I propose that Catholic apologetics indirectly asks a leading question, “why is Catholicism true?”, as opposed to “what is true”, thus invalidating the entire field as anything can be defended when the base question is loaded in the right way.
The root of the word of apologetics means “reasoned defense”: the whole point of apologetics is to defend what we believe. Your dismissal of apologetics for not doing something it was never intended to do makes no sense. It’s like criticizing engineering for not being a pure science: engineering isn’t a pure science nor is it meant to be.
Also, anything can be doubted by reason alone, except for one’s own existence.
Even your existence can be doubted. I refer to the Buddhist doctrine of No Self.
OP: I agree with the other posters. Apologetics, and I speak as a veteran of it; is the defense of the Faith. Your reimagining of it turns it into an exercise of comparative exegesis/dialectic to seek the truth when the truth is already in the Church.
Atheism: Why is atheism right, …
Apologetics: Why is Catholicism right, …
Unbiased Bill: What is correct? …
I think most Catholics have reasoned that Catholicism is correct and therefor the question what is correct naturally becomes “Why is Catholicism right?”
This whole “I’m just looking for the truth but won’t accept anything as truth” mentality is far to skeptical to be dealt with rationally.
Edit: Find me a legitimately unbiased person, I don’t think they exist.
Why bother with apologetics if most people already believe. I know people who got into apologetics before confirmation as they wanted to ask Why is God right. Also, if I walk up to most Catholics and ask why should I believe I don’t think I will get a answer I could say in a philosophy class.
We create hypothetical people as a tool for discourse.
Nonsense! One may always answer “I reject your premise”, and provide rational reasons for the objection. Rather, “Catholic apologetics” is a field of inquiry, and it asks the questions relevant to the field.
I reject the notion that “anything can be defended when the base question is loaded in the right way”… unless, of course, you mean that anyone can invalidly and illogically defend any premise he wishes, and avoid reasonable arguments to the contrary. Yes… that would be true, and we see it all the time.
for(int i=0; i<religion.length(); i++)
cout<<"Why is " + religion[i] + “right? That person finds a justification for his belief 100% of the time” << endl;
That’s not the scholastic approach. The questions ask is, not why, and then formulate objections first. So it would be like:
Is Catholicism true?
Objection 1. No, because…
Objection 2. No, because…
Objection 3. No, because…
And only then would it reply with answers in defence.
Disagree. Your first question is a sub-set of the second.
“What is true”? By asking this, are you not broadening the field so as to make the question practically unanswerable? You open up the vast fields of science and all other empirical studies.
Let’s focus on the spiritual, huh?
You seem to be conflating “an a priori rejection of religion” with “providing rational reasons for the objection”.
p.s., C++ is the devil’s own language.
As a programmer, I loled.
I second that. Real people always carry biases, in my experience.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.