Monday, 25 April 2016

Apologetics 2

The second part of the course covers going over Apologetics from time past. There are two main things of note here for me.

The first is that all these people are in agreement about Christianity, but they disagree with each other over how best to convince others. An argument that works for one is pooh-pooh'd by a later theologian who has his own view. (And by 'his' I mean that women don't even get a look in.) If none of these people can agree among themselves, why should I think they've got it right now and the next person who comes along won't throw that out as rubbish and come up with a new approach? That said, there's no reason for me not to accept that now might be right.

The other point is that it kind of feels like "how's this argument? Do you like it? If not, don't worry, we'll come up with another one shortly." [Insert your own reference to how this is evolution here.] That said, it doesn't feel like they spend much time really testing their arguments against actual skeptics, but that's for the third part.


No comments: