Word of the Day: Apologetics

Dictionary or Bible, we can ask: Does God exist?Apologetics is the discipline of defending a position using reason.  The word is so tied to the defense of Christianity that “Christian apologetics” is almost redundant.  An apologetic is a specific argument (the Design Argument or Pascal’s Wager, for example).

Though “apologetics” has its origin in common with the word “apology,” the apologist does not apologize.  The original Greek work apologia meant to make a spoken defense, such as you’d give if you were the defendant in court.

A Christian could argue for Christianity in an emotional way, but that wouldn’t be apologetics.  These nonapologetic claims might be “Christianity makes me feel good” or “I just like the worldview” or “You’ll love the community.”

Counter-apologetics uses reason to rebut specific Christian apologetic arguments.

Photo credit: Wikimedia

Related posts:

Related links:

10 thoughts on “Word of the Day: Apologetics

  1. Counter-apologetics uses reason to rebut specific Christian apologetic arguments.

    Counter-apologetics in the athesit worldview is bankrupped..

    Because the athesist worldview can not account for reason..Only the Christian worldview can..So when ever an Athesit uses reason he must jump into (borrow from) the Chrsitian worldview to make His argument.
    As Van till said:
    In order fro the Athist to slap God in the face: he must first sit in the lap of God to do it.

    • Because the athesist worldview can not account for reason..Only the Christian worldview can.

      And why is the Christian accounting of reason any more compelling than the Muslim one? Or the Hindu one? Or the Pastafarian one?

      In order fro the Athist to slap God in the face: he must first sit in the lap of God to do it.

      A clever image but poor reasoning. Sorry, Cornelius.

    • Wow, what a poorly assembled argument.

      “Counter-apologetics in the athesit worldview is bankrupped..”

      Does this even mean anything (aside from the spelling)?

      “Because the athesist worldview can not account for reason..Only the Christian worldview can..So when ever an Athesit uses reason he must jump into (borrow from) the Chrsitian worldview to make His argument.”

      I always try to read these arguments from the viewpoint of a faithful Hindu or a Buddhist and I wonder if they would find it as arrogant and misguided as I do. Let’s substitute a few words:

      “Because the athesist worldview can not account for reason..Only the Buddhist worldview can..So when ever an Athesit uses reason he must jump into (borrow from) the Buddist worldview to make His argument.”

      How does that sound to a Christian? let me also point out that an Atheist (that’s the spelling, BTW. Don’t people use spell checkers anymore?) is someone that doesn’t believe a god exist. Both western humanistic worldviews and Christianity are based on western civilization morality. If anything, the humanistic worldview precedes Christianity and it’s contemporary to its Judaic roots. That means that they share some values but they disagree on many points all the same.

      From there to say that ” when … an Athesit uses reason he must jump into the Chrsitian worldview” is a gross misunderstanding of how our culture developed.

      Do us all a favor and get a spell checker installed in your browser.

  2. Other than insulting the field of apologetics, did you have a point? You didn’t actually make any above, other than some of the poorest examples of emotional appeal possible. I see that you occasionally simply define terms, but Im not sure if you had an axe to grind here.

    Last time I referred you to a book with apologetic evidence, you stated you owned it but hadn’t read it. So what is the point of owning it if you dismiss it without reading the evidence presented? This is not a reasoned response to Christianity. It is dismissing it because you are angry at Christianity (or too busy, but not too busy to write vociferously against the field you don’t have time to research). It seems you want to poke about on the extreme aberrant edges rather than confronting the actual evidence that has been presented and is readily available.

    • Other than insulting the field of apologetics, did you have a point?

      Wait–I insulted the field of apologetics? Sweet! What a nice bonus–I was only intending to give an objective explanation of terms, with smart and insightful readers adding helpful insights to improve the discussion.

      Ah well, sometimes you find a dollar on the sidewalk. This must be one of those days. 🙂

      Im not sure if you had an axe to grind here.

      No? It sure looks like you’re sure!

      It seems you want to poke about on the extreme aberrant edges rather than confronting the actual evidence that has been presented and is readily available.

      But why would I do that? Nay–why would any atheist do that? Confronting actual Christian evidence would be like a vampire going out in the sun. The flimsy atheist arguments would shrivel up in moments.

    • “Last time I referred you to a book with apologetic evidence, you stated you owned it but hadn’t read it.”

      I tried going back through the older posts to see which book you are talking about, but I couldn’t find it. What’s the book?

      Rick T, have you read any authors such as Thomas Paine and Robert G. Ingersoll?

    • Hilarious.
      “Other than insulting the field of apologetics, did you have a point?”
      I must have read this page 6 times and I don’t see where this insult is. It’s a glossary of terms. Boy, you must get furious reading wikipedia.

  3. Pingback: How Do Theologians Waste Time? « Reviewed Thought

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *