The 2012 State of the Blog: Preview Time

So let's start up my Nook and see what sort of books Geds has on his mind these days.




Ah, this is quite the lovely mix.  There's Killing the Buddha: a Heretic's Bible, Bram Stoker's Dracula, The Great Gatsby, a random book about Byzantium, Craig Ferguson's Between the Bridge and the River, Dave Eggers' Zeitoun and...

Oh my god, what's this?  Four Lee Strobel books on apologetics?  What the...?  What are you and what have you done with Geds' Nook?  Quick, someone go find Geds and tell him someone else has been stealing his Nook and buying Christian apologetics books, possibly in an attempt to ambush him in to the faith or something.  This is bad.  This is really bad...

Actually, it's not.  And I'm sure you already knew that my first two paragraphs are a transparent and pointless jibber-jabber that were intended to operate as an awful introduction BECAUSE YOU'RE SMART, THAT'S WHY.

Anyway, in my first 2012 State of the Blog post yesterday I mentioned that I'd be spending more time talking about apologetics and starting up a new series I call On Disagreement.  My first On Disagreement post will be hitting tomorrow morning, so be looking forward to that (or, y'know, don't).  It occurred to me that discussions of apologetics and disagreement might just dovetail nicely.  So I decided that this year I'm going to spend some time looking at Christian apologetics.

This, admittedly, is something that's been done to death.  For the most part, at least where I've seen, it's always been as part of an argument against the apologetics themselves.  My goal is to try to look at the apologetics in terms of what they tell us about how the apologist sees the world.  One of the things that tends to get missed in a lot of these discussions, at least that I've noticed, is the realization that Christian apologists actually believe what they say.

I chose Lee Strobel to start this project on the basis that he was the first person I thought of after C.S. Lewis.  Back when I worked at a Christian book store Strobel was a big hit with his Case for Christ book and his schtick of being a skeptical journalist using all of his mad newspaper reporter skillz to find the actual truth of the whole Jesus story.  Since I stopped working at the Christian books store about ten years ago he's apparently gone on to repackage his Case for... book some nine times.  He's turned it in to a kids book or three.  He's split out shorter versions like, The Case for a Resurrection, The Case for Christmas, and The Case for Easter.  The nice thing about those shortened versions is you can now get the Nook version for, like, 2 bucks.

I downloaded a bunch of samples last night and will probably eventually look at The Case for a Resurrection in full.  But here's a gem from the sample, y'know, to whet your appetite:

It didn't take long for me to conclude that the truth or falsity of all world religions -- and the ultimate meaning of life itself -- comes down to just one key issue: did Jesus, or did he not, return from the dead?  The answer to that fundamental question would settle everything.

It's gonna be a bloodbath.  Stay tuned.

Comments

[Firedrake]

It seems to me (from a position mostly of ignorance) that the nature of Christian apologetics is to miss the point.

Let us for purposes of this discussion define Christian apologetics as reasoned arguments in favour of a belief in (a specific) Christian doctrine.

But belief is not susceptible to reason: nobody will ever say "that's a really good argument, I'm going to believe in God now". (Well, all right, they may say it - but only if they're in a position like Lewis's, of having already made the emotional commitment but wanting a rationalisation to back it up.)

There's also the problem that to refer to an argument that has been heard before is to say that every non-Christian who has heard it is unable (too stupid) or unwilling ("wilful") to comprehend its logic, because if they did they'd become Christians on the spot.

I have my marshmallows ready.

[Vorjack]

Someone once said that Christian apologetics are a lot like the "open letter to the president" editorials that columnists frequently run. Despite their form and stated goal, apologetics aren't really aimed at unbelievers and the open letters are really intended for the president.

An open letter is just another excuse for the columnist to blovate on whatever topic they like. Apologetics are a way for believers to tell each other that they're right and reaffirm their shared probability structure.

[Geds]

Firedrake: There's a reason I'm trying to flog the "perspective matters" angle. One of the things that gets overlooked regularly in looking at apologetics of any sort is the bit where both sides come from a different place and are in a different headspace. It all just becomes, to use a term I coined on the train this morning, an argumentum ad fan wank. Slacktivist actually breached the subject a couple months ago, but I think it's an idea that needs to be expanded upon.

Lee Strobel isn't trying to convince me to accept Christianity. He's trying to convince me to become a fan of Christianity.

Vorjack: Yep.

There's another angle, too: apologetics are lucrative. Seriously, the amount of money guys like Strobel make selling twenty different versions of the same tired argument that's been made for a millennia or two plus the study guides plus the audio aids plus the who knows what else should be criminal. I'm going to work on playing that angle up, too.

[Firedrake]

Certainly if you're going to include an analysis of both the intended audience and the buttons of theirs that are pushed by a particular piece of writing I'll regard this as time well spent... :-)