Why Apologetics Sucks

Why Apologetics Sucks 26/04/11

The title seems pretty self-explanatory.

Authored by: .


Why Apologetics is irrational

Suppose there is some controversial issue. Also suppose you have a particular view on this issue. Which one of the following two options should you choose?

  1. Learn more about the controversial issue.
  2. Learn how to better argue for your view on the controversial issue, and argue against those views in conflict with yours.

I think most of us have a hunch that option 1 (which we’ll call free thinking[1]) is somehow better than option 2 (which we’ll call apologetics).

Is Apologetics fairly described by option 2? Yes: almost all apologetics is covered by stuff like “here are some arguments you can use to persuade your non-Christian friends”, “this is how you knock down argument X against Christianity”, “this is why X, who wrote a book attacking Christianity, is wrong”, “tactics for persuasively arguing your case” and so on and so forth. Take a sample of the articles at an apologetics website like bethinking, or STR, or Reasonable Faith, or the titles of speeches given at a recent Apologetics conference. You probably don’t even need to do that: most apologists, apologetics organisations, etc. make it clear they are ‘providing a defence of Christianity’, ‘equipping you to defend the faith’ or something along similar lines. So describing Apologetics as apologetics is accurate.

Why is Apologetics irrational? Because apologetics is an exceptionally bad epistemic strategy. Given religious beliefs are highly diverse, mutually contradictory, and many seem at least superficially plausible (many can attract agents of considerable epistemic virtue, and there is no great trend of the epistemically virtuous to one religion or another), making it your business to convince others of the belief find yourself with is epistemic suicide. The odds are stacked against you (no matter how epsitemically virtuous you are, the cohort of those with similar or greater virtue will be widely divided, and so most of them are wrong – so probably you are too). Yet, in the probable event that your belief is false, practising apologetics is unlikely to get one to realise the falseness of your view and prompt you to change your mind if it is false. If anything, spending your time trying to enhance the plausibility of your belief is likely to make you stick to this belief despite its falseness.[2]

Free thinking is a strategy that has a far better track record. You may still get it wrong, but the idea of learning about the evidence untrammelled by the aim of spinning it to serve your prior ideology should make you track the evidence far better. If the evidence is slanted against your point of view, our free thinker seems far more likely to notice this and revise their belief, and the apologist more likely to rationalise it away and try and convince others (and themselves ) it is not so.

Why you shouldn’t be an apologist

Engaging in apologetics is always irrational. This is because free thinking is strictly superior to apologetics, regardless of how much you know. Worse than that, apologetics is plausibly worse than simply learning nothing.[3]

Why is that? Why would it not be reasonable for someone to carefully consider the matter, come to a conclusion, and then devote themselves to defending it (per many apologist self-portrayals, such as Lee Strobel). It is rational to be persuaded by a given view in the face of disagreement, even if some of these people are epistemically more virtuous than you. It is also rational to argue for your view, or to try and persuade others towards it. However, is never rational to take the evidence with an agenda to vindicating your view. No matter how much one knows, or how carefully one has considered the issue, one never wants to compromise a clear view of the data. For the fact there are people even more epistemically virtuous than you who disagree completely should raise the fear a rational person’s mind that there is some evidence or argument that refutes them that they are not aware. Consequently, they should want to keep as wide and clear a survey of the data as they can. Apologetics runs counter to this reasonable aim.

Of course, apologetics has some benefits. Given equal time invested, an apologist for Christianity is likely to provide a better case for Christianity than a free thinker who comes to believe Christianity[4].  If Christianity is true, and that it is important for others to know Christianity is true, then it is better to do apologetics: although it is not rational, the prudential consequences of convincing more people outweigh this. The problem, of course, is that this all hinges on Christianity being true. If Christianity is false, doing apologetics for it is bad. So rational people will want to be confident of Christianity being true, but that means free thinking, not apologetics. We can add a lack of epistemic humility to the rational sins an apologist commits.

Does this mean anyone who tries to argue for Christianity is irrational (why stop there, anyone who argues for anything is irrational?) Not at all. If someone, after free thinking on religion finds themselves convinced by Christianity, and further tries to argue in its favour too, they are not being irrational.  They only become irrational if they lock themselves in a Christian ideological echo chamber and spend their time trying to defend Christianity and attack other beliefs ranged against it. What one should do instead is carry on as they did before: continue free thinking about the issues, and if that happens to supply one with further reasons in support of ones view, so much the better – if not, one should be grateful for the correction.

