Apologist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-02-2013, 05:21 PM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2013 05:26 PM by Ghost.)
RE: Apologist
Hey, DLJ.

On the contrary Cool

Hey, Hedgehog.

Please see my EDIT in my last post.

Hey, fst.

Quote:Apologist to me is the art of using logic and reason to justify the claims of the religious.

That, to me, sounds like a positive thing. Do you agree or do you have a different opinion?

Hey, KC.

Thanks for that clarification.

Hmm. Does that mean that one is only an apologist when they are defending their position against an allegation (of falsehood I would suppose)?

Also, what about connotatively?

Hey, Vosur.

Thanks for that.

So an apologist, much like what KC is saying, is anyone that defends their position?

Perhaps you can help me. I've always perceived a pejorative sense to the term. Is that because connotatively it is something leveled against the religious, or that attempting to justify one's position, whatever it is, is base? Or have I just read too much into the pejorative issue? I ask this question in particular because I have at times been accused of being an apologist and, in context, it seemed like the individual was attempting to insult me.

ON EDIT:

Hey, Chas.

That's your interpretation of the situation. When I ask a question, as a subjectivist and as a cultural relativist and as a social constructivist, I don't expect the definitive objective answer; rather, I expect to hear what people think. So while I understand the basis of your accusation, I don't agree with it (for that reason and for some others). I do, however, find your accusation of dickishness in regards to a little fun that I'm having with my friend to be out of line.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 05:44 PM
RE: Apologist
(04-02-2013 05:21 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, DLJ.

On the contrary Cool

It was a statement not a question.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 05:49 PM
RE: Apologist
(04-02-2013 05:21 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Chas.

That's your interpretation of the situation. When I ask a question, as a subjectivist and as a cultural relativist and as a social constructivist, I don't expect the definitive objective answer; rather, I expect to hear what people think. So while I understand the basis of your accusation, I don't agree with it (for that reason and for some others). I do, however, find your accusation of dickishness in regards to a little fun that I'm having with my friend to be out of line.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Matt, not everyone knows you. Your question was most easily and directly understood as a request for a definition. DLJ beat me to it.

You could have phrased it more clearly and completely. I apologize for appearing out of line.

I'm curious about your 'other reasons'.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 06:02 PM
RE: Apologist
(04-02-2013 05:01 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, KC.

I think I meant generally. Ie, embeded within the definition of the term. Like, is it closer to "an apologist makes statements that falsely justify their position," or, "an apologist is anyone that attempts to justify their position?"

For example, when an evolutionary biologist makes a statement that justifies evolution, are they an apologist?

Or, if a YEC justifies their position and the receiver agrees, does that mean that they are not an apologist?

ON EDIT:

Hey, Hedgehog.

Thank you for clarifying.

You'll have to forgive me. I'm not really familiar with those men.

Explaining away the inconsistencies. Nice. Very insightful. Is the assumption that the inconsistencies cannot be explained away? Or that they have failed? Or that the mere attempt to explain inconsistencies is the issue?

It's an interesting question to me, because ideology (something we all have) necessarily contains contradictions. Hegemony is the mechanism that attempts to suture those contradictions and naturalise the ideology (to make it the "common sense view"). It's actually an important mechanism because without it, we would be unable to accept any ideology because we'd always be painfully aware of the contradictions and inconsistencies. Living without ideology might sound good, but it would actually make life impossible. That being said, hegemony can easily become a trap.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
If they could explain them it would be fine. But the arguments they try and propose always fail when given even the quickest glance over.

Usually they just repeat the same stuff that has been debunked time and time again.

I've never seen a christian apologist make an argument that could hold up to scrutiny.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 06:03 PM
RE: Apologist
(04-02-2013 04:52 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I guess the validity of the apologist is based on the person receiving the apology.

This means that a YEC is going to see a YEC's apologies as highly valid whereas an evolutionist will see them as poppycock.
Agreed. And this is why, for example, when a relative of mine recommended a Christian apologist's book to me, saying she found it extremely convincing, I read it and found it utterly unconvincing. That's the problem, usually. I see such writings as something uses bad reasoning to make supporters of the same POV to feel like they have all this stuff backing them up, but it's worthless to others. The book I read (by somebody McDowell, I think) was utterly unconvincing to an atheists because all it did was quote the Bible. If you don't already view the Bible as true, it's complete garbage.

