Should the Christian faith be rationally defended?

by Narkissos 61 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Narkissos

  In the pretty miscellaneous "Global Flood" thread there were a couple of exchanges on the value of "apologetics" per se. I think this subject is worth a thread of its own. I will here recall some statements in the aforementioned thread:

  I started on this side topic by quoting Christian philosopher Sören Kierkegaard (Sickness unto Death):

  One sees now how extraordinarily (that there might be something extraordinary left) -- how extraordinarily stupid it is to defend Christianity, how little knowledge of men this betrays, and how truly, even though it be unconsciously, it is working in collusion with the enemy, by making of Christianity a miserable something or another which in the end has to be rescued by a defense. Therefore it is certain and true that he who first invented the notion of defending Christianity in Christendom is de facto Judas No. 2; he also betrays with a kiss, only his treachery is that of stupidity. To defend anything is always to discredit it. Let a man have a storehouse full of gold, let him be willing to dispense every ducat to the poor -- but let him besides that be stupid enough to begin this benevolent undertaking with a defense in which he advances three reasons to prove that it is justifiable -- and people will be almost inclined to doubt whether he is doing any good. But now for Christianity! Yea, he who defends it has never believed in it. If he believes, then the enthusiasm of faith is . . . not defense, no, it is attack and victory. The believer is a victor.

  A Christian, who was engaged in an apologetic controversy, admitted later:

  I don't believe the evidence God gives to most of us is "recyclable." For every child whom God adopts He adopts personally. That being the case, I doubt you will ever find all the evidence you need to put your faith in the God of the Bible on an Internet discussion board.

  Still later he brought up an interesting quotation to make a similar point:

  If my understanding that God has chosen to "hide the truth in his book" is "made up" it was not made up by me. It was made up by Jesus Christ. For He said of His disciples: "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand." (Luke 8:10)

  Frankiespeakin made a thought-provoking remark on that:

  I agree,, since Jesus says understanding these thing are to be hidden those not beleiving. It is also a clever way to make the believer feel special when others find contradictions in Jesus or Christian teachings,, and in this way it gets the believer to stop thinking critically. The NT teachings on "faith" if you ask me is a very clever "thought control" device to get one to accept uncritically what is written,, it has worked for almost 2000 years and no doubt been very instrumental in the survival of the Chrisitan belief.

  I finally referred to the poetical dialogues of Job, where (as I read it) Job accuses God of being a tyrant and his friends try to defend God and bring Job into submission. Chapter 13 (Job talking) is especially strong in this regard. AlanF quoted it as follows:

  Are you defending God by means of lies and dishonest arguments? You should be impartial witnesses, but will you slant your testimony in his favor? Will you argue God?s case for him? Be careful that he doesn?t find out what you are doing! Or do you think you can fool him as easily as you fool people? No, you will be in serious trouble with him if even in your hearts you slant your testimony in his favor. Doesn?t his majesty strike terror into your heart? Does not your fear of him seize you? Your statements have about as much value as ashes. Your defense is as fragile as a clay pot. (Job 13:7-12; New Living Translation)

  The issue of apologetics (or, more specifically, theodicy = justifying God) divides Christians from the very beginnings down to the present (think of Karl Barth, who insisted on preaching the Gospel without trying to defend it, and Paul Tillich, who stressed the need of making it culturally credible in the first place). Is the Christian faith as a whole something to be defended on rational grounds? Or is it a "special grace", an esoterical teaching, which only some are effectively called to believe? What do you think and why?
• 

  avishai

  How can you rationally defend something that depends on "faith" not rationale?
• 

  zen nudist

  faith is a gamble on a rumor which defies the evidence.... otherwise it would be knowledge.

  I find it interesting that honest people in daily interactions don't require much faith from the people they deal with.

  if an honest person wants to sell his car, he lets the buyer kick the tires, drive it around the block, have a mechanic look at it....

  but con artists and liars require, nay, demand faith of their mark to hide their deceptions and lack of valuable products...they belittle doubters and mock those who challenge their bald lies....

  most religion can be summed up by the old story called the Emperors new clothes.... a story with a moral lost on many.

  why should any real God play con artist games of faith rather than simply and undeniable reveal himself to all people and not just to obscure prophets whose ranting and ravings one must accept or face eternal torment etc.??
• 

  Sunchild

  I'm new-ish here (until about a week ago, I think the last time I posted here was over a year ago -- and even then, it was just one little post in a really long thread), but I'm one of the resident Christians. Who used to be a Pagan. Who was a JW before that. You might say I've had my share of experience with religion. *g*

  In any case, I realized something odd about myself. The more secure I am in my own beliefs... the more certain I am that there really is no finer path for me to follow... the less compelled I feel to convince anyone that what I've chosen (or what chose me, as the case may be) is legitimate, even when I know they think that I'm completely wrong. If someone wants to know more about my beliefs, that's great, and I'm eager to share them. But since what I have works for me, it doesn't matter to me all that much if other people find it logical or not.