Dealing with apologetics, dealing with apologists

Most of us lapse into apologetics without realising it: we do so when we go looking for evidence that confirms our beliefs instead of evidence in general, when we treat countervailing evidence as an enemy (‘but this means I am wrong!’) rather than a friend (‘this is not what I expected, maybe I should change my mind’), or when, when presented with an argument ‘against’ our position, our first impulse is not to seriously entertain it, but rather look for ways to undermine or defeat it. This identification of our beliefs as some object to be valued and protected rather than an estimate to be revised in the light of new information is one of the most persistent and recalcitrant cognitive biases, and almost all of us are guilty of it to some extent or another. It certainly is not unique to Christian Theism[5]. Whatever you believe, you should avoid lapsing into apologetics, and so training oneself to free thinking, and developing insight as to when you are practicing apologetics are very good ideas to keeping rational.

Apologists are prevalent (in part because apologetics can be seen as an intermediate level exploit of human rationality). How should you interact with them? How do you know someone is in thrall to apologetics: everyone will profess that they are merely following where the evidence leads. Yet not all who profess they do really are, and you shall know them by their fruits. If someone claims to be a free thinker, and yet their entire intellectual diet is devoted to material that defends, that attacks opposing beliefs, and so on, then it is a pretty fair bet they are doing apologetics instead.

Apologists are neither epistemic peers, nor are they competent judges of good arguments (it is hard to think of a worse strategy to assess argumentative worth than apologetics). Consequently, their attitudes about the truth of Christianity, or the merit of the arguments in favour and against, do not track the truth. Further, it seems unlikely that they are likely to change their mind (even if they should), and any case they present will likely appear more convincing that it should be taken to be – because their craft is devoted precisely to enhancing the plausibility of their case.

This does not mean that their arguments must be false (straightforward ad hominem), but it does give good reason not to take them seriously, and indeed to neglect to interact with them save in very special circumstances. Although apologists can be useful to provide their ‘side’ of the story, their assessment of the argumentative terrain is worthless, and at worst the arguments they present you need to be checked (as apologists are likely to selectively cite authorities sympathetic to them and other biases that need to be corrected to get a clear view of the evidence). If you are also in the business of presenting arguments to others which you think should convince them to your side, apologists are slightly more recommended – again, though, they are strictly inferior dialogue or debate partners than a free thinker on the other side. In most circumstances, therefore, they are better off ignored and avoided.

[1] “Free thinking” is sadly a title taken by many fairly thick Atheists. Here, free thinking is taken to mean attempting to survey the evidence as fairly as possible without letting one’s precommitments colour ones assessment.

[2] A more technical way of looking at it. Agents performing apologetics are more likely to ‘stick’ with their beliefs, and the degree to this ‘stickiness’ is irrespective of truth: Catholic apologists are more likely to stay Catholic than catholic non-apologists to a similar degree that Protestant apologists are more likely to stay Protestant than non-apologists. Thus the ‘ideological stickiness’ that happens from practising apologetics fails to track, and so is a bad strategy: it will make you stick to your convictions whether they are right or wrong.

[3] Whether apologetics is epistemically worse than nothing depends on whether the knowledge you gain when learning to argue your side is ‘worth’ the bias it introduces. My hunch is that being biased is more dangerous than being ignorant.

[4] Not necessarily, though. It might be that apologetics only provides pseudo- convincing arguments, whilst free thinking provides the breadth to make a properly convincing defence. That may be unrealistically romantic. Of course, the argumentative gap between free thinking and apologetics is unlikely to be great, which further undermines these reasons for doing apologetics.

[5] That said, modern Christianity, particularly the more evangelical wing, seems to emphasize Apologetics (and thus apologetics) a lot, so it is one of the worse offenders at propagating this anti-epistemology.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • Dan Rather

    This is weird. If apologetics is defined as 2 then it’s just people who really really like Dissoi Logoi and use it a lot. Among these was Aristotle. I mean, by this definition almost every exceedingly rational person (such as say, Hilary Putnam, who often is his own worst critic) should not be taken seriously.

