Talk:Christian apologetics/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

"Christian" Apologetics?

I think that there should be some mention that most of these arguments argue for the existence of a very generic god and could be applied to almost any religion. After accepting, say, the Teleological Argument don't you still have to prove that this god definitely inspired the bible and not the qu'ran? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisKnott (talk • contribs) 09:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Origins

I saw there was a Mormon apologetics and so I thought a "Christian apologetics" was a excellent category to create and such a category has precedence. User:128.205.191.60


Plato's Apology

My understanding of the translation of the greek into apology in the title "Plato's Apology" is typically more like "Plato's Explanation". --Cplot 07:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No...it's Plato's "Apology," as in, Plato wrote it and it is titled Apologia. The most accurate translation of the Greek word is "defense," since the work purports to record Socrates' defense of himself at his trial.

Questions/Suggestions

This subject is long overdue for an article; glad its here...I altered the category to "Christian theology" rather than just "theology". I might suggest a trim in some ways; C.S. Lewis, for instance is the pre-eminent apologist of the 20th century, and yet is kind of just granted a passing mention. Also, the bibliography is far too long; I might suggest a second article be created called "Christian apologetics bibliography" or something. But most of this has to go. KHM03 18:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Bibliographies will be vfded and deleted. I agree though that Christian apologetics can be a subpage of apologetics, (and likewise the subjects Jewish apologetics, Muslim apologetics, Buddhist apologetics, etc). I hope that there are enough users around here with the appropriate knowledge and ability to adhere unwaveringly from the NPOV policy for this article to be improved. I do not think that the vfd trolls will bite this one though. Dunc|☺ 21:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I reduced the size of the bibliography to a few key texts by a few key authors (Lewis, Ramm, Schaeffer, et al - the giants, really). We can edit that as needed. KHM03 21:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The section on Criticisms is rather sloppily written. Could someone with knowledge of this area take a whack at it? For example, I know of at least one website devoted to fisking Josh McDowell, but I don't have it bookmarked.

I strongly agree with the above. It needs to be sharpened up considerably as it is rather muddled at the moment. Starless and bible black 22:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

while i won't do it myself, i think that whoever rewrites the criticism section should keep it short and simple. I think one good, simple thing to say is that while this branch of academics trys to justify belief in christianity's veracity by human reason, most christians will tell skeptics that man cannot discern the christian god with his own falliable reason, but only with his heart Helio462 07:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

to KHMO3

I agree the subject is long overdue. Please feel free to make changes as this was just a rough draft. I may make some revisions myself today perhaps.

ken 18:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I reformatted things so the page didn't look ugly anymore.

By the way, great contribution. I added a few books plus created a category for people who want additional reading with the bigger book list. I also reworded things so things flowed better. That was a great idea to get rid of the huge list as the main reading list. Better to have classics and introductory works.

ken 00:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Looking good

The page is taking shape and starting to look a whole lot better. Could probably still use a trim here or there but I will gladly leave that up to you experts. Looking good. KHM03 20:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"Conservative Christianity and its Critics"

I removed this section. Why was it part of this article? There are more liberal apologists, and criticism of conservative Christianity belongs on the articles for fundamentalism, evangelicalism, dispensationalism, etc....not here. KHM03 21:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Ontological argument

There is as yet no statement of the ontological argument in the article. The quotation there from Anselm has nothing to do with the ontological argument. Jeremy J. Shapiro 15:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

About List of Christian apologetic works

This is article is nothing more than a bibliography of several 20th century works, with no explanation why these works were included -- & others excluded. And only this article links to this list; so its existence is puzzling.

It has been sitting on Cleanup now for several months, but this has drawn little attention shown to improving it (after 2 months an anon editor removed the tag, but it was restored a month later). Can someone who believes in this article take it under her/his wing, add the details needed to improve it -- or merge it into an appropriate article? Continued neglect will only lead to it being listed on AfD. -- llywrch 22:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fine. I removed the cleanup tag. ken 00:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
As the creator of that article, of course you consider it to be fine. I have added the tag back. I think AfD should be a definite consideration for it. ju66l3r 23:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of James Orr

I removed James Orr in regards to defending the historicity of the Bible as he was a theistic evolutionist. [1][2] [User:Kdbuffalo|ken]] 00:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Creationism is not required for defending the historicity of the Bible. For example, someone can argue for the existence of a historical Jesus while freely admitting that humans evolved from other primates. For this reason, I am restoring Orr. Thank you for understanding. Al 01:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Genesis chapters one and two are historical. [3][4] Reverting. ken 01:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

With all due respect, this is your personal view, and one shared by many conservative Christians. However, it is quite possible to defend the historicity of the Bible while excluding Genesis from the list of historical sections. Some sections are instead understood as metaphorical or as literture literature. Please separate your personal POV of "all or nothing" from the issue at hand. I'm reverting again, and hoping you don't turn this into an edit war. After all, you've tried to make this change a few times now and multiple people have reverted yoru attempts. Please take this as a sign that the consensus weighs against your actions. Thank you for understanding. Al 01:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be much more impressed with your post Alienus if you could spell the word literature. ken 01:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

See, that was just a personal attack, and not at all constructive. People make typos on occasion, and I'm as guilty as the next person. Often, I notice my errors and correct them. Sometimes, I don't. This is one of those times. Thank you for understanding. Al 01:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and weasel words

I added the weasel and unsourced templates as I counted 5 unsourced statements, 4 weasel phrases, and 2 POV (so-and-so should do so-and-so) in this section. There may be valid content here, but as written it is very weak. Would suggest that the editors involved read up on WP:WEASEL. The Crow 03:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Have removed all controversial unsourced statements, reduced wordiness of non-controversial statements, reduced the unsourced "apologists say X but critics say Y but apologists say X", and remove the "apologists ought to..." statements. In addition to being unverified, this kind of language and style is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The Crow 14:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


It seems that the page is lacking content with respect to criticism. Specifically the notion of falsifiability. This is critical to Creationist ideals and is a reason for lack of scientific responses to Christian apologists’ claims. In addition I didn’t notice much reference to debate within the apologist community such as with reference to evolution’s role in creation. These seem vital so as to point out the lack of homogeneity within the various facets of the phenomenon of intellectualized religious beliefs.


It seems to me the very title of this page is weasel-worded- It suggests that Christians have alot to apologize for- true, but not npov. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.64.142.13 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Please see "The term "apologetics"". In this context, "apologetics" means simply "defence". EALacey 07:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Tertullian

Shouldn't Tertullian be mentioned as one of the major early Christian apologists?


(FJA)Yes, I think the History section is weak in general. Not only Turtullian, but also, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Origen, and Jerome should be mentioned along with who they wrote to, what they wrote about, and why. Some of these wrote to government officials to show that Christianity was good, consistent with the philosophy, and should be tolerated, others to expose what they considered unorthodoxy/non-catholic forms of Christian belief, i.e. Gnosticism. As Christianity became legal and promoted within the Roman Empire, the latter type was more generally employed. During the Reformation, Catholic and Protestant writers used apologetics against the other; this still continues. In addition, in modern times, Christian apologitics is used to show that the religion and science are compatible, or that the Bible is right and science is wrong.

The early church fathers should be included. I added a sentence in the history of apologetics section. 136.183.146.137 10:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul on Philosophy

I suggest the removal of the sentence in the History section which says: "The apostle Paul, who was well-educated, said to beware philosophy (Colossians 2:8), though there is evidence that he was acquainted with Greek philosophy himself (Acts 9:29)." The full text of Colossians 2:8 says: "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." (NAS) There's no explicit "beware philosophy!" content, and even if some think it's implicit it needs to be in its own talking point and not asserted as an aside. c0bra 22:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to fix it up. Jonathan Tweet 15:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

scientific apologetics

I added this line, which was prmptly deleted as "unneeded."

Historically, Christian apologists have also defended the flat earth, geocentrism, heliocentrism, the extraordinary life spans of people in Genesis (e.g., Methuselah), the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Joshua halting the sun and moon, and the division of humanity into three races based on descent from the sons of Noah [5].