Like that one debate, I think it was WLC and Sam Harris, and Harris suggested god might be evil, and WLC said something to the effect of [paraphrasing] "god is good because he's god and god is good." (Saying that because god says something, that makes it good, no matter what it looks like to mere humans). Might make sense to Christians, seems utterly moronic to nonchristians.

The McDowell book also claims to be a source of comebacks for Christians to use when talking to atheist (or nonchristians), yet none of the comebacks would work, because they presuppose that the person believes the bible is true and is the word of god.

I see it as a bit of a waste of time. You can't rationally support unsupportable beliefs not based on evidence.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 06:15 PM
RE: Apologist
Hey, Amy.

Oh God. Sam Harris!





So is it that an apologist is anyone who defends a position then?

Is "Christian apologist" pejorative? Can a Christian apologist get something right, or is the blanket assumption that they are always wrong?

Hey, Hedgehog.

So being an apologist is only problematic when they cannot mount an effective justification of their position?

Hey, Chas.

S'all good, brother. Ain't no thing but a chicken wing.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 06:21 PM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2013 06:24 PM by Dom.)
RE: Apologist
(04-02-2013 04:47 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Dom.

Perhaps you could elaborate on "crappy"?

Boy, I have been asked to elaborate on all kinds of things over the years, but never "crappy". Shocking Big Grin
Crappy things get thrown in the trash.
To me, things that apologists say are trash.
This is because their answers are all based on something I don't accept in the first place.
An apologist may be good for a "doubting Thomas", for people who have a good base of indoctrination and can accept the basis of the apologist's argument.
But everything I have ever heard them say (not all that much) was based on things I do not accept.
I hope that clarifies the use of "crappy". Tongue


P.S. I just read Amy's post - righton!

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 06:29 PM
RE: Apologist
(04-02-2013 06:15 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Is "Christian apologist" pejorative? Can a Christian apologist get something right, or is the blanket assumption that they are always wrong?
As I see it, it's someone who uses a lot of weasel words to make themselves (and fellow believers) feel good about their belief, usually in a way that's totally unconvincing to non-believers (or those of a different belief system). I see it as sort of masturbatory.

I wouldn't say it's a matter of right and wrong, since they usually deal in the unprovable and unsupportable. That's why it's a waste of time, because their religion relies on faith and not evidence (including the faith that the bible is the word of god).

I wouldn't say it's a pejorative, I'd just say if they are so keen on faith, why even bother trying to explain and support their position?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 06:33 PM
RE: Apologist
(04-02-2013 06:15 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Amy.

Oh God. Sam Harris!
(04-02-2013 06:15 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Chas.

S'all good, brother. Ain't no thing but a chicken wing.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
You know, Matt, we will never be together. Sam Harris will always come between us. Weeping

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
05-02-2013, 02:04 PM
RE: Apologist
Hey, Chas.

I fear that you're right. I really wanted to be with you the other night, baby, really I did, but then Harris stepped in and did to you what he does to everyone to make them think they're being loved and looked after and told the honest to God truth. He licked your ass.





Hey, Amy.

I think I'd like it if you could elaborate on what you mean by "weasel words".

Quote:I wouldn't say it's a matter of right and wrong, since they usually deal in the unprovable and unsupportable.

That seems like a contradiction to me.

Quote:That's why it's a waste of time, because their religion relies on faith
and not evidence (including the faith that the bible is the word of
god).

So are only Christians apologists?

Quote:I wouldn't say it's a pejorative, I'd just say if they are so keen on
faith, why even bother trying to explain and support their position?

Should they not respond to people's criticisms?

Hey, Dom.

Thank you very much for your crappy elaboration... wait...

So does that mean that an apologist is someone that defends a position that you disagree with?

I suppose that my extension question would be, would it be possible for an apologist to change your mind?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: