Critiquing: What Should I Do When People I’m Teaching Don’t find Apologetics Interesting or Relevant?

August 31, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Relevance of Apologetics — Faith and Experience — Teaching Strategies — Religious Experience Validity — Handling Challenges

---

Introduction

The content from the podcast addresses issues and strategies related to teaching apologetics, focusing on making the topic more engaging and the relationship between faith, personal experiences, and objective evidence. However, several logical inconsistencies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims undermine the argument’s coherence.

Relevance of Apologetics

The initial response to a question about disinterest in apologetics contains an overgeneralization:

“If a person doesn’t care about reasons or evidence, that isn’t because they don’t care about that. It’s because they don’t care about what you’re talking about.”

This statement assumes a universal interest in rational discourse and fails to recognize individual differences. Not everyone prioritizes rationality equally, and the content does not consider that some people may genuinely prioritize emotional or experiential aspects over logical reasoning. The failure to address this variability weakens the argument’s foundational premise.

Faith and Experience

The content discusses the fear of transitioning from a faith based on personal experience to one grounded in objective evidence. One listener’s dilemma is expressed as:

“My faith has rested on this experience rather than objective claims of Christianity… I want to rest my faith on objective reality, but it’s scary to throw out my ‘blind faith’ for fear of falling away.”

The response reassures without addressing the complexity:

“You don’t have to have any fear at all about that. If it’s true, then objective reality will indicate that it’s true.”

This is an example of a false dichotomy, presenting the issue as a binary choice between faith based on experience and faith based on objective evidence. It overlooks the nuanced spectrum where personal experience and objective evidence can coexist and support each other. The assertion that objective reality will always confirm religious beliefs is unsubstantiated, as it does not consider potential conflicting evidence which might lead to disillusionment rather than affirmation.

Teaching Strategies

Practical strategies for making apologetics engaging include role-playing exercises:

“When you are teaching people apologetics, the way to get them interested is to bring in someone who’s not a Christian to talk to them… you could pretend to be an atheist and challenge them.”

While interactive methods can stimulate interest, this approach risks creating an adversarial atmosphere that might not be conducive to open-minded exploration. The suggestion is also based on the assumption that confrontation will lead to deeper interest, which may not hold true for all individuals. This strategy could be seen as coercive, potentially leading to resistance rather than engagement.

Religious Experience Validity

The content asserts the legitimacy of religious experiences, using the example of Paul’s conversion:

“Paul became a believer based on a religious experience… He had a dramatic experience on the road to Damascus.”

However, the content also acknowledges the subjective nature of such experiences:

“Mormons have a religious experience… it convinces them of a falsehood.”

This comparison highlights a logical inconsistency. While the content validates Christian experiences, it dismisses similar experiences in other religions. This is an example of confirmation bias, selectively validating experiences that align with the speaker’s beliefs while disregarding those that do not. The argument lacks a clear method for objectively discerning the validity of different religious experiences, leading to an internally inconsistent stance.

Handling Challenges

The advice given to address challenges to faith relies heavily on the assumption that objective reality will always align with religious beliefs:

“If it’s true, then objective reality will indicate that it’s true. If it’s false, then you don’t want to believe it anyway.”

This is an unsubstantiated claim. The content fails to provide empirical evidence or a logical framework to support this assertion. Moreover, it dismisses the complexity of cognitive dissonance, where individuals might struggle to reconcile conflicting evidence with their beliefs. A more nuanced approach would involve acknowledging these struggles and providing strategies to balance faith and reason.

Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases

Several logical fallacies and cognitive biases are present in the content:

1. Overgeneralization: Assuming everyone cares about reasons and evidence equally, ignoring individual differences.
2. False Dichotomy: Presenting the issue as a choice between blind faith and objective reality, without considering a spectrum of belief.
3. Confirmation Bias: Validating religious experiences that align with the speaker’s beliefs while dismissing those that do not.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Several claims made in the content are both unsubstantiated and dubious:

• Objective reality will confirm religious beliefs: This lacks empirical support and does not account for conflicting evidence.
• Religious experiences are inherently valid: While personally compelling, these experiences require external validation to be considered universally credible.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

All claims, particularly those related to religious belief, must be substantiated with evidence. The content would benefit from providing empirical support for its assertions or acknowledging the limitations of available evidence.

Testing Alleged Promises

To evaluate the promises of God as presented in the content, one could propose methods such as:

• Empirical Studies: Conducting studies on the efficacy of prayer or the impact of religious belief on life outcomes.
• Historical Analysis: Examining historical records for evidence of miraculous events or fulfilled prophecies.

These methods would allow for a more evidence-based approach, ensuring that beliefs are proportionate to the evidence available.

Conclusion

The content passionately defends apologetics and the validity of religious experiences but often lacks logical coherence and empirical support. By acknowledging cognitive biases, addressing logical fallacies, and emphasizing the need for substantiation, the discussion could be significantly strengthened. Engaging in rational discourse with a commitment to evidence-based beliefs would foster a more robust understanding and appreciation of faith.

---

Bonus Content: Simulated Debates vs. Actual Debates with Atheists

While simulated debates with atheists can serve as useful practice for honing one’s apologetic skills, they fall significantly short of the benefits provided by actual debates with atheists. In simulated debates, the questions and responses are often predictable and may not reflect the genuine complexity and nuance of a real conversation. This can create a false sense of preparedness and confidence that may not hold up in a real-world scenario where unexpected challenges and sophisticated arguments are presented.

Actual debates with atheists provide a dynamic and interactive environment where participants must think on their feet, address spontaneous counterarguments, and engage with the genuine doubts and inquiries of their opponents. This real-time engagement fosters a deeper understanding of the opposing viewpoint, enhances critical thinking, and helps to develop more robust and persuasive arguments. Furthermore, actual debates can reveal cognitive biases and gaps in one’s own reasoning that simulated debates might overlook, leading to a more authentic and comprehensive development of one’s apologetic approach.

---

We invite you to discuss these arguments further in the comments section.