This statement seems both true and relevant to scientific apologetics. Jonathan Tweet 05:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The use of the word "extraordinary" above is prejudicial in my estimation. I also believe it is unclear to readers how prevalent the three race theory based from the sons of Noah was. I also believe that there are many miracles in the Bible and focusing on just a few is not helpful. Lastly, the flood link above is poor. I believe the whole section should be scrapped as it is unneeded. ken 02:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Thank you for finally coming to the talk page instead of just deleting something over and over. What do you mean by "unneeded"? Do you mean that the section is good enough without it, or that my addition serves no purpose whatever? The policy of Wikipedia is "abundance and redundancy." That something is "not needed" is not enough of a reason to delete it. If it's true and fair and relevant, it gets included, even if it also appears elsewhere. This policy specifically gets around revert wars, which is what you and I have been doing. I'd be happy to delete "extraordinary," use a better "flood" link, and maybe even drop the three races reference if it would make you happy. Jonathan Tweet 05:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I composed a comprise. - kdbuffalo

I deleted this line as POV. "proven science has never contradicted the Bible in any way, which is certainly true" A better take might be something like Most modern-day scientific apologists assert that the Bible does not teach flat earth or geocentrism. They regard evolution as not yet proven and in fact plainly false. As to the age of the earth, they debate among themselves whether the earth is "young" or "old." Jonathan Tweet 05:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No one has raised an objection to the material that another editor deleted. If someone else would revert it for me, I'd owe you one. Jonathan Tweet 05:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

lead paragraph

Changed lead paragraph in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Jonathan Tweet 15:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

KD, if you don't like my lead paragraph, write a better one. See above link on what a lead paragraph should be. Jonathan Tweet 15:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we achieved a compromise regarding the articles introduction. ken 02:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Let's agree to keep the lead section as is then. Jonathan Tweet 05:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

History of Christian Apologetics

The first line of this Heading is:

"Evidentialist apologetics, such as today's Gary Habermas or the more introductory Christian apologetic works such as Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel, are the most popular apologetics and have been historically. This can be seen from the earliest times in Christianity(bold added), as the New Testament records the apostles appealing to eyewitness testimony."

First, there is no reference, and second, it doesn't follow with the rest of the article. This is the HISTORY section. Are these guys really the most popular apologetics historically? I think this is no more than a bias opinion, and think that these two lines should be removed.

Cjbeyer 20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Links

Wikipedia is not a link farm, and this article has passed the spam event horizon. Given that this article has many sources, the only valid links would appear to be those that offer additional context over and above what a great article would contain. Most of these are simply putting one or another point of view, and an awful lot are simply spam. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

General/various apologetics:

Scientific Christian Apologetics

In the subcategory labeled "Scientific Christian Apologetics", the information given does not speak of how Christian apologists have defended and are defending there faith through science and scientific eveidences; rather, the article mainly discusses several disputing beliefs concerning church dogmas that involve the science of the world. I implore educated members, even Christian apologetics, to add to this subcategory information discussing the ways Christian apologists and scientists have used evidences in science to prove or uphold Christian beliefs. I know for myself that there are many books and scientific observations that have been written to defend many aspects of Christianity - unfortunately, some are only located in the Christian or Religious section of your nearby library or bookstore (sometimes, this is because Christian apologetic books are considered to be read mostly by Christian readers), so most "non-believers" never hear about them. For those up to the task, you must research intensely from apologetics both inside and outside the faith. There is a good amount of information to work with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mymines229 (talk • contribs).

Sherwin-White

I've corrected the apologists' misquotation of A.N. Sherwin-White on Acts, as per the Sherwin-White page itself.

Requesting articles

To estabish notability at Criticism of Mormonism, I'm requesting a few articles.

A more complete list can be found on the talk page of that article. Any more notable sources of Christian apologetics that will improve citations would also be appreciated. Sorry if this is intrusive, and thank you. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Types of apologetics

I came to this page as I was redirected from "classical apologetics." I think the article is well written, but would like to offer a couple suggestions. Interestingly enough, this article says very little about the classical apologetic approach as such (referred to here as Thomism). It mentions different arguments Thomas Aquinas used (teleological, etc) but does not set classical apologetics apart as a whole school. There is a book published by Zondervan called Five Views on Apologetics. The five views that it looks at are Classical, Evidential, Presuppositional, Reformed epistomology and Cumulative case. (The epistomology and cumulative methods are not mentioned at all here.) I think these are good divisions, and someone could possibly incorporate this into the article. Kristamaranatha (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Mobbing

I deleted the rebuttal from this paragraph:

There has been significant academic treatment of Christian apologetics in scholarly institutions and publication, which generally deal with fact and dissent in a transparent manner. However, views that dissent from politically correct ideas (e.g. those held sacred by campus elites) may be suppressed for fear of acquiring a stigma and the effects of mobbing. [citing "The Unkindly art of mobbing"]

The cited source supports the assertion made, but applying it to Christian apologetics and criticisms thereof is a synthesis since the article doesn't talk about Christian apologetics. The implicit premise is that Christian apologetics ideas are politically incorrect, and therefore subject to supression, stigma, and mobbing as discussed in the article. Even if a source were supplied for the implicit premise, it would still be synthesis to combine that source with the one on mobbing. What is needed is a source that brings these ideas together explicitly. --Flex (talk/contribs) 00:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain your synthesis concern. It could be argued that the source applies directly to this topic because of its broad coverage. It probably doesn't matter, however, since the focus of the section is not the reliability of academics who criticize apologist ideas. I updated the section to focus more squarely on the reliability of the apologists and the impact thereof. --Ed Brey (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No, making specific application of a broad principle is original research. We're not formulating arguments here; we're cataloging what is (verifiably) out there as "accepted knowledge."
As for the new criticism section, I think there must be plenty more stuff out there on various aspects of this subject (e.g., general criticism from the rabid atheist contingent like Dennett and Dawkins; S. J. Gould's Rocks of Ages on creational apologetics; someone on evidential apologetics [perhaps on the historicity of the Bible or of the resurrection or whatever]; Michael Martin on presuppositional apologetics; etc.), but I personally don't have the time to go digging around for it right now. I'm sure we could get cited material by asking at Talk:Atheism etc. if you don't have time or interest.
As for the AiG bit, that doesn't seem to address the issue of "dilute[d] scholarly publication" unless one assumes "scholarly publications" is equivalent to "good evidence" and the opposite of "'doubtful' arguments." Scholars can use bad evidence and make doubtful arguments too. It's not a synthesis; it just seems not to be all that relevant to the given criticism. Besides, which Christian apologists are publishing in scholarly arenas anyway? Some philosophers like Alvin Plantinga are, but is AiG? --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I intended the first sentence as an encyclopedic summary of the whole article, not only the quoted portion. I agree with the proposed expansion, although I can't volunteer to implement it. Whether AiG is scholarly is a controversial topic that I don't think can be decided here. They say that they are, while many traditional academics (my term) disagree. But then there are those who question the usefulness of scholarly works by traditional academics due to the effects mobbing, as recently highlighted, for example, in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. --Ed Brey (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not AiG is scholarly is not primary the point I'm debating (though I doubt one would be able to do better than nauseating wording like "AiG says they are, the vast majority of mainstream scholars say they aren't" -- such is life in the WP). Rather, it is that the quotation from them doesn't answer the proposed criticism without equivocating on the meaning of the terms I mentioned above. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is a matter of lack of political correctness but a lack of rigour. Alvin Plantinga is a legitimate philosopher of religion, and so knows the rules of the game. As far as I know, AiG does not have, at least among its more visible staff, anybody with similar qualifications in evolutionary biology, palaeontology or geology. I would therefore no more expect to see them publish in academic journals in these fields than I would to see Dawkins publish in philosophy of religion academic journals. But then neither AiG nor Dawkins are aiming their views on science and religion, respectively, at academia, but to the general public. I also object to characterising an inability to be competitive in the academic marketplace for ideas as being the victim of "mobbing". HrafnTalkStalk 17:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
A fair point on intended audience, but this is not an explicit issue in the current "Criticism" section and, to reiterate, my complaint about the material is different (see above). --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Creationist Apologetics

I propose renaming this heading "Scientific Apologetics." Creationism refers to those who support a literal 6-day creation, but this is not the full extend of scientific apologetics. Intelligent Design is in contrast to biblical creationism in that it may claim that God "used" evolution instead of a literal 6-day creation. Archeological apologetics may also fit under this heading - i.e. using historical and archeological records to prove the accuracy of the Bible. Another method of scientific apologetics used by both young and old earthers as well as ID is the argument for the fine-tuning of the universe as pointing to an intelligent Creator. I think these different ideas in apologetics warrant a renaming and adding-on to this section. Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, creationism refers to any belief that posits the world or life was created as a deliberate event by entities or entity for a teleological purpose. Intelligent design is a form of creationism as is 6-day "young earth creationism".--Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I would object to such a renaming as (i) Creationism (including ID) is pseudoscientific, not scientific and (ii) there exists a body of work that produces Christian apologetics based on legitimate science -- examples of which are in Christian apologetics#Scientific. Creationism is not just "those who support a literal 6-day creation" -- it also includes Day-Age creationism, Progressive creationism and Neo-Creationism (the latter category including ID). The "claim that God 'used' evolution instead of a literal 6-day creation" is not ID, it is Theistic evolution -- a position very much at odds with ID (with TE scientists and theologians testifying against ID at Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District). HrafnTalkStalk 06:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Whether creationism or evolutionism are pseudoscientific is a matter of your POV. People are roughly split between whether our existence can be attributed to evolution. Both theories can only be subjected to the normal scientific process in limited areas (e.g. can water dissolve rock slowly (evolution) or quickly (creation) to create the Grand Canyon), but they cannot be so subjected regarding big questions (e.g. re-run the experiment to verify a single cell organism can evolve to contain a human eyeball, or re-run the test that God could successfully breath life into Adam). Accordingly, your recent edit to create separate Scientific and Creationist headings is POV because it implies that Creation Science does not involve science, which is just one point of view. --Ed Brey (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave others to address the matter of whether creationism can constitute science. I want to point out that your justification for categorising it as scientific was the claim "creationism is scientific according to their POV". Why should their POV be endorsed by the article? Ilkali (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to make a finer distinction here. There are the biblical narratives of creation (most prominently in Gen 1-2), about which there are a number of theories (e.g., consecutive 24-hour day view, day-age view, framework view, etc.). Then there is what Henry M. Morris et al. call "scientific creationism," which is less of an attempt to understand Genesis 1-2 as a text and more of an attempt to confirm or prove that what the Bible says -- once an interpretation is settled upon -- is true by presenting scientific evidence and sometimes challenging prevailing scientific theories (cf. Ed Brey's water example). It seems to me that whether or not one thinks scientific creationism is good science, many of its practitioners are without question attempting to argue within a scientific paradigm. So, it may be bad or wrong science (cf. Luminiferous aether, Lamarckism, MOND, etc.), but it is nonetheless intended to be scientific. For that reason, I think such books should be classified as "scientific" even if some of us think they are flawed in the understanding of science and/or the Bible. --Flex (talk/contribs) 00:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
'Scientific Apologetics' can be distinguished from 'Scientific Creationism' in that the former is philosophical work, on the basis of legitimate scientific research and which is consonant with that research, often by prominent scientists, while the latter is based upon misrepresentation (quote mining) of scientific research in a direct attempt to undermine that research, often by individuals with sparse or inapplicable qualifications. Creationist 'scientific research' typically (and almost ubiquitously) consists of poring through scientific literature, in an attempt to glean (perceived) contradictions that can be used to impeach the general thrust of this literature. I do not believe that these efforts merit the label 'scientific'. HrafnTalkStalk 05:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Per my comment above about "sparse or inapplicable qualifications":

  • Gish, Duane. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!, El Cajon: ICR, 1995[1]
    • Gish is a biochemist not a geologist
  • Johnson, Phillip E. Darwin on Trial. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991
    • Johnson is a law professor, not a scientist of any sort
  • Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings; Baker Books; ISBN 978-0801060045; 1995.
    • Morris is a hydraulic engineer, not a geologist
  • Ross, Hugh. The Creator and the Cosmos. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993, 2nd ed., 1995, 3rd ed. 2001
    • Ross is in fact an astronomer -- the only one on the list with a relevant scientific qualification
  • Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Towards God, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004.
    • Strobel is a journalist, not a scientist of any stripe

HrafnTalkStalk 05:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As to "Ed Brey's water example" -- no, water cannot erode (not dissolve) rock "quickly". And more particularly it erodes harder rock slower than softer rock -- so that if all the rock was eroded in a single event, we'd expect to see far more harder rock, and far less softer, than we see today. As to the evolution of the eye, read that article and spare us the argument from incredulity. 'Scientific creationism' is not "bad or wrong science" that has been put forward in good faith in an attempt to fill a void, it is a mix of pre-scientific notions mixed with misrepresentation of modern science in an attempt to dislodge legitimate science. HrafnTalkStalk 05:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As to "POV because it implies that Creation Science does not involve science, which is just one point of view" -- it is not "just one point of view", it is the viewpoint of the Supreme Court, 72 Laureates, 17 state academies of science, and 7 other organisations, as well as a whole host of other scientific organisations. I think this is sufficient basis for not dignifying creationist apologetics as "scientific". HrafnTalkStalk 06:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I sympathize with much that you say, but for the sake of argument, let's take an example from list of books you gave. Hugh Ross, who as you say is a credentialed (if not exceedingly well published) astronomer, founded Reasons to Believe, an organization that specializes in the the type of apologetics we're talking about here. One of its primary purposes is to discuss recent "scientific discoveries and how they harmonize with ... the Bible."[6] I would argue that at least much of what they do is not quote mining but rather is a popularizing of academic research and discussion of how it fits with the Christian faith in order to answer objections and doubts (esp. that Christianity and science don't mix), which is one of the primary prongs of the apologetic task. This is most of what Ross's Creator and the Cosmos aims to do as well, and I think it fair to call this "scientific apologetics," even if one disagrees with him (as I do at any number of points).
If you're with me so far, let's return to scientific creationism. It can often be more in the vein of quote mining, but it also attempts to present scientific theories that one might consider bad or wrong but that are nonetheless scientific. I'd take as an example Morris's arguments about the effects of the Deluge. He was an expert in hydrolics, and he attempted to apply this knowledge to how the Genesis flood (understood in the young earth manner) could have generated some of the phenomena for which mainstream science requires a longer time than he supposes the earth existed. Indubitably, his intent was to defend the Bible and poke a hole in the reigning scientific paradigm. One may (as I do) consider his efforts in this area to be misguided, and one may say his account of the facts and his analysis is flawed. But I would suggest he is in fact operating within the subfield of scientific apologetics in a similar way to Ross -- viz., by trying to reconcile faith and science.
Johnson's book is more philosophical, but it does deal with the philosophy of science. His point, as I remember it from long ago, was that materialism is a metaphysical assumption that is inherently non-scientific (unproven and untestable). That may also be intended to blunt certain scientific claims, but that does not mean he is not trying to give an answer to scientific objections to the faith. (His answer just happens to be, "It's your worldview that I have a problem with, not your data.") Thus, I take this to be scientific apologetics.
In brief, I still think your definition of "scientific apologetics" is too narrow. --Flex (talk/contribs) 03:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. Ross (and Old Earth creationism more generally) is a relatively small player in the Creationism controversy (compared to Young Earth creationism and Intelligent design), and generally only cited in discussing OEC vs YEC controversies in the interpretation of Genesis. To the extent that his work involves reconciling Christianity with orthodox scientific cosmology and geology (which OECs typically accept), it can be considered 'scientific apologetics'. However Ross' work also involves rejection of evolutionary biology (a field in which he is not qualified to offer an expert opinion) -- at which point the label would appear inapplicable.
  2. 'Scientific creationism' (aka Creation science) does not "present scientific theories". It recycles pre-scientific notions, and attempts to cherry-pick the scientific evidence to support it. Flood geology is merely the Biblically-based view of the Earth's history prior to the development, in the 18th century, of modern geology (most of the geologists of the time were devout Christians, and developed Gap creationism in order to reconcile the two). Intelligent design is merely William Paley's pre-Origin of Species Natural theology. Where they have made 'predictions' they have universally been by their very nature untestable, vague, indistinguishable from predictions of orthodox science and/or already refuted by a closer examination of existing evidence.
  3. "Morris's arguments about the effects of the Deluge" involve three aspects -- water, rocks, and where the hades all that water came from and went to afterwards. Morris may be an "expert in hydrolics" but he has no expertise in geology (effects of the flood, potential subterranean water sources), astrophysics (potential extra-terrestrial water sources) or atmospheric science (the effect of all this water suddenly being dumped onto the surface) -- let alone related issues of biogeography (all the animals getting to/from the Ark), logistics (of all the species in the ark and/or on the genetics of rapid evolution of a smaller number of species into the enormous number that we see today). As far as I know, no expert who has looked at the process considers it even remotely feasible that the geological structures we see today could be formed by a single event. Take the Geology of the Grand Canyon area as an example. It contains granite, a hard igneous rock not formed by sedimentary processes -- therefore its formation could not be created by material 'washed away' in a single flood. Likewise the addition of that much water (even if feasible) would have raised temperatures and pressures to turn the Earth into a pressure cooker, sterilising it of all life except perhaps that which thrives at undersea volcanic vents. This is not legitimate science -- most Science Fiction is more superficially credible.
  4. Johnson's books attempt to replace modern science with Theistic realism (though not being a scientist, he never actually explains how this new paradigm will yield any useful results). Darwin on Trial has been widely panned as an inaccurate, poorly sourced and employing dishonest 'lawyers tricks' rhetoric. It could more accurately be described as 'Darwin in a Kangaroo Court'.
  5. Scientific apologetics is based upon pre-existing and accepted science, upon which it builds a theological case. Creationist apologetics takes a pre-existing theological viewpoint and attempts (very badly) to shoehorn science to fit. The two are not the same -- arguably they are opposites.
  6. In brief, including 'Creationist apologetics' within 'scientific apologetics' is to (i) completely debase the adjective 'scientific' by including pseudoscientific and anti-scientific propaganda and (ii) devalue apologetics done on the basis of legitimate science.

HrafnTalkStalk 06:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I sympathize with much of what you say, but still I think your definition of "scientific apologetics" is too narrow. These folks are attempting to find rapprochement between science and faith, and I think you'd agree that they consider themselves as being engaged in scientific apologetics. Since that is a field of theology not of science, your arguments about the quality of their science (which I sympathize with on the whole) is off less weight than it would be in an article on a purely scientific topic. Perhaps this definitional disagreement can only be resolved by finding some definition(s) in reliable sources, though it may end up as something like "Some say scientific apologetics includes creationist apologetics, while others do not." --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
What they are attempting to do is more trying to 'poke science in the eye' than a "rapprochement". I don't think telling a large number of serious scientists that they are wrong, based upon one (but not the only possible) interpretation of the Bible, an argument from incredulity and some cherry-picked, out-of-context, quotes to be a "rapprochement". It doesn't matter whether "they consider themselves as being engaged in scientific apologetics" or not -- we should not give WP:UNDUE weight to this WP:FRINGE opinion, but should instead give due weight to the opinion of the heap of scientific organisations I cited above -- when the question is what does, and what does not, have a "scientific" basis. Apologetics that has no basis in legitimate science is no more 'scientific apologetics' than apologetics based upon made up Bible verses would be legitimately 'Biblical apologetics'. We turn to scientists for what science says, just as we turn to Biblical scholars for what the Bible says (including Bible translations). Apologetics that contradicts the former is not legitimate 'scientific apologetics', just like apologetics that contradicts the latter would not be legitimate 'Biblical apologetics' -- it's just that most theologians are more adept at identifying the latter transgression than the former -- so pseudo-Biblical apologetics is a lot harder to get away with than pseudoscientific apologetics (including Creationist apologetics). HrafnTalkStalk 17:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I remain unconvinced. Even when they are trying to "poke science in the eye", as it were, (which I will reiterate is not the only thing some of them do) they still view it as a rapprochement between science and faith (cf. [7], [8], [9], etc., which were on the first page of results in Google for "science apologetics"), and within the field of apologetics their view is far from a tiny minority one to which we'd be giving undue weight. I invite your definition(s) of scientific apologetics from reliable sources, and I would like to hear from other contributors to this article as well. --Flex (talk/contribs) 23:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
"I will reiterate is not the only thing some of them do" Read The Creationists -- it has been what they've done since the original acceptance of the Theory of Evolution by the scientific community -- with George McCready Price, Harry Rimmer, Morris, Gish, Johnson, Kent Hovind, William Dembski and Michael Behe being more prominent 'pokers'. The websites you link to simply demonstrate one of the criteria of pseudoscience -- that it masquerades as science. Such self-identification is utterly worthless. I point you to WP:SELFPUB -- the claim that the apologetics featured on these sites is "scientific" is clearly "self-serving" -- in that it illegitimately attempts to claim scientific basis for these claims. HrafnTalkStalk 04:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as sources for this viewpoint, the best I can come up with, to date, is Ronald L. Numbers (arguably the most authoritative historian of Creationism) using "scientific" in quotes when mentioning:

...my own research on Rimmer's "scientific" apologetics.

— Creationism in twentieth-century America, p xxiii

This is clear indication that Numbers considers this adjective to be illegitimate. HrafnTalkStalk 05:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It does make his opinion clear, but it also gives further support to my point that creationist apologetics is frequently included in "scientific apologetics." We're descriptivists, not prescriptivists -- i.e., we describe how the term is used, not how it should be used. That said, I think a disclaimer in the creationist section indicating some parties' dislike of calling creationist apologetics "scientific" would be appropriate (with sources preferably to avoid WP:WEASEL). --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The common dictionary definition of "creation science" is the effort to give scientific evidence for the literal truth of the Biblical account. [10] The dictionary entries give credence to the use of the term "scientific" to describe the efforts of the books. --Ed Brey (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The key word in that definition is "effort" -- "creation science" is not the production of "scientific evidence for the literal truth of the Biblical account" (as such scientific evidence does not exist) -- it is merely an (unavailing) effort to try and find some pre-existing scientific research that will act as a 'silver bullet' to kill scientific results that disprove a literal reading of the Biblical account. Likewise 'pseudoscience' more generally could be defined as 'the effort to gain scientific respectability for unscientific ideas' -- a definition that would encompass your dictionary definition of 'creation science'. HrafnTalkStalk 19:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also note that the link additionally gives the following definition:

a form of creationism advocated as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution, and holding that the creation of the universe and everything in it was supernatural and relatively recent.

Further, another version gives your quoted version, but continues:

...Creation science is not accepted by most scientists.