  • Pingback: Atheist Thrasymachus Admits He’s Unreasonable | Choosing Hats

  • Occam

    I’m a Christian, and sometimes I present other people with reasons to believe that God exists. This earns me the title of “apologist” in the eyes of some of the people I interact with, although I do not accept the title. I mention this to illustrate how difficult it is for a religious person to avoid being so labelled. I do not think that you will find it possible in practice to distinguish between what you call free thinkers and apologists. Rather, your argument will be used to discredit anyone religious.

  • http://www.facebook.com/payton.alexander Payton Alexander

    Christians do not start with conclusions and then philosophize about premises because they are irrational. They do it because they are trying to be factual. They see God as clearly and honestly as you see the sun. Wouldn’t anyone be skeptical of an argument that entailed the non-existence of sunlight? The Christians feel the same way about God.

    Our dogmatism is not the dogmatism of irrational people who cling to belief in spite of reason. I have seen no good reasons for atheism and plenty of good reasons for theism. On the contrary, our dogmatism is the tenacity of a man who has been given a solid Fact, which he cannot honestly doubt. Apologetics is simply the task of relating that fact to the other facts we think we know.

  • http://www.facebook.com/payton.alexander Payton Alexander

    Moreover, would an apologist ever knowingly present an illogical or irrational argument to prove his point? I don’t think very many would even consider it. Apologetics is an adequate path to the truth in this respect. It weeds out illogical arguments and only produces logical ones. When an argument is adequately refuted, most apologists drop it. There are plenty of examples of this happening throughout history.

    Are any of the arguments I currently defend illogical? Have I not abandoned false arguments plenty of times before? How then am I irrational.

    The only difference between you and me is that you have to reconcile your arguments to the truth. I have to reconcile them to the truth AND to Christianity. I hold myself to an additional standard.

  • http://www.facebook.com/payton.alexander Payton Alexander

    “…we do so when we go looking for evidence that confirms our beliefs instead of evidence in general, when we treat countervailing evidence as an enemy (‘but this means I am wrong!’) rather than a friend (‘this is not what I expected, maybe I should change my mind’), or when, when presented with an argument ‘against’ our position, our first impulse is not to seriously entertain it, but rather look for ways to undermine or defeat it. This identification of our beliefs as some object to be valued and protected rather than an estimate to be revised in the light of new information is one of the most persistent and recalcitrant cognitive biases, and almost all of us are guilty of it to some extent or another.”

    I especially liked this section. But I doubt many apologists would care whether or not they are being good philosophers. As long as they are coming up with rational arguments, they are happy. They do actually have a vested interest in the truth of their beliefs (salvation, heaven, etc), so it would be silly to suggest to them that they should not value these things. They value truth just as much, but like I said before, they also hold themselves to this other standard.

  • http://www.thepolemicalmedic.com/ Thrasymachus

    In reverse chronological order.

    Payton:

    Unless you think everyone besides Christians accept fallacious arguments, then being logical ain’t enough to get at the truth. Ditto being convinced of one’s religious beliefs. So plainly it is not enough to provide valid arguments (nor, indeed cogent ones) in support of your view to be rational – because this is commonplace. Rather the relevant empirical stuff needs to be carefully weighed. Having ones pre-commitments tipping the scales is a poor way of doing this.

    Occam:

    In practice, my hunch is that most people (religious or not) are apologists. If not very rational people use this argument without due discernment, then that is sort of their lookout, right?

    Dan:

    Pretty sure 2) does not include Dissoi Logoi or Putnam. Learning how to better argue for view and better against opposing views ain’t the same as learning how to argue for these opposing views or harshly criticising your own view. It would seem these two things are good candidate heuristics for free thinking, whilst 2 never is.

  • Dan Rather

    I’m afraid I don’t see the distinction. Suppose a man believes that eggs exist. If he goes the “apologetics” route he can better argue for the case that eggs exist. If he goes the “dissoi logoi route” he’ll try to bring in cases for the opposing side, balancing the evidence for and against eggs. Then if he goes the putnam route he will seriously criticize his belief that eggs exist in the extreme, to the point where it becomes exhaustive for him to justify the existence of eggs. Now suppose the man at the beginning actually believed that eggs don’t exist. What would be different? Presumably absolutely nothing. In so far as a person is unbiased, any route they go in examining a proposition will be valuable in assessing that proposition’s truth value. If a person has sufficient time, it seems he should go the apologetics route, the “putnam” route, and the “neutral route” to gain the strongest rational assessment of a proposition’s truth value. Otherwise unfair bias is given towards the opposing view to the one he or she already holds, or unfair bias is given to a neutral view, where a neutral view might be the weakest view (think of being neutral on biological evolution). A person’s starting beliefs should be cast aside completely, and rigorous apologetic should be done, after this, rigorous criticism of that apologetic to be done, and then a neutral weighing of the remnants of battle in one’s epstemological arena. Like a courtroom in which you are the judge, jury, prosecution and defense. That is the way it seems philosophers like Putnam, Aristotle and others attempt to behave (putnam rather unsuccessfully, as he doesn’t play the apologetic for himself too well).

  • http://www.thepolemicalmedic.com/ Thrasymachus

    Dan:

    I am unsure whether you need to have an epistemological battle royale for beliefs like “eggs exist”, or “the theory of evolution is mostly right”: following a Russell-esque dictum, I think it is acceptable to go along with common knowledge or expert consensus (but when popular and expert opinion is divided, one should be more careful). But bracket that.

    I find little to object to in an epistemic method of doing apologetics, then doing self-criticism, and weighing up the aftermath. My complaints are leveled against doing apologetics alone: about only ‘playing defence’ for ones particular beliefs. Only ‘playing prosecutor’ is also a bad idea, but thanks to the balance of cognitive biases, it is much rarer.

    It seems that however much or little time you have, it is always worth splitting it in such a manner to hear a case (however cursory) from all sides, instead of devoting yourself to the defense of your current beliefs. In the limiting case where someone does ‘throw off’ their prior commitments and surveys the arguments without bias, this ‘free thinking’ or ‘dissoi logoi’ or whatever approach seems a far better search strategy. In the more likely event that someone needs to repel the effects of cognitive bias, considering the matter in a way which is mildly-cerebralized confirmation bias seems a poor approach indeed.

  • Randy Everist

    There’s a reason professional philosophers don’t take this track. But in any case, you’ve never explained why (2) precludes (1), nor have you explained why, if all religious beliefs are probably false (that is, each belief held holds a probability of being false by the one who is holding it), a) your beliefs about religion are not also equally probably false, and b) these false belief’s negations should not be regarded as true then as well. After all, if it is probably true that “My belief X is false,” then it is probably true that “not-X is true.” So shouldn’t we take any and every position, since no matter what we attain, the opposite is most probably true? Next, after these hurdles, you really should face the fact that it is the probability of ALL one’s religious beliefs being true that is low, not of any individual belief. After all, suppose I believe “God exists” and you believe “God does not exist.” On your account, somehow both propositions are equally improbable. But what probability calculus gets you that? Let us suppose further that the available evidence really does lead toward atheism being true. How would it follow that atheism is probably false? Let us suppose the probability of a certain proposition about God is at .9. Now let’s say we add another new premise, at a probability of .5. Well now the probability that both such beliefs of mine are true is at .45, meaning it is more likely that one of these is wrong than that they are both true. See what I’m saying?

  • http://www.thepolemicalmedic.com/ Thrasymachus

    Hello Randy,

    I’m afraid I don’t really ‘see what you’re saying’.

    (2) precludes (1) for reasons stated above: if one is indulging in scholarship for the express purpose of furthering your case, that’s in conflict in doing so to getter a better view of the issue. Is it really possible to study a topic without a view as to trying to support the conclusions you want? Perhaps not. But there are certainly better ways to limit this baleful influence, instead of embracing it per apologetics.

    How we divvy up our ‘prior probabilities’ of any particular religious belief being true is difficult. But one only needs very modest claims here. All we need is to say that it’s unlikely we’ll fall into an environment where our prior culture just happens to have the ‘right’ beliefs, and consequently we should be avoiding epistemic practices that tend to ‘stick us in place’. That seems pretty incontrovertible.

    Best,
    Thrasymachus

    • Me

      Hi, thanks for the reply. But you’ve only repeated your assertion! The fact is there are good counterexamples to (2) precluding (1). Simply because one hopes X is true it doesn’t follow that one does not learn more about a controversial issue. What does it take to learn more?Any agent X can be said to have learned more when she acquires knowledge of any kind with respect to the issue. Suppose there is a scientist who seeks to confirm his theory. He wants it to be true, partially out of excitement, partially out of a desire to be published (both normal desires). Suppose this scientist has learned philosophy of science, and so thinks this will help him to confirm his theory. Well, I think this is sufficient to establish (2). But as it turns out, the scientist’s precise tools that he thought would help him in fact make him disprove his own theory. I think this is enough to establish (1) (and it would even if he confirmed his own theory). What you are saying is that it is at least metaphysically impossible for the above situation to occur, which I think is patently absurd.

      You would need some other premise, such as “apologists will not be honest,” which I think you won’t be able to give a non-question-begging reason for. Finally, your last statement hasn’t had any support. Taking what you say literally, you mean that “it is unlikely that the set of all beliefs that our culture holds contains only true beliefs; therefore, we should avoid epistemic practices that keep those beliefs.” But that doesn’t follow! In fact, it seems there are clear counterexamples. How you come to know a belief holds no bearing on its truth or falsehood. That is the genetic fallacy. Further, it is the fallacy of division to insist that because we believe a set is not completely true that we have a defeater or even an undercutter for any and all of our beliefs. This also assumes that there are no a priori beliefs, which strictly cannot be proven. Finally, this once again doesn’t deal with any of the arguments. For this argument is truth irrespective; it doesn’t undermine the actual reasons given to believe by anyone. In this respect, apologetics is not in fact an epistemic exercise. Rather, it is at worst a debating technique; it is the concept of providing answers, not a way or method of knowing them.

      Next, (2) does not preclude (1) because it is leaves out something you seem to take for granted that I think most people would not grant you: the assumption that one also is not interested in truthful answers/or engages in faulty means. But one’s motive doesn’t even make his conclusions plausibly wrong without the unstated but assumed premise.

      Finally, probability is based on background knowledge. Even if we grant you the premise that it is likely an apologist has not done correct research nor work into his philosophical and/or evidential arguments, we may nonetheless reject your conclusions on the basis of our other background knowledge. Why not allow into one’s background knowledge the actual arguments? Since there is no metaphysical relationship between one’s motivation and truth, we should include the arguments and their respective reasoning into one’s background knowledge. At that point, we may fairly say, “probably, the apologist is wasting his time, for his argument are all invalid, or display confirmation bias, or appeal to tradition, or etc.” But to artificially restrict the probabilistic background knowledge on a logically fallacious basis doesn’t do you any favors, my friend. :)

  • Noatheist1

    This is a classic example of someone that can start a webpage to prove he’s an idiot!
    Mission accomplished. Send in the clowns!! You see friend you ramble on and on and on and on and on about apologetics being irrational and post numbers 1 and 2 and ask which would you choose? Then you lay out an entire lifetime of your thoughts, using an apologetic stance to support your view AGAINST APOLOGETICS ! In effect you cut off your own legs and have said nothing at all. And right on time…here they come folks…the dancing clowns!! Yes they honk their bike horns and tumble and fall across the stage, a visual feast of fancy, and when they wander off stage left you realize it was all just puffery. No substance. But   in the world wide web he feels he has mattered, if but to himself.
      It seems free thinking gets caught in its own web of not thinking freely.It sounds great to say it to yourself, but your thinking is deep in the tight  rut of your own bias, and it needs a tow truck to get out. 
       Alright everybody…back on the bus, we’re moving out. Nothing to see here, let’s go!  What we saw here was an atheist (really an agnostic, but let him have his fun) that probably got his ears boxed by an apologist that left him angry and defenseless, and now he has a website that is ALL HIS !!! Cool huh? Now he rules! 

    • Freestinker

      Free thinking. There is no such thing my friend no matter how long or loud or adamant you are about it. I know it sounds noble, as if you are truly enlightened and above holding onto irrational ideas. But nay says I, suspect from reading your own words you may not quite fit that bill. Like some claiming to be a Bright yet dimly making sense. I mean, to claim to be a free thinker(as if that means anything) yet being stuck with only one song to play, over and over, it just smacks of hypocrisy. You condemn that which you practice. Doesn’t the Free Thinkers Church explain that to you folks? Let Dawkins and the others carry the torch, this kind of site just causes a lot of awkward glances amongst yourselves and some real “free” thinking.

