Does Christian apologetics encourage people to be dishonest ?

[RedTagAlan]

I think it does, certainly the US version anyway.

Apologetics trains people to ignore scientific evidence presented to them. To handwave it away, and to make contorted non logical arguments in support of their belief in the Bible. Because the Bible can't be wrong.

An example here.

Global Evidences of the Genesis Flood | Answers in Genesis

"Fossils are one of the best evidences of a global flood, especially where many fossils are found. For example, we don’t find marine creatures, such as fish, clams, and corals, buried and fossilized on the sea floor where they once lived. Instead, we find most of them buried in sedimentary rocks on the continents, even on high mountains. For that to happen, the ocean waters had to totally flood the continents. And that’s exactly what the Bible describes during the global flood."

The above quote from that site was written by a Dr Andrew Snelling. Who has a PHD in..... geology. Please read the article to get the full gist. Almost every logical fallacy is in there, including outright dishonesty.

This is a big industry, with colleges and university courses etc, and I think that ironically, teaching people to ignore evidence, and to use dishonest debate methods, is destructive to society. Because it teaches people to lie in support of their theology, and perhaps more importantly, it teaches them to ignore political lies at election time, and to vote for the candidate who says "God".

What do folk think ? Agree or disagree?

OP, I have come across other threads that you've started for the purpose of criticising christianity. It clearly gets under your skin somewhat. You've mentioned on a few threads having once had a faith and now having none, but you do seem zealous in your anti-christianity. It seems to take up a lot of headspace for you.

This is the second thread I have started here. My last one, and my first, was asking if AI can be considered "inspired".

I would not call that zealous.

Someone else mentioned what I was thinking but didn't post-you do seem very commited to your anti-christian job of looking for errors and dishonesty which has now seemed to straighten up and put it into a logical academic argument using those labels.

I don't know how long ago you left the faith, I was thinking in that other thread that I hoped you would be ok but you don't say it as it wasn't personal. I hope it wasn't opening wounds for you who had de-converted. You was in there and a big fellow so could handle it so I left you to get along with it. Just that some people may need some oace after leaving a faith. You are entited to do your new passion.

Now your question about Timothy inwardly you could say you are joking.. Jesus supports women today in the church. I explained this recently in the last post on scripture.

I don't like viewing faith along the lines of dishonest if someone believes in someting. i find it mind games on someone and verging on traps behaviour. I believe in however God did the flood and I care not how it was. I also do not need to know. This is in line with three Abrahamic faiths. People are entitled to believe in a faith freely.

Everyone is 100% entitled to believe what they want but don’t try and pass things off as fact when they aren’t.

@SmallHoulding, I'm no apostate. I'm comfortably atheist, never baptised, never inducted. I feel very strongly - perhaps even more strongly than @RedTagAlan - that religious doctrine isn't questioned enough.

The religious background to life in the UK is Christian, so naturally I'm familiar with it. I'd have to take a hell of a crash course to even start questioning Hinduism, say. Christian beliefs do affect us here in Europe, and I find the recent resurgences of Christian fundamentalism very worrying.

I wrote on one of Justmerach's threads about questioning the shamanic-style religion of another country I lived in. People there, though, maintain a dual mindset about the religion - well, triple, actually, since it's syncretised with the Catholic church. They follow it, know it, enact the rituals and consult the practitioners. So did I, while I was there.

But they don't believe it like Rach does. It's more like a folklore system which, while respected at all times, doesn't inform people's everyday thoughts - and nobody truly believes their gods walk the earth as described in the mythology. They don't thank the gods before eating, but they will put out a token to the appropriate entity if seeking support for something. I did, too. (I binned the curse that was left on my doorstep, though!)

These things have human value socially, culturally and psychologically. Over the past century we've grown used to thinking of Christianity the same way: more personally significant to some than to most; nice to have the shared idioms and festivals; comforting to many in times of need.

The rising insistence that the scriptures are true - therefore negating over 200 years' worth of science - and that its doctrines should rightly shape our legal and governmental systems - scares the shit out of me. It's new to us but it's old. I'm strongly opposed to going back there. I believe it must be questioned, more rigorously and persistently than ever.

Forgot to round off my post with the observation that Christian apologetics today is a rising force with the explicit intent of re-imposing the scriptures on our lives and societies. It is a dishonest practice and many (or all) of its exponents know it. Damn right I will denounce it!

But OP isn't talking about legal systems. She is talking about people who believe in a young earth.

We live in a pluralistic society where many people believe many different things and obviously there will be points of conflict there, but I don't think we are being forced to go to the Ark Encounter (in Kentucky, not the UK) or forced to ascribe to the Dr Snelling's teachings.

So just like in your other examples, just let people engage with it if they want and let it pass you by.

How does it impact you? Why get energised about flood theory, rather than FGM or forced marriages or honour killings?

Actually I am not talking about people who believe in young earth. I don't care if people believe in young earth, flat earth, hollow earth or cube earth.

I care about honesty in public discourse, and it is my opinion that teaching Christian apologetics, is actually encouraging people to be dishonest. Because the Bible is a flawed book, full of errors and contradictions, and that to defend said book requires dishonesty.

And that dishonesty in turn spills over into politics and society as a whole, where evangelical Christianity is involved, that is.

I don't want to get into politics, but it is fact that most of Trumps base are evangelicals. He lies all the time, and they ignore it. Likely because they are subconsciously taught by apologetics that lies are ok, if done in defense of ones faith.

And it's the same with conspiracy theorists. There is a strong link between them, A flat earther is also likely to believe the earth to be 5k years old.

I won't post links to back up those claims, but it's easy to find. I posted a link above that connects apologetics to climate change denial, vax skepticism, and general anti science attitudes.

I am saying that it is apologetics plays a big part, because it teaches people to be dishonest. That their faith is true, and science is wrong. Don't believe the scientist in the lab coat, he is probably an atheist and what he says is fake. Trust your Pastor, and repeat what he says. Ignore that the scientist says your Pastor is wrong.

And what is worse, I think, is that it trains people to be dishonest to themselves. That fossil can't be 200 million years old, because the earth is only 5k years old.

That sort of thing.

Pretty sure I didn't say I don't care about FGM, forced marriages or honour killings 🤨

I would absolutely love to explain to you how systematic campaigns to change people's beliefs can affect everyone, including you & me. To save time, I'll simply point you to the transgender phenomenon. We had legal policy in the UK telling us people can change sex and a penis is female if its owner says so (we're still fighting it).

Home schooling in the UK is rising by about 20% a year, the current estimate being approx 100,000 UK children being educated at home.

While no data exists on the proportion of those receiving a biblically observant education, there's been an explosion of Christian homeschool organisations. One is Arise, which says it's guided by An Evangelical, Biblical Worldview and that the Bible is infallible, the final authority for truth.
https://arisehomeeducation.com/statement-of-faith/

You appear to be doing all you can to avoid the subject of the thread. And you will not answer direct questions. Eg, I asked if all the stuff in that link about the flood was true.

This thread is not about me. I just fancied a chat about the subject I posted.

Quote:

"Someone else mentioned what I was thinking but didn't post-you do seem very commited to your anti-christian job of looking for errors and dishonesty which has now seemed to straighten up and put it into a logical academic argument using those labels."

Is this not from the apologetics playbook ? Anti-Christian job ? I have no idea what this means: " now seemed to straighten up and put it into a logical academic argument using those labels." I am not an academic, but yes, I would like more people to apply a bit of logic to things.

Another Quote : "Now your question about Timothy inwardly you could say you are joking.. Jesus supports women today in the church. I explained this recently in the last post on scripture."

The Bible does not support this statement at all. Are you saying the Bible supports women, and that 1 Tim 2:12 does not say what it says ?

This is from the ONS "Religious affiliation in England and Wales has shifted dramatically, with Christianity dropping from 71.7% in 2001 to 46.2% in 2021, falling below 50% for the first time. Conversely, those identifying with "No religion" grew to 37.2% in 2021, while the Muslim population increased to 6.5%.

So against this backdrop and citing the recent "transgender phenomenon", which is explicitly against biblical teaching, the conclusion is that what some Christians believe about a flood etc is a major issue?

There will always be conspiracy theorists, (some of whom have been feeling pretty vindicated lately, but that's for another thread) and those who hold differing world views, beliefs and theories to us.

I just find it bewildering that out of all of the differing world beliefs and views and their various implications if left unchecked, this is the one that you're getting energised enough by to post about.

Did you really not understand why I offered transgenderism as an example of what cultural campaigning can achieve, @SmallHoulding, or are you pretending?

I understood it, but i thought that it strengthened a position of I'd rather live in a country with a christian history than any other religion or even secularism, if anything.

I do find it bizarre, that on a day when there's fresh hope that Iranian women might be able to choose not to wear a headscarf without being beaten to death, people's minds are focused on the "threat" of Christianity, which is declining in this country.

Quote :"I just find it bewildering that out of all of the differing world beliefs and views and their various implications if left unchecked, this is the one that you're getting energised enough by to post about."

It's a chat, on a world wide forum.

Do you post this on threads about what cat litter, or what girls name fits best for a sister for Eric ?

Yeah, well they're nutters. Most scientists - including religious ones outside the US - wouldnt agree with that. I refer you to my earlier comment re common sense, etc. Those fossils up mountains have of course been moved by upheavals.

But I do think there's a collective memory of a very big flood, which comes through in many cultures' myths. Noah's flood was maybe after the icecaps melted. A bloke built a big boat and took some cattle and sheep on board. So there's a story with a kernel of truth that gets embellished as it's handed down verbally. Even the Bible has different accounts - in one account it's seven of all the animals, not two.

No, it was irrelevant to that position. The point is that transgenderism seemed a small, if determined, movement which almost everybody considered marginal, unimportant, hardly affects anyone. Within ~15 years, activists had changed laws around the world, had their propaganda taught in schools as mandatory, and constrained public speech - even thought - by use of the legal system. Their core message, so eagerly embraced & enforced, runs absolutely counter to long-established fact. So long established that all other mammals know the fact! Yet they succeeded.