  In other words, I think that everyone has the right to make their own choices. That includes the right to disagree with me. And if *gasp!* someone disagrees with my beliefs, that does nothing to diminish their reality and power in my own life.

  Jesus's best proof of his faith was the way he lived his life: the kindness he showed even to strangers, the gentleness and strength he showed ever in the face of his own brutal death, the love that he inspired and encouraged in his disciples. I want to be that kind of person. Or, as St. Francis of Assisi stated so eloquently, "Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary, use words."

  So, no, I don't think it's necessary to make a "rational" defense of what, 99% of the time, is a very personal experience. That makes about as much sense to me as defending the fact that you've fallen in love.

  ~Rochelle.
• 

  Greenpalmtreestillmine

  Rochelle,

  Jesus's best proof of his faith was the way he lived his life: the kindness he showed even to strangers, the gentleness and strength he showed ever in the face of his own brutal death, the love that he inspired and encouraged in his disciples. I want to be that kind of person. Or, as St. Francis of Assisi stated so eloquently, "Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary, use words."

  So, no, I don't think it's necessary to make a "rational" defense of what, 99% of the time, is a very personal experience. That makes about as much sense to me as defending the fact that you've fallen in love.

  Beautiful words and beautiful feelings.

  Thank you so much, Rochelle.

  Sabrina
• 

  czarofmischief

  It cannot be explained. Merely experienced.

  If it could be rationally defended, it would have been done so by now. But no matter what a believer says, it comes off as arrogant and demeaning to those who do not believe. No matter what we say, it just makes it sound worse and worse...

  CS Lewis probably came the closest to "rationally defending" it as any man ever could, at least in the English language. But even he admitted that if somebody won't, then he can't.

  So, unless the purpose is to understand each other, any "defense" is meaningless. Christianity is a way of life, according to our understanding it is a force from beyond. It cannot be attacked, hence cannot be defended. It cannot be stopped, hence cannot be accelerated. (since stopping something requires a force to act upon it. If Christianity is immune to a stopping force, it is also immune to an accelerating one.)

  CZAR
• 

  Pole

  The Christian faith is nearly 2000 years old. If you consider the NT books then you'll find that most (if not all) early varieties of the Christian faith were fundamentally based on apologetics. Either implicitly or explicitly.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Revelations
  
  
  Prophecies
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Should the Christian faith be rationally defended?

  There isn't any solid rationality with which it can be defended that's why they have faith.
• 

  BrendaCloutier

  The NT teachings on "faith" if you ask me is a very clever "thought control" device to get one to accept uncritically what is written,, it has worked for almost 2000 years and no doubt been very instrumental in the survival of the Chrisitan belief.

  Education and even just the ability to read put parishoners at risk of loosing their faith. So the Church kept the masses, especially the poor, in the dark up until just a very few hundred years ago. Before it was the wealthy, the holy, or the scientific who were taught to read and write latin. It was only in the last half of the last century that latin was done away with for Catholic mass the US (and abroad?).

  400-500 years ago, scientists like Galileo and Newton were considered heretics.

  Marco Polo was imprisoned for his knowledge and talking-writing about it.

  Knowledge is not a friend of faith. Blind or otherwise.

  Brenda
• 

  jst2laws

  No, it should not be rationally defended.

  There are two basic ways of knowing truth in modern society.

  One is rational aconsideration of evidence leading to truth, the ultimate system we call the scientific method.

  The other is Revelation, that is God revealing truth to mankind. The revelations of truth are not to be questioned or tested rationally, but are to be taken on 'faith'.

  Before you conclude that faith then is worthless because the revelations cannot stand up to rationality, consider two issues:

  1 Faith was never intended to stand on rationality or be tested scientifically.

  2 Religion and faith are based on intuitive knowledge which is unfortunately promoted by religionist/spiritual con-men as absolute and inerrant.

  Religion and religious writings were traditionally accepted as dependable, revealed by God, until thinking men about 500 years ago resurrected (from Greek philosophers) and developed rational thought into a system of inquiry, logical explanation and tests of the logic by prediction and experimentation.

  The result, since Descartes, is religionist trying to establish and "defend" their faith rationally, which is impossible. Islam and Judaism have the same problem. Most Eastern religions do not have this problem because they have always openly based their faith on 'intuitive' knowledge and consider 'rational' knowledge as inferior.

  Jst2laws