The end result is a lack of any substantiation that isn't highly equivocal in favour of applying the adjective "scientific" to Creationist apologetics. Put this up against the unequivocal opinion of the scientific community that Creationist apologetics is not scientific in its basis (and a frequent opinion that it is in fact pseudoscientific and anti-scientific), and really there is no contest. HrafnTalkStalk 19:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And my point remains that this sort of "scientific creationism" is commonly called "scientific apologetics," and thus we can call it that, even if its arguments are less than persuasive. Description, not prescription. --Flex (talk/contribs) 00:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The evidence available to date is that it is "commonly called 'scientific apologetics'" only in unreliable self-published creationist sources whose use of the phrase is "self-serving". These unreliable, self-published, self-serving self-descriptions should not be given WP:UNDUE (i.e. any) weight. HrafnTalkStalk 02:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I did a little more searching, and I haven't found much modern use of the term "science apologetics" or "scientific apologetics" except from self-descriptions like these, and all are in the same vein as those listed in your author box above. I have found a few older uses (this one from a book snippet and this one from the 1952 Britannica, which distinguishes only between "practical apologetics" and "scientific apologetics," which it characterized as "emotional" and "intellectual" respectively) but seem to mean something a bit different and predate "creation science," so I don't get any resolution on whether the latter term should be included.
AFAICT, the term "science apologetics" is not used by the likes of Collins, Miller, Polkinghorne, and Sproul, whom you don't want to evict from the "Science" section, and it is used by creationist apologists of various stripes to describe themselves. I still contend that these apologists are seeking a rapprochement between science and faith, though it sometimes comes at the expense of science (one could argue that other science-faith apologists make the opposite compromise). Nonetheless, their efforts are an attempt to find harmony between scientific data/processes and faith -- however mistaken or misguided their efforts might be judged. These are places where science and religion meet and interact, and "science apologetics" includes all such attempts at offense/defense and harmonization, even the wrong ones. (I say again, apologetics is a field of theology, not of science, so scientific reliablity is neither qualifying nor disqualifying here.)
So what is your working definition of the term "science apologetics" and where do you get it? What criteria do you use to qualify or disqualify a book as being in the topic?
On a related note, I will suggest that Ross's listed book, Creator and the Cosmos, primarily attempts to show the harmony of faith and modern astronomy/cosmology, not to poke holes in evolution or other scientific theories, as can be seen by its subtitle ("How the Latest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God") and its table of contents. I won't defend the specific contents of the book (that's not necessary for my point anyway), but as far as intent, Ross's is not so different from Collins's book, which bears the subtitle "A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." Each has essentially the same program: give some pieces of widely accepted scientific evidence and show why it makes God (or perhaps Christianity) a reasonable conclusion. So regardless of whether creationist and scientific apologetics remains separated, I think this book should be moved out of the "Creationist" section to the "Science" section. Since you seem to agree with this conclusion above, I will go ahead and move the book. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. If a more popularly-used description can be found for the works of Collins etc can be found, I would be happy for it to be employed. The 'scientific apologetics' description was pre-existing, and when applied only to them and not to creationists, did not seem to be inaccurate.
  2. "rapprochement" is defined as "establishment of or state of having cordial relations". It is typically the theistic evolutionists who seek "rapprochement". What creationists seek is rather conflict and forced capitulation from science to their religious views. Look at the titles of the books above:
    • Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No -- outright rejection
    • Darwin on Trial -- indictment
  3. My working definition is roughly: 'philosophical apologetic writings on the basis of (legitimate) science'. Apologetics tend to be categorised and labelled on what their basis is (presuppositional, prophetic, etc). 'Scientific apologetics' is apologetics on the basis of science. Apologetics that is rather on the basis of pseudoscience (ID or Creation Science), should therefore rather be labelled 'pseudoscientific apologetics', if description of their relationship to science is deemed necessary.
  4. As I have already stated, Ross's work is both not particularly prominent example (Old Earth Creationism has been in eclipsed since the 1960s -- first by Young Earth Creationism, then by Intelligent Design) and in a grey area equivocating between compatibility (cosmology) and conflict (evolutionary biology) in their view of the relationship between religion and science‎, and thus is an imperfect fit in either ('scientific apologetics'/compatible or 'creationist apologetics'/conflict) category. This particular book may be more to one side than the other, but I would have a problem with placing his works generally (or even a particular work, without detailed examination) into the 'scientific apologetics' category.

HrafnTalkStalk 05:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I draw my working definition from John Frame's general definition, which I added to the article yesterday: "Christian apologetics a field of Christian theology that aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defend the faith against objections, and expose the perceived flaws of other world views." We could alternately label these three areas as the positive (i.e., presenting evidence in an attempt to support the faith) and negative (i.e., attempting to refute evidence brough against the faith) aspects of inward-looking apologetics (i.e., dealing with the apologist's faith) and the outward-looking apologetics (i.e., presenting evidence for rejecting a faith or world view other than the apologist's), which we might also call "apologetics on the offense."
If you agree with this definition, which I think is accurate and comprehensive, then we can move to the field's subdisciplines. Just as biblical apologetics is the aspect of this field dealing with the Bible (positively, negatively, and offensively) and prophetic apologetics as dealing with prophecies (also in all three areas), I see science apologetics as the aspect of the field dealing with science in all three areas. That is, it is not limited to "apologetics on the basis of science" as you have it. That is certainly one component and fits neatly under the first part of Frame's definition, but that is not all it consists of. To wit, it also includes the negative and offensive aspects as related to science.
My argument is that a book like Gish's Evolution (which I've never read but with which I assume I wouldn't substantially agree) fits under one of the other two aspects of apologetics as it relates to science (perhaps it has elements of both, or even elements of all three -- again, I haven't read it). It takes evolution to be an evidential attack on the faith and the Bible, and it is an attempt to defend against that attack. Hence it qualifies as "scientific apologetics" as I have defined it. Whether it is a skillful or persuasive defense or in step with modern science are a separate questions. One may use a garbage can lid or a piece of kevlar as a shield against an attacker; that doesn't mean it will be an effective shield (that depends on many other factors, such as the nature of the attack), but it is still an attempt to use a shield.
Similarly, just as one might find arguments in any apologetic subfield (say, biblical apologetics) to be out of step with mainstream opinion, they nonetheless count as part of that subfield. For instance, most in the secular academy and liberal religious establishment reject the notion that Moses was the substantial author of the Pentateuch, and yet, you will find many biblical apologetic arguments advocating just this position. Does this mean they are not biblical apologetics simply because they are out of step with the mainline view? Certainly not. They may not be skillful or persuasive, but they are still biblical apologetics.
And so I see creationist apologetics as scientific apologetics, regardless of their skill or success. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

The problem is:

  1. That lumping them both as 'scientific apologetics' does not differentiate between apologetics that 'presents a rational, scientific, basis for the Christian faith' and apologetics that attempts to 'defend (one sectarian view of) the faith against objections from Science'. The relationship between these two forms of apologetics and science is very different. Giving them the same label would appear to create confusion, not enlightenment. I would also take 'defending the faith against objections from science' as a viewpoint incompatible with "rapprochement" with science.
  2. It would be both highly anomalous and misleading to label a form of apologetics that is 'defending the faith against X' as simply 'X apologetics'. Would you label 'defending the faith against atheism' as 'atheist apologetics'? And if you did would you be at all surprised if people mistook it as 'apologetics in favour of atheism'? You would more logically label it as 'anti-atheist apologetics' or 'counter-atheist apologetics'. Likewise 'creationist apologetics' should be labelled as 'anti-science apologetics' or 'counter-science apologetics', if we are to give an accurate characterisation of its alignment vis-a-vis science.

HrafnTalkStalk 15:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re #1: lumping the three aspects together is precisely what I'm suggesting is proper and what we should do. Apologetics as a discipline combines all three aspects mentioned (presenting evidence, defense, and offense), not simply the one of these (see the reliably sourced definition). Moreover, browsing through Collins's book on Google Books, I see that it does not simply restrict itself to the first aspect, but also include some material on the second and third aspects. This does not disqualify his book as being "scientific apologetics." Indeed, just the opposite is true: it means he is dealing with scientific apologetics as a whole. (BTW, Collins accepts evolution but insists that it is not an independent process but must be divinely directed. That is not in accord with mainstream science either.)
By "rapproachement" I mean that each of these apologists are trying to bring the science and Christianity into harmonious relations. The method different apologists use to accomplish this varies. Some accept evolution, some reject it. Some posit that their understanding of Genesis 1 should prevail over contradictory science, while others say that their understanding either does not conflict with modern science (framework view) or needed to be modified to accommodate it (day-age view). But in all cases, their goal is the same: bring science and Christianity together since "all truth meets at the top." Whether science or theology trumps the other (or that they are persuasive, etc.) in any particular book is not the issue. The issue is that each of these is doing science apologetics -- presenting evidence for Christianity, defending Christianity against objections (e.g., evolution contradicts the Bible), and/or attacking a non-Christian (or perceived non-Christian) worldview (e.g., naturalism).
Your #2 is a little more than a legomachy. "Atheist apologetics" could certainly mean apologetics pro or contra, and the context would determine which is intended. In the context of this article, that term -- like "science apologetics" -- would be clear or could be explained. Labeling something pro-this or anti-that, as you suggest, is more problematic as far as neutrality goes (cf. pro/anti choice vs. pro/anti abortion vs. pro/anti life). --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. Can you point to any pre-existing and widely recognised categorisation of apologetics that 'lumps together' both 'presenting a rational basis for the Christian faith on the basis of X' and 'defend against objections/exposes the perceived flaws of X' (not defends X, most probably some aspect of Christianity, against something else) in the same category? I think you will find that Collins' book does not 'defend Christian faith against science', because he does not consider the two to be in any way incompatible. He is most probably pitting 'Christian Scientific Apologetics' (i.e. Christian apologetics on the basis of, and in full acceptance of, the scientific method) against 'Atheistic Sceintific Apologetics' (ditto from the atheist viewpoint). Both sides would accept science's methodological naturalism, but would differ on whether they build a theistic (e.g. see theistic evolution), or atheistic (see philosophical naturalism) philosophical viewpoint on top of this.
  2. How many times do I have to point it out, particularly when your own words make my point: "rejection" (of evolution, or in the case of YECs also paleontology, geology, cosmology) is not "harmonious relations" or "rapproachement". "[P]osit[ing] that their understanding of Genesis 1 should prevail over contradictory science" is not "harmonious relations" or "rapproachement". An "all truth meets at the top" does not require "rapproachement" -- it may simply involve one side disembowelling the other. There is no 'rapproachement with science' involved in creationist apologetics.
  3. Your view on 'atheist apologetics' appears to be ethnocentric. Would it seem to you reasonable to allow 'Christian apologetics' to be used to mean 'apologetics defending another viewpoint against Christianity'? If not, then why should it go both ways for atheism? Unless there is a clear ("anti-", "counter-") modifier explicating otherwise, applying an adjective to the word "apologetics" means that it is in favour of, or at least citing favourably, the field represented by that adjective. A convention that does otherwise would be simply misleading. Again, can you point to any widely recognised categorisation of apologetics that violates this convention? Your choice/life attempted counter-example is unavailing. Would it be considered reasonable to label "anti-choice" (i.e. pro-life) as simply "choice" or "anti-life" (i.e. pro-choice) as simply "life"? What we have here is two similar sides. 'Scientific apologetics' vs 'creationist apologetics', promoting two conflicting viewpoints (harmony with science as it exists vs conflict with science and a desire to rewrite it to meet their beliefs). If you insist on putting 'science' into the title of 'creationist apologetics', then your legitimate choices are 'anti-science apologetics', 'counter-science apologetics' or 'pseudoscience apologetics'. We could likewise rename 'scientific apologetics' as 'counter-creationist apologetics' as it is defending the harmonisation of science (as it is, not as creationists would want it to be) and Christianity against those who consider it to be in conflict. ...Or we could just leave things the way that they are (which is my favoured option).

HrafnTalkStalk 04:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

On #1: Yes, see the Frame citation from the article intro. You may well be right about Collins's point (again, I haven't read the book), and in my brief scan I read a portion where he discusses Gould's NOMA. I also saw that he was making a similar point to the one I took away from Johnson's book -- the point about philosophical naturalism not being scientific (contra Dawkins, et al.) and that atheism is logically indefensible. That's more than just prong 1 of scientific apologetics; it is seeking to correct an area where some scientists, in his view, have over-reached. (Granted this over-reaching is not a consensus view, cf. Gould, but some of its exponents are quite vocal.)
On #2: How many times do I have to point out that to achieve harmonious relations, compromise must occur? (The exception is when the conflict came about because of a misunderstanding rather than a genuine difference in opinion.) So the question is, who gives up what? To achieve harmonious relations (or rapprochement) between science the Christianity, some throw out parts or all of the Bible as inaccurate; some modify their understanding of the Bible to make it better accord with scientific consensus; and some throw out some or all of the scientific consensus to make it accord with the Bible. (There may be additional variations.) I assert that scientific apologists can take any of these positions. The point is, they're all trying to make the two fit together harmoniously, but if there is genuine conflict, something has to go. That the chunks of the Bible go out the window doesn't necessarily mean it is no longer Christian apologetics (though Morris et al. wouldn't agree), and that chunks of scientific consensus go out the window doesn't mean it isn't science apologetics.
On #3: "Christian apologetics" could mean anti-Christian apologetics in the context of, say, Islam attacking Christianity. Though that would be a relatively unusual usage, the English language is quite flexible in this respect and linguistically allows it. I agree, however, that the primary meaning of "x apologetics" is "the discipline providing evidence for, defending, and attacking-on-behalf-of 'x'". But in this context, "science apologetics," as a sub-discipline of Christian apologetics, does not mean "providing a rational basis for science, etc." which would be the phrase's primary meaning, but rather "providing scientific evidence for the Christian faith, defending Christianity against scientific attacks, and attacking science (perhaps more accurately, a dominant world view within the scientific establishment) on behalf of Christianity." So already, we are at a non-primary meaning. The real question here seems to be, what is "apologetics"? I have given what I see as a fair and comprehensive definition from a reliable source.
If you'll allow me to editorialize for a moment... It seems to me that you have a visceral reaction to having the word "science," apart for a negative prefix, even in the general vicinity of any position which rejects one or more major tenets of the scientific consensus. The point I think you're trying to make is that creation science etc. are not scientific--though they desperately wish to be thought as such--because they reject the reigning paradigm, etc. Fair enough. They're not scientific. My point, however, is that "scientific apologetics" is not identical to science. Rather it is the set of points where Christianity and science interact. Hence, calling, say, creation science a form of "scientific apologetics" is not the same thing as calling it "scientific." Indeed, it says only that it is an attempt at interaction, and ultimately, since no one denies the success of science, it is also an attempt at harmonization by one compromise or another. Problem solved. Bomb defused. Crisis averted.
As for "pro-life," etc., my point was that these labels are inherently POV. Calling pro-choicers by labels like pro-abortion, anti-life, or pro-death (and likewise for pro-lifers as anti-choice, anti-woman, etc.) because each of these is a rhetorical device, not an accurate statement of the position. (News papers rightly choose phrases like "supporters/opponents of abortion rights" as a more accurate and neutral, albeit clunky, alternative.) I see the same thing at play with names other than simply "scientific apologetics."
I think this discussion has gone on long enough considering that neither of us has convinced the other (unless you've seen the light with this post :-) ). If Ed Brey wishes to pursue it further, I still support putting creationist apologetics as a subheading under scientific apologetics, but I don't feel it is so important that we should continue this back and forth ad infinitum. --Flex (talk/contribs) 04:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. It appears I wasn't clear enough in my request: Can you point to any pre-existing and widely recognised categorisation/nomenclature within apologetics that 'lumps together' both 'presenting a rational basis for the Christian faith on the basis of X' and 'defend against objections/exposes the perceived flaws of X' (not defends X, most probably some aspect of Christianity, against something else) in the same named category within apologetics? I am not arguing that 'creationist apologetics' is not apologetics, just that it should not be placed in the same category as the largely antithetical view that is currently described as 'scientific apologetics'.
  2. That "compromise" is already in place -- it is called methodological naturalism, and was proposed by theists. Creationists seek to overthrow this compromise for an uncompromising subjugation of science to religion. This is not "rapprochement". 'Throwing out' the other side's stuff, and your side's previously made compromises to accommodate it, is not "compromise", "harmonious relations" or "rapprochement". "The point is" that you have COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY FAILED to establish your "point" that' "they're all trying to make the two fit together harmoniously" -- and I am getting heartily sick of this proof by assertion. Incidentally this doesn't mean that "chunks of the Bible go out the window" -- it just means that Christians need to take instruction from Augustine of Hippo (of whom I presume you have heard) who stated: "It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." ... and not assume that the Bible (a book almost never read in the original, nor by people conversant with the original's phrasing and cultural context) says something that is contradicted by scientific research.
  3. "that would be a relatively unusual usage" -- then let's avoid confusing readers with such "unusual usage". "the English language is quite flexible in this respect and linguistically allows it" -- that "the English language" is a masochist, and frequently "allows" itself to be tortured is hardly a good reason for doing so. Would you consider 'lumping together' apologetics defending Christianity on the basis of Paul's epistles and apologetics (defending a more modernist and tolerant view of Christianity by) attacking 1 Timothy & 2 Timothy (as pseudonymous) as 'Pauline Apologetics' to be a particularly helpful categorisation?
  4. I am not claiming that 'scientific apologetics' is "identical to science". I am claiming that it has to be 'on the basis of' or 'congruent with' science for the (unmodified) adjective to have any useful meaning.
  5. And my point on "'pro-life,' etc" is that it is never acceptable to label something as X when it is in fact anti-X. Anti-choice "pro-life" is not "choice". Similarly, anti-scientific 'creationist apologetics' is not (and cannot be described as, without torturing the English language, and being highly misleading) 'scientific apologetics'. This goes beyond POV to simple accuracy and clarity of description.

