# Civbert's Apologetics in Action



## Civbert (Mar 23, 2006)

As I've been debating and discussing my views on apologetics, I have an opportunity to put them in practice. I'm a member of an online "correspondence" chess site - with a very active debate forum. Quite a few atheist, some more rational than others, and quite a few Christian bashers. I've been well bashed on the site, especially regarding Calvinism. This was the opening salvo.


> _Originally posted by Conrau K_
> 
> It seems to me that faith is untenable from a logical perspective. God's existence is often described as unverifiable. I tend to agree. BUT...
> 
> ...



This actually much better than the typical kind of things you'll find there. Conrau K is one of the brighter athiest on the sight. I disagree with him frequently, but he's not stupid by a long shot. Here his is spotting the irrationalism of the priest who tries to give an argument that "transcends" logic in order to understand. Clearly this is anti-intellectual and irrational. 

Some of the post that followed were more nasty, and I have been staying out of them lately. But one of the follow-ups caught my attention.

And the following is the post, and my response to it. Call it Civbert's applied apologetics:


> > _Originally posted by Conrau K _
> >
> > No, I am reffering to logic in the sense of knowledge. Many theists proclaim that they know God exists despite the logical implausibility.
> >
> ...



Please feel free to check out the thread. You will find my post here: http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=39895&amp;amp;amp;page=2

What suprised me was instead of being bashed, there were a few positive response. But I think because my apologetics acknowledges the epistemic limitation of man (that not matter what, we can be wrong), there was little objection to my post. And I was able to demonstrate how Christianity is not an irrational belief system, it is very much the opposite - and there is much to be said for it.

Now I won't convert anyone with my argument, but I think it was a good defense of the faith. It remove some objections that people give, of Christianity being irrational or incoherent. It's a good start. I'm also not saying the "proof is in the pudding". Just because I got postive feedback doesn't prove my apologetics are correct. But I think this is one of the few times my post's were not attact by anti-Chirstians. In fact, no1marauder who normall flames me responded with:


> I hate to say it, but this is a pretty good post. It's about the best defense of a theist position that I've seen in this Forum. Of course, the Christian God isn't terribly rational or logical in the Old Testament so it's not a particularly strong defense of that belief system, but as far as some type of Creator God with SOME interest in humanity the post makes some interesting points that deserve an actual response and not merely scorn.



If you were familiar with my typical exchanges with no1, you wouldn't be suprised to to know my jaw dropped when I read that. 

So there it is - applied apologetics.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 23, 2006)

Anthony,

In a former thread I had criticized Clarkian thought as being too dissonant with the way people talk about knowledge. My daughter was born and those threads grow so fast and with so much energy that I have not yet had time to catch up to the discussion.

As a brother in Christ, I would like to say that you respond to my challenges with Grace, acknowledging the problems that might arise from them. That I very much appreciate. It is not always easy to step back and be so gracious when somebody might be calling your apologetic baby "ugly".

As I've admitted repeatedly, I'm not in any type of studied position to offer any but a general "seems to me" critique. I appreciate you guys hashing out some of these issues because in some heated debates the assumptions "pop" out. I think I've learned more about this, based on the type of learner I am, from your interactions than I might right away reading more Clark or Van Til. As it is, my schedule is pretty busy and my reading won't take me in the apologetic direction for at least another couple of years.

Anyhow, thanks again for your work. Thank you for the grace you've shown me as I challenge some of the assumptions.

Also, with the above, I am happy any time a person takes up the cause of the Scriptures to pagans. Keep up the good work!


----------



## mgeoffriau (Mar 23, 2006)

Question for you --

Do you then think that certainty in regards to our faith is only a private, subjective certainty, or do you think we can be certain in a public, objective sense? 

I can rephrase if that isn't clear.

I ask because if I were to assume your qualifications about man's epistemic limitations, I would have a hard time arguing that we could be any more certain of the truth of our worldview than a Muslim is certain of his.


----------



## Civbert (Mar 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> Question for you --
> 
> Do you then think that certainty in regards to our faith is only a private, subjective certainty, or do you think we can be certain in a public, objective sense?
> ...



I'm afraid I don't understand. I'm trying to figure out how certainty can be a adjective for public. And then there is "epistemic" and "psychological" certainty (if I'm using the correct terms). But both types seem to apply to individuals. 



> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> 
> I ask because if I were to assume your qualifications about man's epistemic limitations, I would have a hard time arguing that we could be any more certain of the truth of our worldview than a Muslim is certain of his.



Hypothetically, that could be true. If the Koran allowed that the god of Islam was a god that was knowable. But I've heard (but have not verified this) that the god presented in the Koran is a god of mystery. He doesn't allow his followers to know his mind. This is very different than the God of the Bible, who is a God of knowledge and wisdom - and tells us we can know His thoughts through his revelation.

Now if there was some other theistic religion, which claimed that their god is knowable, and has given them truth in the form of a verbal and written revelation, and this revelation has survived for thousands of years, and had the *perspicuity of our Bible, then _just_ maybe the adherents to that religion might be justified in having the same degree of certainty as Christians do. But that's quite a hypothetical. The closest bet would be Judaism. 

*_ Isn't perspicuity a great word! But I've never heard it applied to anything but the Scriptures. _

[Edited on 3-24-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## mgeoffriau (Mar 24, 2006)

So if it's hypothetically possible for adherents of a false religion to be as certain as Christians are, then how is our religion not an epistemological leap of faith? Is this not in danger of sliding into fideism?


----------



## mgeoffriau (Mar 24, 2006)

Sorry, just meant "public" in that the certainty was because of publicly available facts, not based on private feelings.


----------



## Civbert (Mar 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> So if it's hypothetically possible for adherents of a false religion to be as certain as Christians are, then how is our religion not an epistemological leap of faith? Is this not in danger of sliding into fideism?



Because fideism entails the disparagement of reason. Faith is consider a separate issue from reason, religion and logic are disconnect by a fideist epistemology. But my view is just the opposite, knowledge requires faith in the axiom to justify knowledge. All rational worldview, in effect, begin with faith in some initial axiom that is unprovable. 

However, some have connected fideism with _sola fide_. But that's a view of soteriology, not epistemology. My epistemology would be _sola scriptura_, and soteriology would be _sola fide_.


----------



## Civbert (Mar 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> Sorry, just meant "public" in that the certainty was because of publicly available facts, not based on private feelings.



I guess that still depends on how you define "certainty". And I think no matter how it's done, certainty is still a characteristic of individuals - whether certainty is based on external facts, or internal examination. A Muslim may feel more certain than a Christian. Some Christians are so irrational in their thinking that they have no justification for certainty - but that doesn't make any Christianity worse.

If we consider certainty as our degree of faith, I think that's determined or measured through personal examination - are we doing good works, is there clear evidence in our lives. I think certainty is never a sure thing - or proportional to the "goodness" of our worldview. I think certainty and epistemology as only indirectly related. 

Under regular discourse, we think of what we "know" as what we are "certain" about. But you can be perfectly certain of something, and be flat wrong - not matter how good you think your reasons are, you can still get it wrong. But when we speak of epistemology, the issue isn't so much the degree of certainty, but is your belief justified. If you have a justified true belief - you have epistemic knowledge.


----------