  • http://www.is-there-a-god.info unkleE

    Thrasymachus, I know I’m coming to this late, but like the other christians here, I think your argument is overstated, and I’d like to try to add to the discussion pointing out why we believe this to be the case.

    1. If all you were saying is that an apologist should have a concern for truth, then who could disagree? But you didn’t need that long to say that, so I presume your concern was elsewhere.

    2. Your initial dichotomy (learn about vs learn to argue) is a false one. The matter isn’t binary – we all do a bit of each. The question remains, if enough evidence accrues against our view, are we willing to reconsider? This isn’t a matter of apologetics, but of being honest with oneself. Perhaps the most famous apologist of the last century, CS Lewis, made it clear that he had no wish for anyone to believe except if they thought it was true – i.e. the evidence pointed that way. The same challenge faces every one of us, and I suggest you could have reminded us of this challenge in a much simpler way, and not muddied the waters with criticisms of apologists.

    3. I think you misunderstand christian belief. I imagine you and I would agree that there is some evidence that points to the conclusions that God might exist, some that points the other way, and neither are so totally overwhelming that we can be certain? If so, then there are clearly two questions we each have to answer, and have answered.

    (a) Is there sufficient reason and imperative to come to a conclusion? We have one life, and I want to live it the best can, which includes as truthfully as I can. So I will make a choice if I think I can, based on probability in the absence of certainty. I think, in the light of the amazing claims made by christianity, that is the logical course. Others choose to remain noncommittal.

    (b) On what basis will we come to a conclusion? It clearly must be on the basis of evidence. The area where we disagree is in the assessment of that evidence, and what types of evidence are permissible. Even the rankest apologist believes (for example) that there is good historical evidence that Jesus really did live, die and be resurrected, and though you may disagree about that evidence, that is not the same as there being no evidence.

    4. You say “Having ones pre-commitments tipping the scales is a poor way of doing this.”, but if one believes on the basis of authority (something we all do – none of us have the time, energy, expertise or access to facts to work everything out for ourselves, and some don’t have the education, interest or intelligence either), then pre-commitments may not be a bad basis. To say otherwise is, I suggest, intellectual snobbery. As long as some christians can present a convincing case, others will trust them.

    5. Further, christianity is not just a matter of abstract philosophy, but a relationship. Once a person believes, the whole thing becomes personal in a way that a non-believer may find hard to understand or respect. But it is quite logical. Our belief depends on evidence, but part of that evidence becomes, over time, our individual and collective experience.

    Perhaps we can just agree that apologists shouldn’t overstate the case, and should not be afraid to present all the facts, and to allow their hearers space to consider?

    • http://www.thepolemicalmedic.com/ Thrasymachus

      UnkleE, respectfully, I don’t really see how 1-6 contradict my argument. I agree that you shouldn’t distort the evidence or ‘overstate your case’, and that these issues are important, and you should try and form you judgement on the best view of the available evidence you can – and yeah, relying on other people is, in principle, acceptable (although, given religious plurality, I don’t think that will fly).

      But the problem is doing apologetics is an exceptionally bad method of doing these things. Training yourself to defend your side isn’t a good way of getting a fair view of the evidence – a bit like having a trial when you only have the defence attorney speaking. You are right that arguing for X and knowing about X are not completely separated, but plainly the former should come from the latter, and not “learning about X as a means to an end for better arguing my take on X”. Yet this seems transparently the motive of most apologetics (“equip yourself to defend the faith, etc. etc.)

      Of course, Christians aren’t the only ones guilty of being partisan. But not many folks have a cottage industry devoted to it.

      • Randy Everist

        “Training yourself to defend your side isn’t a good way of getting a fair view of the evidence – a bit like having a trial when you only have the defence attorney speaking. You are right that arguing for X and knowing about X are not completely separated, but plainly the former should come from the latter, and not “learning about X as a means to an end for better arguing my take on X”. ”

        I think your own example works against what you have said. Suppose there is a defense attorney who wins every case. Suppose further he is even a dishonest man. He lies where he can get away with it, and paints reasonable doubt as unreasonable. Suppose further this attorney studies the facts of the case, legal precedent, et al., as a means to the end of winning the case. Now suppose the attorney stumbles across some evidence in his current case. It implicates his client. Not only does it implicate the client, but rather it shows to a near-certainty his client is guilty. Regardless of what the attorney does, he has knowledge disconfirming his past belief of his client’s innocence. The point is that there can be a dishonest man with the wrong motives who may nonetheless learn a truth about a subject that he did not know before.

