The world seems to be full today of Christians, some well meaning, and some obvious charlatans, who make their livings in the field of Christian Apologetics. For reference, let’s look at the definition of “apologetics”. From Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
1: systematic argumentative discourse … in defense (as of a doctrine)
2: a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity
So for the purposes of this discussion, apologetics collectively offers a series of arguments for the existence of god, for the truth of the Christian religion, and for various specific matters of theology. As with any logical argument, they must be evaluated based on:
- Whether the premises of the argument are valid. As an example, if an argument starts with the premise that all men are stronger than all women, it may be disproved by identifying even a single example of a woman who is stronger than at least one man.
- Whether the logic of the argument is valid. Independently of whether the premises are true, the logic of the argument must support the conclusion based on the premises. As an example, if we say that there is a correlation between A and B (the premise), therefore A causes B, the argument is faulty, because correlation does not imply causation.
These (Un)Apologetics are my attempt to answer the apologists’ arguments. My arguments are (in most cases) neither new, nor unique, but rather are just a composite of (in some cases) my own reactions, and in many other cases, information I’ve learned since my deconversion. I shall try to credit others when possible/appropriate.
As a general observation, one must wonder if the apologists really believe in the validity of their own arguments. They have a multiplicity of supposed “proofs” for the existence of god. But if any one of those arguments was sufficiently rigorous, there would be no need for any others. If we compare to the field of mathematics – when one mathematician submits a proof for some theorem, her peers review it, to confirm its rigor and validity. Once satisfied, they congratulate her, and cease spending any further effort on proving that theorem. At most, another mathematician might offer some simplifications to the proof. What you don’t see is other mathematicians spending their time driving more nails into the proverbial coffin.
In contrast, in spite of all the existing “proofs” for god, numerous apologists continue to spend their careers developing and refining new ones. And that’s because none of the arguments, whether old or new, actually stand up to any real scrutiny. They are all just different exercises in sophistry, appealing to those who are predisposed to theism, but failing on one or more factual or logical grounds.