Jump to content

Talk:Apologetics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Craxd (talk | contribs) at 14:11, 11 April 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Old discussion

Some things:

  • I removed the paragraph on the historian because it is not properly apologetics but probably Christian propaganda quite common in those Centuries after the Fall of the Empire.
  • Apologetics (Christian) is precisely the effort to use reason in favour of Faith. The expression used before was not clear for me.
  • I have changed another thing but I am quite tired right now and do not recall.

Feel free to revert, but take into account the above: not faith and no reason but precisely the contrary. See Chesterton's works: those are apologetics, while the one previously quoted is just propaganda (in the technical sense and probably in the despreciative one). My English is beginning to rot, sorry. Pfortuny 13:18, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, the Catholic Encyclopedia calls Orosius an apologist, so I think it's fair to label him as such. Certainly to a non-Christian the difference between Christian propaganda and Christian apologetics is a subtle one ;-).—Eloquence 13:24, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
Historian and apologist, but I do not know his works. After reading the C.E. article I've come to the conclussion that he is not relevant for this article (I mean, Augustine would be worth including, but not Oroisus: like including Shakespeare in a short article on theatre and not Marlowe), but as anywhere my opinion counts one. BTW thanks for a) turning my mind to other things, and b) pointing this article out.Pfortuny 13:33, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I admit it's somewhat selective because I recently dealt with his works when researching the Library of Alexandria. It is more intended as a stubbish start for what should ultimately become a list of apologists of the various traditions.—Eloquence 13:38, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Is this apologetics?

I'm unfamiliar with this writer, but is Zacharias' book a work of apologetics at all? If it is, this is not the aspect of it that is relevant at Apologetics: "Another modern apologist is Ravi Zacharias, scholar of world religions from India, and author of The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha which compares Christianity with world religions and other modern movements."

Does the article need to be made clearer, or just this reference? Or is the new edit just a muddle that can be reverted? --Wetman 20:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Zacharias is a modern apologist. I will therefore reinstated the edit, and will place a link to his organizational web page for your info. He is a very popular speaker at universities (worldwide - because of his extensive knowledge of eastern religions) as an apologist for Christianity. Pollinator 00:45, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Ooops - I see someone has already taken care of it... 01:00, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

'Intellectual and social function of religious apologetics'

Made some small changes to increase the accuracy of the article.

It was describing apologetics as only have the purpose of strengthening the faith of believers. This is wrong since one can othen find letters or articles directed at skeptics at many internet sites of believers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.107.140.222 (talk • contribs) .


Yhello, the in the first few lines we find "the title...therefore has both connotations." The word 'both' here is arbitrary, without two clear referents. This really should be clarified.

External Links

Do you think that the external links section of this article should also have non-Christian apologetics websites? This article should be more open-minded.

Absolutely! I don't personally know of any, though -- if you do, please add them, and make sure to be clear in the link title what type of apologetics they exemplify. Jwrosenzweig 23:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.107.140.222 (talk • contribs) .

I think someone should take a scythe to the external links and bibliography sections. Both are so indiscriminate that they don't help the man on the Clapham omnibus to find good authorities. Experts are not going to come here for this. What's needed is a few outstanding examples. Just my $0.02. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, this is the list of external links as of 20:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC):

I would say that is manifestly excessive and indiscriminate, but I don't really know enough about the nuances of the issue to sort the authorities from the b logs and monographs. Help appreciated. Unless there genuinely are tens of different strands of apologetics, I'd say we should aim for at most four or five links. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tactics of Apologia

Ran across Tactics of Apologia in clicking on random articles... that article is in need of major work and could perhaps be merged into Apologetics. -- NYArtsnWords 20:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal (moved from article)

"This is an inaccurate picture of apologetics. While it captures some of the truth behind the concept, it unnaturally assumes that the individual who engages in the apologetic will omit truth as an attempt to deceive the hearer. This is not necessarily accurate. We see every day that individuals in political circles use rhetoric to convey a message or agenda.

A message can be deceptive but that does not necessarily mean that all messages are untruthful or inaccurate. Above you find the statement, “Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause”. True apologetics is primarily concerned with arriving at the TRUTH and not deceiving the listener or reader.

The statement above is actually an example deceptive propaganda rather than apologetics. It uses a type of logic but is lacking context and support of its claim.

Example:

If some A’s are B’s and all B’s are C’s then all A’s are C’s.

This is a false statement but unfortunately, it is the logic used by the above writer."

(written by 199.8.16.1 (talk · contribs)) This seems like an issue with the content rather than content itself. If someone wants to rephrase this to conform with NPOV go ahead. --Daniel Olsen 00:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Apologetics and World War I

The reason I put links, in the apologetics article, that are strange and to do with World War I, in an edit, was because I was making a metaphor and a comparison.

First, I compare all the contradictions and exclusivity between all the religions and their beliefs and claims in the world and the fact that it is difficult to know and find out which religion is the "one true religion" to the stalemate in the trenches, battlefields, and battlefronts of World War I. Second, I compare the fact that many of the arguments made by religions for them to be the one true religion are very weak and easily refuted and that there are more counter-arguments than arguments to the very heavy casualties of World War I. Third, I also compare that and many of the unsuccessful attempts by religions to give arguments for their beliefs (e.g. Intelligent Design) to many of the early unsuccessful attempts of the warring nations to break the stalemate (e.g. Gallipoli, Battle of the Somme, Battle of Passchendaele).

Now let me talk about the comparisons to do with my edits: Fourth, I compare the arguments of the Christians for the existence of a theistic God and Christianity to be the one true religion, the Christian countercult movement, Christian missions, and their criticisms and arguments against other religions, pantheism, parapsychology, and the New Age, etc, to the Spring Offensive of World War I, by Germany. I compare the fact that the Christians are (or at least seem to be) pretty successful in their attempts to show that their religion is true and that they are false, right now, to the fact that the Spring Offensive was actually pretty successful, and it achieved great results, at first. I compare the arguments of the Christians to the tactics used by Germany in the Spring Offensive. I compare the fact that, at least now, Christians do (or at least seem to do) have more arguments and apologists for their religion and against others than other religious believers, to the fact that Germany had more troops than the Allies, at first. Fifth, I compare the apologists for other religions and pantheism (e.g. A. L. De Silva, Gunapala Dharmasiri, Red Jacket) to the commanders of the Allied armies (e.g. Ferdinand Foch). I compare organizations for the apologetics of pantheism (e.g. World Pantheist Movement, Universal Pantheist Society) to the United States during World War I. Sixth, I compare their statements to (or at least try to) refute and counter Christianity and its arguments and to defend belief in pantheism to the Second Battle of the Marne. Seventh, I compare their statements to (or at least try to) "fight back" against the Christianity and even challenge, reject, and refute it, to the Hundred Days Offensive of World War I. Eighth, if they succeed in refuting Christianity and showing their religion or pantheism to be true, then I compare that to the Allied victory in World War I.

The Anonymous One 10:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plato

The Plato section doesn't mention how he's an apologist. --Arperry 21:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency of the presumed topic of the article

The title of this article is "Apologetics" but most of its sections—most egregiously, the lead section—are written as though the topic were "Apologist". Can we talk about either changing the title to "Apologist" or rewriting the text so that it is predominately about apologetics rather than apologists? —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this article isn't biased enough. You can't defend a faith using reason because it is precisely that. A faith. Faith is believing in something even though there is no evidence for it and you have no reason to believe it. In short, religious apologetics need to be ridiculed for their wasted effort trying to convince rational thinking people that their batshit insane religion is legitimate.


DISCUSS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.127.202 (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV in "Colloquial Usage"

This line "Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term generally has a pejorative meaning. " seems to be one point of view from opponents of apologetics. Simply saying they "have been characterized" does not seem to undo the weight it lends to the anti-apologetic feel of the segment. If this idea is going to be included it should be followed by a common response of apolotics to this accusation, or it should not be included.

The above statement is mine. I thought I would come back here to see if anyone had made a change to the section or commented on what I had to say. I also looked again at the section in the article and reread it. The entire paragraph that makes up the section "Colloquial Usage" would make one think that most people speak of apologetics in a negative manner. I also looked a bit more at the rest of the talk page and found that someone had, at one time, posted a rebuttal to the claims in "Colloquial Usage" making that section 2 or 3 paragraphs and obviously a bit larger. Instead of rewording or cutting down the extra that didn't need to be there, user Daniel Olson simply removed all but the current paragraph leaving it very anti-apologetic POV. In addition to the entire section having the anti-apologetic feel, it doesn't seem to me to be labeled right. It seems a bit more like it should be labeled "Criticisms" instead of "Colloquial Usage" since the latter gives one the idea that the word apologetics is most often used in a negative manner. I have never made edits to actual articles, but this one seems simple enough that I may if no one else does soon. Or perhaps getting rid of the whole section as it does not contain any references, though I think having a "Criticisms" section is a good idea. 98.215.128.112 (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quoted segment should be on the wiki page. Regardless of the 'position' that usage represents, being a more colloquial and less historically established usage, it is used in that manner commonly and leaving it out of Wikipedia would leave the information grossly incomplete. It is in fact the very reason i visited this page as dictionary definitions were proving inadequate.

I dont understand the need for a paragraph commenting on how people /should/ use the phrase be it pro or con as that would be unnecessary and POV, but the quoted segment, or some permutation thereof, is necessary to include because its how a notable portion of people /do/ use the term today. This wouldnt be POV as there is no suggestion to the reader as which interpretation they should use, and including the quoted information itself is no more POV than including the etymology of the word. Why there would need to be some extra paragraph condemning that usage of "apologists" is what i dont understand especially when there is no such recommendation of the term either.

"opponents of apologetics" and "anti-apologetic" criticism is irrelevant to the colloquial usage as they have specific correlation with apologetics defined as: "discipline of defending a position (usually religious) through the systematic use of reason." and not the colloquial usage. The usage is not what is in contention as when an apologist is called such, in a colloquial manner, it wouldnt be the usage of the word they would dispute but the accusations it implies. So presenting anti-apologist to mean anti-the-colloquial-usage-of-apologetic is a misrepresentation of the term here. The colloquial usage is not some sort of endorsement but just an alternate, pervasive, and modern definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.171.206 (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources for any of these claims? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Raelians

We do not need an entry for everyone who does not engage in apologetics, and statements like "there are many websites that shun them" that have nothing to do with apologetics. Kungfukats2 (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism

Why is 'Mormon' a sub-section of Hinduism? To begin with, the correct section title should read "Mormonism" not "Mormon, and it should be a sub-section of Christianity (since Mormonism is "Christian Primiitvism" according to the opening passage of the "Mormonism" article). Or at the very least it's own section, if not a sub-section of Christianity. I would edit it myself, but couldn't figure out how to edit the table of contents. To have it listed under Hinduism is misleading, blatantly inaccurate, and I would expect is a result of outright vandalism, honestly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.44.142 (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a mistake, now corrected. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing between Tolkien and Rowling. It's all bullsh!t and made up, my friend. You can have any figure decide they are part one sect or another. That's how religions work.

-G

Social movements and apologetics

A form of apologetics that is not considered is that associated with social construction, especially around gender. There is a considerable volume of Feminist apologia and a somewhat smaller volume of masculinist stuff. While this is conventionally regarded as "advocacy" much of it is quite obviously an apologetic and thus deserves to have a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.84.253 (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evolved meaning

The meaning of the word "apologist" has evolved to often mean "unconditionally defending a [predetermined] position with no regard for reasoning or logical consistency, evidence or empirics." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.144.159 (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed reorganization of topic

I made some changes already, but I think even greater changes to this entry are needed. Most notably, I think the paragraphs on Tertullian and John Henry Newman need to be moved beneath the Religion header and their appropriate faiths. The purpose of the Religion section seems to be to name notable apologists and their texts as categorized by their religion. Tertullian and John Henry Newman are clearly apologists for specific religions. The Native American Red Jacket's paragraph should also be moved under the religion header, because he is cited for defending his religion.

Then, the section that is presently labeled "Notable apologists" should be relabeled. The preceding headers, "Religion" and "Literature" are definitive types of apologists whereas the remaining apologists are unique and notable for defending something other than religion and literature. Perhaps the new header should be "Other types of apologists" or "Notable apologists of other causes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.198.128 (talk • contribs) 28 November 2014‎

Roman Catholicism

Under the section, Roman Catholicism, it is written like an advertisement, and should be remedied or removed. It names no old apologists, only newer ones, and names a CD, and where to buy it.--Craxd (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apologetics&oldid=655973939"