        Only in the case where one thinks the particular way of obtaining knowledge is faulty can one overturn this. As we have seen, apologetics is not a way of obtaining knowledge. So suppose apologetics entails dishonest methods–defend the faith whether wrong or right. But you’ll notice I included that in the counterexample above: if one learns this truth, then even if he seeks to ignore it or spin it, he nonetheless knows it is true. So suppose one would say that apologetics encourages people to use poor reasoning and the like. Well in that case, one should deal with the arguments (for it is only in these cases such a claim could apply). But in that case this particular argument is unnecessary, for you are already dealing with the arguments at hand.

        • Randy Everist

          Finally, I just wanted to respond when you say that “the former should come from the latter.” Should in order to what? I assume it’s not a moral issue. Perhaps you mean “should” in order to ensure justified true belief. But that’s not correct either, since there’s no reason one cannot learn something about a field that is in fact correct (and he is justified in that belief) while seeking to defend one’s particular view. To say otherwise is to engage in an appeal to motivation (e.g., “he doesn’t like abortion, therefore he is wrong concerning abortion” or the still-fallacious “he doesn’t like abortion, therefore he is probably wrong concerning abortion”).

          Also, consider that one’s intuitions may not constitute justification for someone else, yet there are instances in which these intuitions may ultimately be confirmed by the one who held them out of a desire to prove these to be correct (think of moral issues of any side; it doesn’t follow that for all of these individuals, they cannot obtain any new knowledge of the subject).

  • http://www.is-there-a-god.info unkleE

    “Training yourself to defend your side isn’t a good way of getting a fair view of the evidence”
    This is where we disagree. You seem to think that one cannot commit to any conclusion without closing one’s mind. But scientists, social activists, politicians, philosophers, etc, have to do it all the time, though perhaps to a different degree. I fear following your path would lead to no-one committing to any belief at all!

    GK Chesterton said: “The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid.” Life would be unsatisfying and diminished if we all tried to live in a state of total open-mindedness and uncommitment. And if we are committed to something, whether it is the environment, world peace, justice for the poor or Jesus, we will work for it and argue for it, and it is right and proper that we do so, wouldn’t you agree?

    I agree it is impossible for a committed believer to be totally open-minded – but then I think a committed sceptic/agnostic, environmentalist, social activist, etc, cannot achieve this theoretical state either. So surely the ideal is to keep a balance of open-mindedness and commitment? I would regard myself as an amateur “apologist” and that is what I try to do. At the other end of the scale, that is what CS Lewis did.

    I agree that many christians do not do this. But neither do many atheists (or many social activists, etc). And I don’t think that many people are wired to do that, no matter how much you think they should. So why not let apologists of all stripes live without your approbrium?  : )

  • http://www.thepolemicalmedic.com/ Thrasymachus

    Randy:

    Will you learn more about X if you spend your time trying to defend your particular take on X from all comers? Yeah. Are there cases where someone could, despite studying X for apologetic ends, nonetheless come to the conclusion that his original view on X was wrong, and that further, he would have justified belief that it was wrong? Sure.

    But again, none of this touches my argument. I’m not committed to saying it is metaphysically impossible for an apologist to have justified belief about the matters he apologizes for. I only say that apologetics is a bad epistemic method because it tends to lead one to wrong beliefs, and there are strictly superior epistemic methods available (“free thinking”) – and so you shouldn’t do apologetics as there are norms about picking the best epistemic practices one can.

    The case for why apologetics isn’t as good as free thinking was laid out previously – it tracks poorly as it seems to encourage retrenchment of the beliefs one was aiming to apologize for whether they are right or wrong. Coming up with examples where this doesn’t apply doesn’t rebut this claim: that a defence attorney may change his mind in the face of introvertible evidence of guilt doesn’t mean that trying to ‘make a defence’ for our prior convictions is the best way to get at the truth.

    Enjoy life,
    Thrasymachus

WordPress Themes