I’ve recently been thinking a lot about things like the proofs for the existence of God, the natures of faith and reason, the intellectual defensibility of Christian doctrine in light of modern science(ie. creation vs evolution, etc), and all of these things are often categorized as apologetics. The greek word ‘apologia’ from which apologetics is derived means ‘defense speech'(‘apo’ being ‘away from’ and ‘logos’ being ‘speech, reason, or word’, one is separating himself from the charges). The word was normally employed in the context of the aereopagis or assembly or court for the formal defense given by the defendant. This has been adapted in Christian thought to defending one’s faith, meeting the criticisms and accuswations of critics in order to refute them and prove the tenets of faith, or at least tilt the scales of plausibility in its favour. However, what are we to make of the fact that manyof the arguments of apologetics equally belong in the category of the Philosophy of Religion(ie. The study of the things in religion that we can know through reason unaided by revelation)? Is apologetics a separate study or a subset or philosophy or theology? I think the answer lies in understanding the goals or ends of each of these. It seems to me the goal of apologetics is the refutation of arguments against religion, which often involves the convincing of the skeptics. The goal of the philosophy of religion is truth, or wisdom, and the proofs of said truth. What is it that we can know and prove through unaided human reason and logic about religious things. Since the latter, particularly inasmuch as it uses dialectic in its method, also involves convincing people, though its primary goal is the understanding of truth and its arguments, one could argue that it is a species of the genus ‘philosophy.’. I don’t think its relationship with Christian theology is quite so close(except philosophical theology).since skeptics will not accept anything from revelation as proof until the existence, nature and dependability of revelation is determined.
Archive for August, 2009
Descartes’ Meditations III
August 3rd, 2009Finally finished the audiobook of Meditations I was listening to. Not sure that I caught everytging, but sure gives some food for thought. His assertion that all error and I think he extends this to all evil, comes from making judgements beyond our understanding. We ought to reserve judgement till we fully understand anything. I think I agree that much grief in this world is caused by ignorance, I wonder whether it may be more tha attitude of open mindedness to being proved wrong that is the solution than purely witholding assent. Certainly there are many times when we ought to withold assent, and too many people rush to judgement, but to make a judgement based on the evidence or arguments available, and then be willing to be proved wrong(as with Antony Flew) is sometimes what we must do. I think I need to revisit some lectures on Descartes from a few years ago.