#423 - What's Wrong with Apologetics? (with Jimmy Akin)

Is apologetics too triumphalist? Too complicated? Too biased? In this episode Trent and Jimmy talk about where apologetics can go wrong and how we can fix the practice of this important tool of theology.

[sandragoss]

I appreciate both Jimmy and Trent’s authenticity and integrity in doing their work to bring people to the truth of God. Praise be to Christ.

[jackdispennett]

The main problems I have with apologetics:

1. When apologetics arguments are presented to laypeople, apologists should be up-front about certain arguments being controversial or not widely accepted within the academic community. For example, instead of saying, "The evidence is clear that Acts and Luke were both written before 62 AD, the apologist should say, "I believe that Acts and Luke were written before 62 because (x, y, z), but most New Testament scholars would disagree because (a, b, c), I disagree with their assessment because (d, e, f)." Or better yet, apologists should minimize the use/interpretation of evidence that contradicts modern scholarship. Of course it's possible for modern scholarship to be wrong, but the first time that the layperson debates with an educated, well-read atheist about the dating of the Gospel of Luke, he's going to get destroyed if he goes in with the certainty that it was written before 62 AD. Even if you think Luke was written early, you can still derive great apologetic value from it even assuming that modern scholarship is correct in dating it to the 80s AD.

2. Apologists need to step outside of their arguments and imagine how they would treat a similar explanation of a different religion's problem areas. For example, a big problem I have with the literalist reading of the slaughter of the Canaanites, and the whole "God-is-the-author-of-life, approach, is that pretty much any religious tradition can use it to justify (even modern-day) atrocities (e.g. one could say that the 9/11 attacks were justified and were God's will, and you couldn't resort to any moral absolutes, such as "God would never do such a thing because it's against His nature, " all you could argue are the truth claims underlying the religious tradition proposing the order to kill civilians.) Transposing the slaughter of the Canaanites into an analogous modern-day event accentuates the jarring nature of the literalist interpretation, and also exposes the fact that most of us would never accept that God had ordered such a thing in "our" day, or against "our" people, no much evidence there was. Even when they are proposing multiple solutions to problems such as the slaughter of the Canaanites, apologists need to be honest and open about the weaknesses of the different solutions.

Even though I'm Catholic and fairly Orthodox in what I believe (i.e. I accept what the Church teaches, even on the "hard" topics like contraception, divorce & remarriage, etc.), I'm just skeptical of an apologetics approach that must always come out on top on every conversation. In dealing with problem areas, I would rather say, "You know, I don't have a good explanation for this, but I have many other rational proofs that undergird the central core of my belief system, so on this peripheral issue, I'm just OK with letting the mystery be." I think that kind of epistemic humility is valuable, because all thought systems (including atheism, agnosticism, etc.) are going to have their problem areas. I find that in Catholicism the problem areas are on the periphery of my belief system (i.e. problematic passages in the Old Testament), whereas in scientific materialism, the problematic areas are in the core of the belief system (i.e. what kind of sense does it make to talk of moral duties, if our behavior is all determined anyway? And the fact that the system wants me to deny things that I intuit directly, such as the experience I have of being a free moral agent. etc.).

[MinuteCatholicApologetics]

I started an apologetics channel as an apostolate for my local parish. I noticed after about 150 videos, I am not good at it b/c I am too polemical and it is too hard for me to not insult Protestant theology. These men are pros at what they do. God bless them!

[findingtruth]

2 of my favorite apologists talking about apologetics, can't get better then this :D

[nanagaga]

Excellent conversation between 2 of my favourite apologists.

[analuciasequeiracastro]

Excellent episode, Trent. I enjoyed it very much. That complaint about apologists being white males sounds very racist. Jimmy is right, that's a terrible attitude. Apologists in other parts of the world come from many different ethnic backgrounds. I'm from Latin America and we have apologists and evangelists of different countries and social backgrounds. In the case of women, it's a matter of interests. I love apologetics, but I am not interested in becoming an apologist. I am sure many women love apologetics, but I bet most of them are not interested in becoming professional apologists either. I think we women have other ways to share apologetics. This is the same dumb criticism modernist have of not enough women in sciences. I am happy that women who love science develop their careers in such fields. But I cannot stand people demanding that all women become scientists. Many of us are not interested in that; we have different interests and we are not less intelligent or capable because we chose other disciplines or career paths.

[timothyhurlburt]

38:35 ...The title of this paper demonstrates this point so well:

"Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: Problems with using long words needlessly" ☺

[Josiebydarn]

I just started a side business and this video has done more for me to understand how to talk to my customers, friends and family then I think anything I've ever heard.

[royalsoldierofdrangleic]

"I cringe" ~Jimmy Akin, 2021

Please someone make a video of Jimmy Akin out of context, now

[pwille]

Thank you! This information is very helpful to me as a seminarian. Have you ever had the opportunity to come and speak at a seminary? I think it would be quite valuable for us.

[TheMarymicheal]

Praise God, so thrilled to see my favourite apologists together.
GOD bless both of you and your families.

[matthewsimmons]

Jimmy Akin wrote stuff with bad attitude? I can't believe it!

[wanaspola]

Trent, I love it when you do your goofy voice. I know you didn’t use it here, but just so you know, I love hearing it. If you ever want to use it, again, you will certainly delight this listener! I can’t remember where, but I think you used it to describe the Dr Seuss roads in Texas/California or something along those lines in your family update. God Bless you.

[niceforkinmove]

I have listened to, and read from both of you. Thank you for your work. I find it interesting that Catholics very often view "apologetics" as defending the Catholic Faith as against other Christian views. Catholic Answers seemed especially geared toward defending the Catholic Faith in a way that would appeal to what I would roughly call Fundamentalist Evangelicals. I think CA naturally draws these sorts of views given Karl Keating's background and his own views. But I often wonder if CA sets a tone and represents the Church in a way that may not appeal to a wider audience. The other problem I find is that when I am dealing with non-christians they have listened to so many evangelical Christians (who seem to be over represented in apologetics to non-believers) they seem to equate Christianity from what they hear from them. It often isn't a matter of right or wrong but the emphasis is odd to my cradle Catholic ears.

Either way CA is a tremendous resource and that I have found very helpful in learning about the Catholic Faith.

As far as vocabulary I think jargon can be helpful because philosophers often make distinctions beyond what common language considers. I try to explain the jargon as I go as it is used in philosophy and stick with the jargon so my writing is clear. But there definitely is a balance.

[annas]

on the last part on politics: There are two Catholic radio stations available in my area and one day when I was listening, both were talking about politics. One was talking about gun laws and the other was talking about Georgia's new voting laws. Do you think that is problematic? Even if I may agree with them, I was a little off put by that.

[beautifulwhitecat]

I used to go to eat at the Catholic Church students center every week but no one shared their faith with me. The Catholics all sat at another table amongst themselves. I can't believe they didn't take the opportunity to share what they believed with me. Even if I disagreed, this was the opportunity to talk about the faith.

[ericlucas]

The first thing that I remember learning from this cast is this: Evangelism and Apologetics are linked, work together, and can become ineffective on their own, without one or the other.

[tesschavit]

My two favorite apologists, God bless you guys.

[RealSeanithan]

The short attention span bit does apply to apologetics, of course, but in my personal experience, it doesn't apply to the gospel. I once sat through a sermon, and when he ended, I was disappointed that he cut it so short, then I checked the time, and he had preached for over an hour.

[HerotPM]

Maybe I have my own private definition of triumphantism, but I don't see what the issue is with it. I can understand not being arrogant or a jerk, but I don't see what the issue is with triumphantism. I would love to hear Jimmy or Trent define what they mean by it.