14 Examples of Really Bad Apologetics

# on 17 Feb 2009
Uncategorized

Comments (35)

Related Posts

• Apologetics Course with Rob Bowman
• A Warning About Pseudo or “Pancake” Apologetics
• Top Fifteen Must Have Books on Apologetics
• Last call!
• Internet Monk, Coffee Cup Apologetics: Five Limitations of Apologetics

35 Responses to “14 Examples of Really Bad Apologetics”

1. scott gray on 17 Feb 2009 at 5:18 pm #

   ‘I believe Christianity is true because Christ rose from the grave’ is not quite data.

   ‘I believe Christianity is true because i believe Christ rose from the grave’ is data.

   ‘If Christ rose from the grave, Christianity is true—period. If Christ did not rise from the grave Christianity is false—period’ is not data. it is not even truth arrived at from data.

2. C Michael Patton on 17 Feb 2009 at 5:43 pm #

   It is substantial grounding that can be evidenced and, if true, create substantial faith.

   Hope that helps.

3. scott gray on 17 Feb 2009 at 6:04 pm #

   cmp–

   if you had said ‘i believe that If Christ rose from the grave, Christianity is true—period. i believe that If Christ did not rise from the grave Christianity is false—period,’ i would treat such a statement as data.

   i treat all believers’ belief statements as data. the concept believed in- well, that may or may not be true, or may or may not be data. i treat all believers’ experience accounts as data. if you tell me that you’ve had a numinous experience of god, you will never hear me tell you it isn’t true. your experieince of it is data. (actually, you’ll hear me ask you about what such an experience was like.)

   this whole data thing in this post and your last is interesting, because in any apologetics, reasoning from any data to a truth claim effectively gives the truth claim great authority. i have no problem with your conclusions, your truth claims, reasoned from data.

   but to leap from data (‘i believe’ statements, or ‘i experienced such and such’ statements) to a truth claim without clear reasoning is to coopt the authority of reasoning apologetics without doing the heavy lifting. and that’s either clumsy, if it’s accidental, or evasive or disingenuous, if it’s deliberate.

   this whole post is about the issue what data is significant. i believe Christianity is true because my church says it is’ is data: a person’s belief statement. whether you and i find it significant is a different matter all together.

   on your side though, for you to go from ‘I believe Christianity is true because i believe Christ rose from the grave’ through a reasoned argument of other mutually perceived data (if not mutually perceived by you and i, perhaps mutually perceived by you and other confessional scholars) to the conclusion ‘If the resurrection truly happened it means that everything Christ said is true. God is real, holy and righteous, we are sinners in need of a substitute, God really does love you more than you can imagine, there is a future for those who have trusted in Christ, and heaven is real’ would give you argument the authority of data reasoned to truth. to merely state it as a presumption without such reasoning is to coopt the authority of reasoning without doing the heavy lifting.

   if you wish your authority to come from other than reasoning from data, then say so! nothing wrong with that, as long as it’s clear, and not coopted from actual reasoning from data to truth.

   peace–

   scott

4. Stephen on 17 Feb 2009 at 6:09 pm #

   First, a point of clarification on #8: “I believe Christianity is true because there are no better options and I have nothing to lose.”

   I don’t think this is quite Pascal’s Wager. Pascal’s Wager deals with belief in God, not belief in Christianity, and so it cannot be used for “any religious belief lacking verification.” Pascal said that if we agree that reason is useless in determining whether God exists, then we have two choices: living as if God does exist, and living as if he doesn’t exist. Now if we live as if God does exist, we have everything to gain if we’re right, and nothing to lose if we’re wrong. If we live as if he doesn’t exist, then we have nothing to gain if we’re right and everything to lose if we’re wrong. So it makes sense — again, assuming that we can’t prove or disprove God’s existence by reason — to live as if God does exist. The wager can’t work for Christianity because reason can indeed help us decide whether Christianity as a system of beliefs is true.

   Second, Scott, could you define “data”?

5. C Michael Patton on 17 Feb 2009 at 6:23 pm #

   Scot, I could be wrong, but you are being a bit nit picky. The point of my post is clear enough I think. Don’t base your faith on apologetic issues that prove nothing and don’t have any substantial power. That is it.

6. C Michael Patton on 17 Feb 2009 at 6:35 pm #

   Stephen, you are right, it is not exactly Pascal’s Wager, but a variation based on the same principles.

7. Patton’s 14 Really Bad Approaches to Apologetics « SoCal Theologica: Musings from the West Coast on 18 Feb 2009 at 3:22 am #

   [...] 14 Really Bad Approaches to Apologetics Michael Patton has posted a really humorous and helpful piece on bad approaches to apologetics.    Here is the [...]

8. Steven Carr on 18 Feb 2009 at 4:08 am #

   Paul did not have the benefit of reading Craig or Habermas, so his apologetic in 1 Corinthians 15 totally forgot to include stories of women visiting the empty tomb, or even saying that there was an empty tomb, or that the disciples did not expect Jesus to be resurrected.

   ‘If the resurrection truly happened it means that everything Christ said is true. God is real….’

   So the resurrection proves the Gospels true, yet Christians do not assume the Gospels are true when trying to prove the resurrection?

   If the Gospels claim a person called Joseph of Arimathea (sic) buried Jesus, then this is not a ‘fact’ until the Gospels have been shown to be true.

   And the starting point for that is the resurrection, which shows the Gospels to have been true?

   If God is real, then we can expect him to have worked miracles like raising Jesus from the dead?

   But how do we know God is real?

   Easy. ‘If the resurrection truly happened it means that everything Christ said is true. God is real….’

9. C Michael Patton on 18 Feb 2009 at 4:15 am #

   Thanks Steven, you are partially right, but I think your assumptions may be off some.

   The Gospel need only be shown to be generally historically reliable. They don’t have to be proven to be inspired (just making sure that is not part of your assumption.)

   As well, the Gospel are certianlly not the only evidence for the resurrection. In fact, even without the written traditions handed down through the New Testament, there would be sufficient reason to believe in the resurrection without the.

   Therefore, from a historic standpoint, the resurrection, I believe is more secure than just about any event in antiquity.

   Thanks for the good comments.

10. Steven Carr on 18 Feb 2009 at 4:35 am #

    ‘In fact, even without the written traditions handed down through the New Testament, there would be sufficient reason to believe in the resurrection without the….’.

    Something seemed to get truncated there?

    Are you claiming Craig can prove Paul’s claim that ‘the last Adam became a life-giving spirit’ without using the Gospels?

    Paul claims to have gone to Heaven. That is direct , personal testimony.

    How ’secure’ is Paul’s visit to Heaven, compared with the security of the resurrection?

    ‘The Gospel need only be shown to be generally historically reliable. ‘

    In other words, we don’t have to show that there was a town called Arimathea, before we are entitled to say it is a fact that Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus?

    We don’t even have to have the name of anybody who wrote that he had met Joseph of Arimathea, before that is a fact?

    Just as a curious aside, there was a training day on Christian apologetics recently , featuring John Lennox and Gary Habermas.

    About 400 people attended.

    A good turn out, but not quite the 500+ brethren who attended the meeting Paul alludes to.

    I wonder what the advertising budget for that meeting had been , to get so many Christians to attend.

    There must have been a huge word of mouth campaign 2000 years ago to get so many Christians to turn up.

11. scott gray on 18 Feb 2009 at 8:41 am #

    cmp—

    i have no argument with you about your conclusion you’ve reached in your post, the point you’ve made. my wrestle with you is about the methodology.

    a few posts ago, you said this:
    ‘can i take some liberties here? manipulating the data to support your belief, no matter what this belief is, is not authentic christianity and does not honor god. christians should be above this.’

    and you said:
    ‘let none of us be able to be accused of using twisted, skewed, bent, shadowed, spurious, or in any other way manipulated information to defend your faith. we don’t need this. christians are advocates of truth, not our prejudices. we must follow the truth wherever it leads, even if it takes us in places we do not want to go.’

    i took this to mean that the application of methodology to a topic, regardless of the subject of the topic itself, was on the table for discussion. (guess i’m wrong.)

    that previous post was about critical scholarship methodology—moving from data, through reason, to a truth claim. in that post you lauded this method, and i took it to mean that you felt the authority that derives from well-argued critical thinking is of great value to you.

    but in confessional scholarship, there are other methods. truth claims are authoritatively supported by faith documents (scripture says so); by traditions (2000 years of practice); by doctrines (creeds, denominational orthodoxies, and the like); by historical scholars (augustine, aquinas); by revelation (personal numinous experiences, and stories like moses and the burning bush); and by other personal experiences (in faith communities). there’s nothing wrong with these claims and these methods per se, except that they don’t carry nearly as much weight in the critical scholarship understanding of truth, as reasoning from data does.

    don’t misunderstand me. i think you do great confessional scholarship. i’ve done lots and lots of thinking from the stunning graphic models you’ve created—those posts are some of your best. i think you do very interesting things here, and for confessional scholars, i suspect your ttp program is a good place to start.

    i first ‘met’ you online a year or so ago when i read one of your fabulous posts on irenic methodology, and it gave me great hope that you valued ecumenical, inside-and-outside-belief conversation and wrestling. i often use your irenic arguments when i’m in mixed company (believers and nonbelievers engaged in conversation) to set the atmosphere of engagement.

    again, i have no argument with this posts’ conclusion. i don’t have a dog in this race. but i do have a vested interest in truth, same as you, especially truth derived from reasoning from data, which i give primacy of authority (not only authority, but primacy of authority) in determining truth claims. (when i argue or write homiletical conclusions from scripture, i often use confessional methodologies.)

    keep doing what your doing. but if you truly value critical scholarship methods, you must be as rigorous, as ‘nitpicky,’ as you can be. as craig would be. as you accuse me of being.

    peace—

    scott

12. C Michael Patton on 18 Feb 2009 at 12:01 pm #

    Thanks Scott, but that does not bring clarity to anything you have said. I still don’t see a problem with this post. You just seem to misunderstand its intent. I think you are expecting it to do more than intended. My purpose and method are humble. To help people to understand what issues are substantial and worthy of apologetic discourse and what are not. The resurrection is, pancake Jesus is not. Show the contrast, then introduce the clarity.

    Either way, this tangential discourse does not seem to be worth either of our time since you seem to agree with the post.

    God bless.

13. C Michael Patton on 18 Feb 2009 at 12:05 pm #

    Steve, I am completely lost as to what relavance anything you said has to the general historic reliability. No problem though. God bless.

14. Steven Carr on 18 Feb 2009 at 12:09 pm #

    You are lost?

    I had asked :-

    How ’secure’ is Paul’s visit to Heaven, compared with the security of the resurrection?

    I didn’t think it was a question that was hard to understand.

    Paul said he went to the third Heaven. Is such direct testimony evidence of his really having gone to Heaven?

    And what sort of occasion could have brought 500+ Christians together in the short space of time between Easter and Ascension?

15. C Michael Patton on 18 Feb 2009 at 12:14 pm #

    Steve, please just keep on track with the post. If you think one of the other false apologetics is better than the resurrection, then that is on subject.

    A comparison of Paul’s visit to heaven with the resurrection itself is not on subject.

    And please be respectful. If I said I did not understand it, you don’t need to get offended. Miscommunication is a part of life.

    (Plus, I still don’t understand the questions!)

16. Steven Carr on 18 Feb 2009 at 12:17 pm #

    MICHAEL
    Therefore, from a historic standpoint, the resurrection, I believe is more secure than just about any event in antiquity.

    CARR
    If you wrote that, then is it not on subject for me to see how the resurrection compares with other events in antiquity?

    I chose Paul’s visit to the 3rd Heaven as an event in antiquity and asked ‘How ’secure’ is Paul’s visit to Heaven, compared with the security of the resurrection?’

    I don’t see how such a question is off-subject, as it directly follows on from what you wrote.

    Apologies if I misunderstood.

17. C Michael Patton on 18 Feb 2009 at 12:44 pm #

    Steve, that is way too tangential and, in my opinion, irrelevant. While I don’t want threads to get off topic, I especially must discipline this norm when I am involved. Thanks for understanding.

18. Steven Carr on 18 Feb 2009 at 12:45 pm #

    No problem.

19. ‘I believe Christianity is true because the lost day of Joshua has been found by NASA’ among ‘14 Examples of Really Bad Apologetics’ : Sic et Non on 18 Feb 2009 at 2:31 pm #

    [...] ‘I believe Christianity is true because the lost day of Joshua has been found by NASA’ among ‘14 Examples of Really Bad Apologetics’ C. Michael Patton, Parchment and Pen [...]

20. Peter on 19 Feb 2009 at 5:24 am #

    I tell you what, if God spoke to me, that would be a fantastic reason for me to believe. It might not be a reason for you, but it would be for me.

    Now in fact, the story of Paul is a story of “God spoke to me” on the Damascus road. It seems to make for good apologetic for some reason.

21. Jason C on 20 Feb 2009 at 6:43 pm #

    Since much of history has passed down to us in the form of one attestation, indeed sometimes one attestation from writings dated years after the event, or from reconstruction of events by scholars examining the remains of events millennia later, the resurrection with four individual recorders and the circumstantial evidence that surrounds it as the basis of Christian belief in the first century is ahead of much of what we can know about history.

    We do not need to “prove” that a town called Arimathaea existed, for the simple reason that if a historical text makes a reference to a town called Arimathaea then that is evidence that the town existed at the time the text was written. The onus is on the sceptical to prove that it did not.

    If Paul was fund to be a generally honest writer, and claimed to have been caught up to the third heaven, then I would accept his claim. He doesn’t seem to have based theology on it, or made more than a passing reference to the experience so I can’t know much more about it.

    When Jesus could teach upwards of 5000 people at one time, 500 doesn’t seem like very much. Comparison to a lecture on certain features of theology seem much like comparing apples and oranges. You might as well say that despite 50,000 people turning up for a football match, you couldn’t get a thousand people turn up for an interview with a leading forward.

22. Jason C on 20 Feb 2009 at 6:45 pm #

    Scott, google has a lot of definitions of data

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&pwst=1&defl=en&q=define:data&ei=ZUCfSdPUHYKOsQOZvLm_CQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

    Which one is closest to yours?

23. Steven Carr on 21 Feb 2009 at 2:36 am #

    ‘If Paul was fund to be a generally honest writer, and claimed to have been caught up to the third heaven, then I would accept his claim.’

    Christians are so gullible. No wonder they get fleeced so often by fraudsters.

    No wonder people believe in Golden Plates without ever seeing them, and no wonder people believe in a resurrection without seeing a resurrected body.

24. scott gray on 21 Feb 2009 at 6:39 am #

    steven–

    i’d love to think about this further with you, but cmp will tag it off-topic for sure.

    can we do this somewhere else?

    scott

25. Jason C on 21 Feb 2009 at 1:25 pm #

    Christians are so gullible. No wonder they get fleeced so often by fraudsters.

    No wonder people believe in Golden Plates without ever seeing them, and no wonder people believe in a resurrection without seeing a resurrected body.

    No wonder people believe that non-living chemicals spontaneously combined to form living cells, and that random copying mistakes can turn pond scum into people.

    Do you actually have an argument, or are you just engaging in your usual tactic of baseless sound bites?

    Also, as even Skeptic Magazine agrees, Christians are less gullible than atheists. How else do you explain the popularity of Zeitgeist or The God Who Wasn’t There?

    Also the golden plates are part of Mormon history, and were, if I recall correctly, eventually denied by two of the three people who were supposed to have seen them. That’s not really to be compared to the resurrection which has four recorders, over 500 witnesses, and whose testimony survived it’s first fifty years in an environment where it’s deviation from the social norm would arouse, at the very least, harsh scrutiny.

26. Are There Bad Apologetics Arguments? « Tough Questions Answered on 21 Feb 2009 at 3:48 pm #

    [...] Yes, there are, and C. Michael Patton points out a few on his latest blog post, 14 Examples of Really Bad Apologetics.  His conclusion is that the evidence for the resurrection is the most important apologetic [...]

27. Seth R. on 21 Feb 2009 at 4:37 pm #

    Bad Apologetic #15:

    I believe Christianity is true because I read a really stupid apologetic for “that other faith.” Glad I don’t have that problem!

28. Kevin N on 22 Feb 2009 at 1:47 am #

    I would word reason #3 about the lost day of Joshua much more strongly than you have. This is entirely an urban legend.

    http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.asp

    Rebuttals of this can be found on Christian sites as well.

29. Bad arguments for Christianity « The GeoChristian on 22 Feb 2009 at 1:58 am #

    [...] February 21, 2009 at 11:58 pm (Apologetics, Christianity, Young-Earth creationism) C. Michael Patton at Parchment and Pen has 14 Examples of Really Bad Apologetics. [...]

30. Jim on 24 Feb 2009 at 8:13 am #

    I love this, I learn alot from you guy’s, I would like to see some of you on Carm.org getting into Apologetic witnessing with some of the atheist there.
    I see you guy’s really discussing evidential vs presupontional apologetics, I am not sold as to wich one works best, I have noticed though lately that no matter what evidence or presupposition that you give many atheistc evolutionist to defend the faith that they call every thing you say a lie, no matter what resource you use. I am almost at the point of “shaking the dust off my feet” because it is like “casting your pearls before swine”
    The Calvinist in me is saying to just keep praying and let God open their eyes, but I know that Jude tells us to earnestly contend for the faith, even if they have no intention of listening.
    What are some of the best apologetic web sights that I could use to point people to? as well as the use of the Bible.

31. Jeffrey on 24 Feb 2009 at 4:59 pm #

    15. I believe Jesus is the Messiah because he fulfilled the prophecies about being a Nazarene, being born in Bethlehem, being born of a virgin, coming out of Egypt, and rising from the dead on the third day.

    I know Matthew and Luke wrote it, but that doesn’t make it valid reasoning.

32. Examples of Really Bad Apologetics | Caffeinated Thoughts on 26 Feb 2009 at 5:17 pm #

    [...] Michael Patton recently wrote: I agree with Os Guinness who says that we don’t have any right to the culture if we cannot [...]

33. Glenn Shrom on 23 Mar 2009 at 3:49 pm #

    On that NASA missing day thing, it is fiction widely publicized by certain preachers and tracts. For more information, see an article by Ted Davis on the subject, a professor of history of science and religion at Messiah College.

34. Glenn Shrom on 23 Mar 2009 at 3:58 pm #

    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1991/PSCF12-91Davis.html

    Some info about the legendary “long day of Joshua” being confirmed by NASA is included in the Jonah story at the above website.

35. Time on 01 Sep 2009 at 2:57 pm #

    This is a pretty poor one but all too common–I can’t believe it escaped mentioning.

    “I believe it because that’s the way I was raised” or “I was raised to believe…” or any of the variants.

    Of course, those are used in far too many situations, not just religious.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

3000 characters or less or your post will disappear!

Also, be sure to read the blog rules.