What apologists typically do vs. what they always should do

In the past, I have shared my broad concerns about Hugh Ross’ apologetic ministry “Reasons to Believe.” When I heard him speak some years ago at Beulah Alliance Church in Edmonton, he promised the audience that if any scientific evidence arises which supports Christian belief, it would be on their website within a day.

Needless to say, there is no recognition in that statement of the complexity that often exists when it comes to interpreting the theological implications (if any) of a particular scientific datum. Thus, on that count alone, the promise is absurd.

But the deeper problem is that Ross’s promise exemplifies the one-sided case building process that plagues contemporary apologetics. (And, it must be said, this is certainly not limited to Christian apologetics: atheists, Muslims, and others who devote significant effort to the defense of their own beliefs regularly engage in the same practice.)

So what should Ross have done? Setting aside the absurdity of the one-day promise, he should have vowed that any scientific data relevant to Christianity — whether “good news” or otherwise — would be made available on their website where they would offer an objective and honest analysis of it.

In short, in my opinion, the only kind of apologetics worth doing is that which is committed to engaging all the evidence and showing how one’s beliefs can reasonably be retained in light of all the evidence. Apologetics that ignores disconfirming evidence in order to further a one-sided case building exercise is good for nothing but building the walls of intellectual ghettos.

 

The post What apologists typically do vs. what they always should do appeared first on Randal Rauser.