thoughts out !oud

a Christian’s news, views, opinions and occasional poetry …

On arguing apologetics

Posted by Mathew | 6 May 08

Arguing apologetics really can be fun. Seriously. You should try it, if you haven’t already. For an even healthier dosage of fun, try it on an internet forum … as the internet has no mercy. You can easily get lost in an apologetic dialogue for days on end. I’m convinced you need a lot of stamina to endure such discussion.

Now typically, arguing religion on any internet forum can be a frightful exercise. The ‘net is full of examples of discussion threads that have gotten out of hand, typically by nutters on both sides. Over the course of the last couple of weeks, I’ve been in dialogue with a couple of humanists who began with the premise that the God of the Bible is evil and, therefore, so are Christians. After all, it was remarked, look at any number of passages in the Old Testament where God orders extermination of a given people, etc. etc. and, whammo! God’s an evil guy.

What the Christian has that the humanist doesn’t, however, is (well, hopefully!) a greater appreciation and understanding of God’s character, as well the cultural context and also the fact of the covenantal differences between Old and New Testaments. At the end of the day, though, it seems that you can argue theology with a humanist all you like, but it won’t do much to change anything - seemingly because they attempt to pull the Bible out from under you from the get-go. They want you to debate solely in the humanist arena. Well, I know enough to know not to agree to such terms (after all, what is Christianity without its Bible and the revelation of God that it reveals?) so it seems Christians should further be prepared to argue the reason ‘why Christianity over x’.

Regardless, though this recent dialogue of mine ended more or less on ‘let’s agree to disagree’ terms, I have to say I was impressed with my opponent’s clarity of thought and concise arguments. I think they taught me more about myself and how I reason (my short-falls, etc.) than anything else - which I’m quite happy about. It gives me the opportunity to know in which areas I need to be more widely read. Such dialogue can be humbling and enriching experience.

I don’t think the purpose of such debates is to ‘win’. I think the purpose is to simply state your position as rationally, concisely, honestly and as lovingly as possible and to be prepared to learn and correct yourself in the process.

At least, that’s what I’ve come away feeling.

Anyway, in some obscure way, dialoguing on the internet reminded me of the following little funny maths joke. After all, it always seems you’ll have extremes in any such arguments, with someone always claiming the middle ground (incorrectly, it should be said, as the middle ground is a null-position!) and no one getting any closer to any resolution.

An engineer, a physicist, and a statistician were moose hunting in northern
Canada. After a short walk through the marshes they spotted a HUGE moose
150 metres away.

The engineer raised his gun and fired at the moose. A puff of dust showed
that the bullet landed 3 metres to the right of the moose.

The physicist, realizing that there was a substantial breeze that the
engineer did not account for, aimed to the left of the moose and fired.
The bullet landed 3 metres to the left of the moose.

The statistician jumped up and down screaming, “We got him! We got him!”

Have you ever ended up walking away, feeling like the statistician? ;)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google
  • E-mail this story to a friend!

Related Thoughts out !oud posts

Tags: > > >

Filed Under Apologetics |

Comments