Critiquing: What Apologetics Strategies Can We Use with Agnostics?

May 30, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Agnosticism Strategies — Evidence for God — Plausibility Structures — Cosmological Argument — Scientific Limitations

---

Introduction

The content in the PDF, titled “What Apologetics Strategies Can We Use with Agnostics?”, addresses strategies for engaging with agnostics who either claim that it is pointless to worry about the existence of God or reject miracle claims due to a lack of evidence. This critique will evaluate the logical coherence of the arguments presented, highlight any logical fallacies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims.

Logical Coherence and Inconsistencies

The central argument in the content is that various apologetic strategies can effectively engage agnostics, particularly through questioning their assumptions and presenting arguments for God’s existence. Several points need scrutiny for logical coherence:

Inconsistent Definitions of Agnosticism:

The content distinguishes between two types of agnostics: those who claim they don’t know if God exists and those who assert that no one can know:

“The two types of agnostics are… I don’t know… I don’t know, and nobody can know.”

This distinction is useful but inconsistently applied throughout the discussion. The content often conflates the two positions, leading to potential misunderstandings about the nature of agnostic beliefs.

Simplistic View of Scientific Epistemology:

The content critiques the reliance on scientific evidence to dismiss the possibility of knowing God’s existence:

“Scientism is the view that you can’t know anything unless science affirms it… this is obviously false.”

While it is true that scientism can be overly restrictive, dismissing it as “obviously false” without addressing its nuanced application weakens the argument. Many aspects of our understanding of the world are indeed based on scientific inquiry, and acknowledging its strengths while discussing its limitations would provide a more balanced perspective.

Assumption of a Metaphysical Principle:

The content presents the cosmological argument as a strong evidence for God’s existence:

“If the universe came into existence, something caused it… it would have to be something outside of the natural universe.”

This argument assumes a metaphysical principle that everything must have a cause, which is not universally accepted. The content should address potential objections to this principle to strengthen its argument.

Cognitive Biases and Fallacies

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

Confirmation Bias:

The content selectively interprets evidence to support the claim that God’s existence can be known. For instance, it highlights the cosmological argument while ignoring other interpretations of the same evidence.

Straw Man Fallacy:

The content oversimplifies the agnostic position by presenting it as solely reliant on scientific evidence:

“Agnosticism driven by scientism claims you can’t scientifically prove God, therefore you can’t know if there is a God.”

This oversimplification misrepresents the broader range of agnostic perspectives, which may include philosophical, empirical, and experiential considerations.

Appeal to Authority:

The content relies on authoritative figures without providing detailed reasoning or evidence:

“Bill Craig… it’s a metaphysical principle that science uses.”

Citing authorities without presenting their arguments in detail does not adequately support the claims being made.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Several claims in the content are both unsubstantiated and dubious:

“Scientism is self-refuting.”

“The odds-on favorite is God’s existence, not God’s non-existence.”

“There’s a lot of evidence that can be brought into play.”

These claims are presented without detailed reasoning or evidence, relying instead on rhetorical assertions.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

The content should provide evidence and reasoning to substantiate its claims. In logical argumentation, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Therefore, the content should offer more than assertions; it should present evidence from historical, scientific, and philosophical analysis to support its conclusions.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

It is crucial to align one’s degree of belief with the degree of available evidence. This principle, often referred to as epistemic proportionality, ensures that beliefs are held with an appropriate level of certainty based on the strength of the evidence:

Evidence-Based Belief:

Evaluating the strength and reliability of the evidence before forming a belief. Strong, consistent evidence should lead to a higher degree of belief, while weak or contradictory evidence should result in lower confidence.

Critical Examination:

Continuously re-evaluating beliefs in light of new evidence or arguments. This process involves remaining open to revising beliefs when presented with compelling evidence that challenges existing views.

Avoiding Overconfidence:

Recognizing the limitations of one’s knowledge and avoiding overconfidence in beliefs that are not strongly supported by evidence. This humility in belief formation is essential for logical coherence and intellectual honesty.

---

In conclusion, while the content aims to provide a coherent argument for engaging with agnostics through various apologetic strategies, it exhibits several logical inconsistencies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims. A more balanced approach would involve engaging with opposing interpretations, providing evidence to support claims, and aligning beliefs with the available evidence. For further discussion and a deeper dive into these arguments, feel free to continue the conversation in the comments section.