Strobel, not so much. (And the rest of Strobel's arguments revolve around saying, "I can't see how that could be true, so it isn't." In other words, no treally arguing.)


Ozy, I'm not sure I'd include scientific works when talking about unchallenged writings done with an agenda in mind. Most scientific work is published in journals (with books mainly reserved for collecting established ideas to present to a wider audience), and every paper submitted for publication gets torn apart by a review committee. It's then usually sent back to be rewritten a few times before finally being published, and once it's published, other scientists will challenge the ideas if they are at all controversial.

That's the point of the scientific setup. You can't get away with saying things without others being critical.
Source: I've gone through that process more than once, so I know what it takes to be published.

Answer 3

Christian apologetics skill protecting the Christian faith. while one apologizes they are protecting why they did what they did. this is why 'I make an apology' is utilized in a incorrect way in recent times. Christians who be responsive to the bible use apologetics to shield their faith. apologetics is a universal term and may well be utilized in many geographical regions.

Answer 4

I don't know what an 'apologetic' is.

I am a Christian and I don't apologize.
I am so proud to be a child of God!