Evidential apologetics

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Evidential apologetics is an approach in Christian apologetics which emphasizes the use of evidence to demonstrate that God exists and that Christianity/Bible are supported with compelling evidence.

Within the discipline of Christian apologetics are various topics related to evidential apologetics:

Atheists and the improper weighing of evidence

See: Atheism and evidence

Evidential apologetics and the rebuttal of non-Christian worldviews

Joseph Stalin's atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people.

A Christian apologists may also cite various historical facts/studies/statistics to rebut claims made by non-Christian apologists. For example, a Christian apologists could cite various atheism statistics to rebut the claims of atheist apologists.

Concerning atheism and mass murder, Christian apologist Gregory Koukl wrote that "the assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them."[1] Koukl details the number of people killed in various events involving theism and compares them to the much higher tens of millions of people killed under atheistic communist regimes, in which militant atheism served as the official doctrine of the state.[1] See also: Atheism and communism

Non-Christian views, other false views and historical revisionism

See also: Atheism and historical revisionism

Voroshilov, Molotov, Stalin, with Nikolai Yezhov.jpg
Nikolai Yezhov walking with Joseph Stalin in the top photo taken in the mid 1930s. Subsequent to his execution in 1940, Yezhov was edited out of the photo by Soviet Union censors.[2]

Theodore Beale wrote about secular leftists and leftists in general:

Regardless of whether it is...Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, or the vast and corpulent mass of feminists, the Left has an observable tendency to shun debate. They assert many different reasons for doing so, but the truth is always revealed by their seemingly contradictory willingness to debate the incompetent and the overmatched....

One of the things that has been interesting to observe over time is the way that the heated attacks on me, both in public and via email, have all but disappeared even though my overall readership has never been larger. Why is this? My theory is this is because most of my critics, be they atheists, feminists, evolutionists, or free traders, have learned they simply cannot win in a direct confrontation. They can't openly criticize my ideas because they have learned, much to their surprise, that they cannot adequately defend their own.

As Aristotle pointed out more than two thousand years ago, even at the rhetorical level, the side more closely approximates the truth will tend to win out, because it is easier to argue when your arguments are based on truth rather than falsehood. Events will always ultimately prove the arguments of the global warmers, the godless, the female supremacists, the socialists, the Keynesians, and the monetarists to be false because their ideas are false. This is why a good memory is one of the most lethal weapons against them and why it is so easy to win debates against them, as given enough time, they are going to contradict themselves.

Why? Because they have no choice. Being false, their positions have to be dynamic, which means they can never hope for any significant degree of consistency. This is why ex post facto revision and double-talk are the hallmarks of the Left, and is why the first thing Leftists do when they are in a position of power is to erase history and attempt to silence any voices capable of calling attention to their fictions and contradictions.[3]

Evidential apologetics and demonstrating that anti-Christian views lack evidence

See also: Atheism and evidence and Stagnation of atheist apologetics

Evidential apologists also provide evidence/arguments showing the falsity/improbability of non-Christian worldviews. For example, Dr. Don Batten wrote an article on the origin of life which demonstrates the vexing problem first life is for those who insist that life arose through purely natural processes[4] See also: Philosophical naturalism

The Christian apologist Brace E. Barber wrote:

The bankruptcy of the atheist position is critical for Christians to grasp. If we as Christians know that those with counter ideas have no evidence to back up their positions, then it encourages us to find the evidence that supports our position.

Atheists are now forced to present conclusions for their beliefs that are beyond the scope of evidence. They propose multiple universes, alien creation, secular meanings of life and morals. They suggest chimpanzees mated with pigs to create humans – no joke – and that the Bible is horribly corrupted despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.[5]

William Lane Craig on attempts to define the word atheism

See also: Atheist attempts to change the definition of atheism

Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other philosophy reference works, is the denial of the existence of God.[6][7][8][9]

Paul Edwards, who was a prominent atheist and editor of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, defined an atheist as "a person who maintains that there is no God." [10]

Beginning in the latter portion of the 20th century and continuing beyond, many agnostics/atheists have argued that the definition of atheism should be defined as a mere lack of belief in God or gods.[8][9][10][11]

William Lane Craig declared:

There’s a history behind this. Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists....

But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of atheism used the term “atheist,” you discover that they were defining the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with “non-theist." So understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists, along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists)...

Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.

One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really interested in.

So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view.[9]

For more information, please see: Atheist attempts to change the definition of atheism

See also

External links

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Koukl, Gregory (February 20, 2013). "The real murderers: atheism or Christianity?" Stand to Reason. Retrieved July 19, 2014.
  2. The Commissar Vanishes
  3. The distaste for debate, Theodore Beale
  4. Origin of life by Dr. Don Batten
  5. Atheist Beliefs and Absence of Evidence
  6. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Atheism and Agnosticism
  7. Is Atheism More Rational? by Creation Ministries International
  8. 8.0 8.1 Day, Donn R. (2007). "Atheism - etymology".
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 Definition of atheism by William Lane Craig
  10. 10.0 10.1 Putting the Atheist on the Defensive by Kenneth R. Samples, Christian Research Institute Journal, Fall 1991, and Winter 1992, page 7.
  11. Britain is a less religious country than the United States and the online Oxford Dictionaries offers both the narrow/broad definitions of atheism (As noted in a previous footnote the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which is a traditional American dictionary, offers a more narrow definition of atheism similar to the definition that major encyclopedias of philosophy use). Oxford Dictionaries: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.[1]