In conclusion, I would state that you have not made anything even resembling a strong case, either for applying the name 'scientific apologetics' to 'creationist apologetics' or to placing the latter in the same category as the body of work currently described by the former term. Further your blatantly counter-factual assertions on creationist "rapprochement" with science have been aggravating in the extreme. Lacking any overwhelming WP:RS evidence to the contrary, I see no reason for torturing the English language in this way, and will oppose strenuously any attempt to do so. If anybody wishes to pursue this, the logical next step would be an WP:RFC. HrafnTalkStalk 06:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I feel like we could keep going round and round on this, so now's as good a stopping point as any. We disagree (both on the substance of the matter and apparently on the proper use of bold and italics on talk pages :-) ), your post above can serve as the last entry in the debate, and I'll leave it at that. I don't think this issue is so important as to merit a permanent NPOV tag, however. So unless some others want to continue this debate in my stead, I suggest that it be removed. --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I would be agreeable to said removal. HrafnTalkStalk 06:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


The laundry list

This lengthy & unencyclopaedic embedded list has been templated for some time, so I'm moving it here to talk.

Choices are to:

  • work the information into the article prose (if they are genuinely "notable", then it shouldn't be hard to find something noteworthy to say about them) per advice in template:Cleanup-laundry; or
  • create a standalone list for this information (preferably with a thumbnail on each)
  • Replace it with a subcategory on 'Christian apologists' in Category:Christian apologetics

HrafnTalkStalk 06:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Some notable Christian apologists include:

[End material mved from article HrafnTalkStalk 06:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ]

Alan Richardson

[[Moved from User talk:Hrafn

Hello. You deleted references to Alan Richardson's book on Christian Apologetics without any discussion. It was reviewed originally in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 1948 XVI(4):229-230; doi:10.1093/jaarel/XVI.4.229 by American Academy of Religion published by Oxford University Press. Are you familiar with his works ? He was a very prominent author and scholar in theology and extensively published. [11] His New Dictionary of Christian Theology is recognised as one of the best, if not the best, one volume work of its kind. His work should be included. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A few points:

  1. The proper place for such discussion is here, not on my talkpage -- as it relates directly to the article.
  2. The proper time for such discussion, per WP:BRD, was before you re-imposed this edit.
  3. The books section already had 32 books, in what is in any case meant to be a summary of List of Christian Apologetic Works. The vast majority of the listed books are by authors sufficiently prominent to have an article in wikipedia.
  4. Can you provide verifiable substantiation that this book is one of the top 30-40 books in the field of apologetics? If not, it is likely to removed again.

On a more general note, the list of books is getting rather long. It really needs to be trimmed down to the highlights (which should really be turned into prose discussing the books, rather than simply listing them, per WP:EMBED). HrafnTalkStalk 05:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you've (Hrafn) just removed Alan Richardson's book from the overview section. I didn't have enough time to make the case clearly. Summer, you know. I still think it's an important book. But ... So be it. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Contribution of Academics Teaching in Secular Institutions of Christian Apologetics

Perhaps someone can explain to me the logic of the "template" at the beginning of this section. When I attempted to remove it the move was undone and the following note added:

(cur) (last) 21:10, 21 August 2008 Teapotgeorge (Talk | contribs) (39,501 bytes) (rv. a conversation is NOT a reference!!! and please do NOT remove templates without discussion) (undo)

First, as far as I can see the demand for a citation in connection with the first sentence is unreasonable since this is a general statement about the issue under discussion that is supported by the following sentences. Therefore, why ask for a reference? This seems totally unnecessary.

Second, why are two references to the work of Rodney Stark marked as "improper synthesis?" It is factually true that Stark "originally advocated secularization theory" and in his book Sociology, which I cite, explains why he abandoned it.

Similarly, I do not understand the second use of the comment which is attached to the sentence "Among Stark's many contributions to this area is his book For the Glory of God: How Monotheism led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery.[38][improper synthesis?]" Anyone who has read the book or other recent works by Stark knows that my comment is factual.

Finally, now that I have read more about Wikipeadi policies I see that a normal academic reference to an oral source is not acceptable and will try to find an appropriate published source.

Thank you for your help Irvinghexham (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


This section is near-ubiquitously and impermissibly original research and synthesis of material.

  1. The sentence "A number of scholars normally considered "secular academics" have made significant contributions in the area of Christian Apologetics" is a conclusion that you draw from the material you present in your section, and is thus original research. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, so this has no place in a wikipedia article.
  2. The statements you make about Stark's work do not appear to be statements made in that work, but are rather conclusions that you draw from it. Thus they are synthesis.
  3. The second {{syn}}-tag on Stark was in error and has been removed. However, your statements about Douglas and Turner appear to suffer from the same problems as #2, so have likewise been tagged.
  4. I would strongly suggest that you read WP:V (and subsidiarily WP:RS & WP:CITE) and WP:OR.
  5. I would further point out that the title of this section is (i) clumsy and (ii) overlaps heavily with other classifications of apologetics already in the article (e.g. Philosophical apologetics and Scientific apologetics are frequently written by philosophers and scientists "in Secular Institutions"), so it is unclear as to how this section adds to understanding of Christian apologetics.

If you believe any of the {{syn}}-tags were made in error, I would suggest that you provide quotations here of where the cited material makes these exact claims (without needing interpretation, per WP:PSTS: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."). HrafnTalkStalk 05:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. This is very helpful. Actually, there are other third party published sources for these claims although it may take me a day or two to add them since I was working from memory and will have to track them down. There are also passages in the books I mentioned that say these things. Irvinghexham (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This section remains highly problematic

  1. We appear to have no reliable source placing Stark's, Douglas's or Turner's work within the field of Christian apologetics. The claim that they are in this field, and thus that this section has any place in this article, is therefore WP:OR.
  2. Even if this were established, the section in no way distinguishes these authors from a great many other authors already listed in the article who likewise are "Teaching in Secular Institutions", meaning that we have no real reason for giving this a separate section, let alone one concentrating on them.
  3. The bulk of the section is WP:SYNTH, in that it interprets the work of these authors without providing a secondary source for this interpretation.
  4. I would further point out that, even if it can be established (from WP:RSs) that these authors are within, and prominent in, the field of Christian apologetics, that the details of their religious histories is decidedly off-topic.