It's surprising that a bible defender doesn't know how analogies work. I hope this has helped. To spell it out even more clearly, it's the same type of campaign the biblical absolutists are now running. And you're attempting to dismiss concerns in exactly the same way.

The rest of your comments are pretty weak what-abouting and straw-manning. Have you just started an Apologetics course?

I know what you're saying, and I have seen that happen, where people pick something and make ridiculous claims. I was brought up in a Christian sect that studied the Bible closely. I still do. I think it has a lot of truth, from an archeological and historical point of view. ( eg. have a look at Hezekiah's tunnel - a plaque has been found confirming it.) My current interest is whether figures like Joseph and Moses (both of whom lived in Egypt) turn up in Egyptian studies under different names, and they do appear to be there. So, the problem is sifting the truth from the allegory and filling in the background and context. But please don't dismiss the Bible as a complete work of fiction. Jesus, in the New Testament which is relevant to us today, relied on what we know as the Old Testament, and Jesus' teachings about love and life are surely worth listening to.

I don’t see relevance in today’s world for the bible. Some of the historical facts may be relevant and interesting but much is incorrect, false and blatantly impossible. This shouldn’t be passed off as fact and should be challenged
It’s perfectly possible to be a good person without any religious beliefs.

People can believe and do in what they want if it doesn't hurt others and is not against the law. Lets keep account of any specks or logs in our own eyes. For someone to discuss their faith with you, they know you like call others dishonest and may put that faulty trap down for them as well.

As for Timothy, this was for the early church and it was not about silencing women, but that there wouldn't be division in the church. Today everyone is expected to not to disrupt the service as it is going on except the minister etc. Timothy is not aimed at women who had a ministry role in the church at those times. Some women did have a minstry role like Johanna in the Gospels. Women have ministry roles today and it is Jesus who puts them in this role and they have always spoken for God right back to the Old Testament with female prophets. Jesus appoints the roles in the church today and through the gifts of the Holy Spirit supports their ministry by being able to do healings etc and blessing the communion. They are fit to be a vessel of God if ordained by God in this role. I am not preaching here, and trust you follow good values around women's rights. I am free to write online.

I agree everyone is entitled to believe what they want so long as it doesn’t hurt others. However claiming statements as being true when they are not , is dishonest and misleading to others. Evidence is everything

Do you have any thoughts on that apologetics article I posted, and have already asked you about ?

The AIG one about the global flood. Any opinion on if it is honest or dishonest ?

Perhaps Rachel has cognitive dissonance, being fully aware that life and this planet evolved over billions of years but also convinced the words in the bible are absolute truth (if you finagle them around a bit, making allowances for half a dozen kinds of symbolism). Cognitive dissonance is very unpleasant, it can feel paralysing.

The cure, of course, is to explode the untrue thing. But which one is it, Rach?

I don’t know enough about this research wise to sit there and make a snap decision based one article. I also am not in the habit of calling others dishonest for their beliefs. Whether global or local is really not that important to me. It is just not how the way things are done with religion and they are seperate courses religion and science and it seems that you need to be able to understand religion and the role it can function. They can meet together, but they are not the same.

You must have heard about Young Earth Creationism before, surely? And have some sort of opinion about it?

It is just not how the way things are done with religion and they are separate courses religion and science

Well, OK, then you believe the bible has nothing to say about scientific facts? That would put you firmly in opposition to organisations like Answers in Genesis.

I'm not sure that's what you are saying, though. Forgive my jumping to a conclusion here - your faith seems very mystical. Might it be that Christianity, for you, is an intensely personal and emotional experience, such that things like dates and place names don't really matter?

I've heard people say that the details of certain key texts are trivial compared to the spiritual content of the whole. Would this resonate for you?

[ETA] I realised after posting that I must've got this wrong. Your earlier thread was all about looking in the bible for evidence of Jesus's divinity, so the words and details do matter for you.

I'm interested to know whether I was heading in anything like the right direction, though, so am leaving this here!

Ok. It's fair enough if you don't know or understand geology, plate tectonics, fossilization etc. Unusual maybe. But I can cut a bit of the article that everyday logic can be applied to.

This, a caption from a photo of a fossil, chapter 4 ,under a photo of an ichthyosaurus fossil:

"Only a global, rapid burial explains the exquisite preservation of plants and animals. Slow burial over long periods of time would result in poorly preserved specimens."

This part in bold. Do you think it is true that " Only a global, rapid burial " can result in buried animals that are well preserved in form ? That is, that there is no other mechanism in nature that can result in burial of a whole animal ?

I will clip the photo and post below.

This is not a gotcha. It's simply about is the statement " Only a global, rapid burial.... " . Is true ? No need for a degree in geology, biology, planetology, water engineering or marine science required.

I am happy to walk you through why I think it's a dishonest statement. I don't have any degree, but I know enough to explain it. Totally no shame in not knowing.

Here is the Brittanica article on the ichthyosaur, for reference.

Ichthyosaur | Definition, Size, Fossil, & Facts | Britannica