I will therefore be re-templating this section. Should these templates be removed without first addressing these issues (rather than minor tinkering that does not correct these issues), I will simply delete the section wholesale. HrafnTalkStalk 05:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Irving Hexham writes: On the basis of questions students ask in Religious Studies classes I thought that I was adding useful information that contributed to a general understanding of these issues. If you disagree and find that it is off topic then please remove it. Irving Hexham (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Mary Douglas and Victor Turner

[Moved from User talk:Hrafn ] Irving Hexham writes: If Christian Apologetics "aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defend the faith against objections," then it is reasonable to include defenses of Christian ritual as within the scope of apologetics. If this sounds strange to some it is important to remember that Newman's autobiography was conceived as an apologetic work - hence its title: Apologia Pro Vita Sua (autobiography - 1866, 1865). The problem I see with the article on "Christian Apologetics", as it now stands, is that it take a far too narrow, and essentially Fundamentalist, approach to the topic. For example, there is no mention of the Friedrich Schleiermacher who is without question one of the great Christian apologists of all time. No doubt his omission is due to the fact that he is the "father of Liberal Protestantism" and therefore seen as "unorthodox" by many. This is unacceptable because articles on Wikipeadia should not promote one point of view, rather then need to inform in a neutral way. Personally, I think Schleiermacher can be regarded as a heretic and his theology a disaster in the long term. But, this does not diminish his importance historically. Irving Hexham (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

We have no source that either (i) "defenses of Christian ritual [are] within the scope of apologetics" or (ii) that Douglas' & Turner's works are "defenses of Christian ritual", let alone a source linking them directly to apologetics (as we would need to so classify them without engaging in impermissible synthesis). HrafnTalkStalk 15:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Near-ubiquitous synthesis

I got tired with re-tagging the synthesis material, only for Hexham to remove the tags without correcting the synthesis, so have removed the offending material. Hint: if you are describing an author's views, it needs to be either a direct quote/close paraphrase of something they explicitly said, or a secondary source is required for the interpretation of their work. Please do not re-include material without providing such sourcing. HrafnTalkStalk 15:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography=

I have removed bibliographic references to books written by Irving Hexham and Karla Poewe since these was added by Irving Hexham himself and therefore cause doubts about whether they are in fact among the most notable books in their field. If they are in fact notable enough to stand among the most important contributions in the field of christian apologetics I am sure that they will readded by someone who is not the author or a member of the authors immediate family. My removal is not an expression of judgement about the works value but only an attempt to highten the integrity of the article which may be stained by conflicting interests.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That is fair. I added them before I studied the rules of Wikipeadia Irvinghexham (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Info from "Apologetics" article

The following is from Apologetics. It needs to be integrated into this article.

There are a variety of Christian apologetic styles and schools of thought. In the Thomistic or Classical apologetics tradition, philosophical arguments for God's existence are emphasized before turning to the specific case for Christian revelation claims. In the Evidentialist tradition empirical arguments about the life, miracles, death and resurrection of Christ are presented as probabilistic proofs. The presuppositional tradition argues that belief in God must be presupposed, and from that vantage point non-theistic assumptions are proven to be fallacious.

Early Christian era

In the first centuries AD a number of Christian writers undertook the task of proving that Christianity was beneficial for the Roman Empire and for humanity as a whole. Also they wrote to defend their faith against attacks made by other people or to properly explain their faith. Aristides and Quadratus of Athens, writing in the early second century, were two of the first Christians to write apologetics treatises. Other second-century apologetics writings of note included the First Apology and Second Apology of Justin Martyr and the Epistle to Diognetus, a response to the accusation that Christians were a danger to Rome, further more: Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilos of Antioch, Tertullian and Minucius Felix.

About a century after Emperor Constantine I's conversion to Christianity, the Roman Empire began falling to invaders from northern Europe. Some Christian writers sought to explain the decline of Roman culture and power by systematically downplaying the achievements of classical antiquity while emphasizing the persecution of Christians and the positive role of Christianity in society. Paulus Orosius wrote the first book advancing this perspective (History Against the Pagans), though the far more learned and influential work of this type was The City of God by Augustine of Hippo (426).[citation needed]

Several of the early Christian apologists developed arguments from fulfilled prophecy and gospel miracles as proofs of Christ's divinity. Eusebius of Caesarea in his Demonstration of the Gospel attempted to prove the truth of Christianity by fulfilled prophecies from the Old Testament, and by rebutting arguments that the apostles had made up the story of Christ's resurrection.

Medieval era

In Medieval Europe Anselm of Canterbury composed the Monologion and Proslogion in which he developed the ontological argument for God's existence. He believed that faith was necessary as a precursor to philosophical argument and expressed his position as "I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand: for this I also believe, that unless I believe I will not understand."[citation needed]

Theodore Abu-Qurrah, the ninth century bishop of Harran, composed On God and The True Religion. Abu Qurra represents a group of Christian Arabic apologists who argued their case under early Islamic rule.

A highly influential Catholic apologist was Thomas Aquinas who presented five arguments for God's existence in the Summa Theologiae. His approach, which adapted Aristotelian thought, is known as Thomism, and has dominated both Roman Catholic and Protestant approaches.

Post-Reformation era

The first Protestant textbook of apologetics was written by the Dutch legal scholar Hugo Grotius, On The Truth of the Christian Religion. This work, which was released in 1632 and translated into many languages, remained in print in English until the late nineteenth century, defended the historicity of the gospels, and also addressed arguments to Jews and Muslims.

Modern era

Since the seventeenth century the controversies over Deism, Atheism, the Enlightenment, Humanism, and theories of Feuerbach, Marx, Freud and Darwin, have each in turn spurred both Catholic and Protestant apologists to reply. Changing modes in apologetics, whether or not they are currently fashionable, are important markers in the history of ideas. Among the notable apologists of the early modern era are Blaise Pascal, Joseph Butler, William Paley, Søren Kierkegaard, and John Henry Newman.

The Roman Catholic G. K. Chesterton, the Anglican C. S. Lewis (who popularized the Christian trilemma), the Lutheran John Warwick Montgomery, the Roman Catholic Hugo Anthony Meynell and the Presbyterian Francis Schaeffer were among the most prolific Christian apologists in the 20th century. Among the most widely read Christian apologists writing in English have been Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel. Another modern apologist is Ravi Zacharias, author of The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha, who argues for Christianity over other religions and philosophies deemed false or heretical. Frank Morison is also notable, because of his famous defense of the historical Resurrection, Who Moved The Stone?, as is William Lane Craig. Although not primarily an apologist, Douglas John Hall authored Why Christian?: For Those on the Edge of Faith which is written as a series of dialogues with a young doubting inquirer. In the late 2000s, Catholic religion writer Robert Hutchinson published The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible.

Christian apologists

Some prominent Christian apologists include:

--Editor2020 (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


Request

Will you please include a section defining What Christianity is. And what the faith is that is being defended.

This can then be referred to in other articles, such as Christian mysticism as criticism to illustrate that what their presentation of Christianity is has nothing to do with Christianity and it's central beliefs. Please can the passionate appologetics also assist with some input in article Christian mysticism. Thanks. (Torchrunner (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

PS: Christian mysticism goes with mysticism, which (as you will see on it's article) goes with Illuminism which links with the Illuminati and it's goals towards a New World Order, which goes with Freemasonry which is a form of Paganism and is rooted in the occult. To say Christian mysticism my view, is similar to say something like "Christian Lucifarianism", and any person that truly loves Jehovah, who is Holy, should be hugely upset by it. "So called prophets" such as Jakob Lorber, Emanuel Swedenborg and a long list of names listed under Christian mysticism has lured Christians away from the centrality of atonement and salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, and has introduced reincarnation and other Hindu beliefs into the Christian message, in order to incorporate Christianity into the New World religion called mysticism, as just one branch. I have been trying to illustrate how this is not Christian on site Jakob Lorber but received such opposition because the term Christian seems to be defined differently by everybody, according to their preferance. Please help. I don't have the tools and often my contributions gets just deleted straight after I make them on such sites. See also the word cult which has been totally changed in its meaning by humanism. Gnosticism, the quest for "higher knowledge", eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is contrary to the core aspects of Christianity. Even Freemasonry is considered innocent and to have nothing to do with the occult based on wikipedia. Let your lights shine. Sites like godonthe.net/cme/links/masons.htm that proves the association between Freemasonry and the occult has been banned by wikipedia to be used as a reference. See where it all is aiming towards: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Mysticism/id/1896155 See also my talk on Bible regarding a tendency towards incorporating neo-revelationism as a third section in the "New Bible". (Torchrunner (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

a definition of the common tenets of Christianity, as well as the differences between the individual Christian sects or churches, would belong on the central Christianity article. --dab (𒁳) 13:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christian_apologetics/Archive_1&oldid=1136305075"