Could someone summarize what the "Apologetics" are

[SaveElmer]

Presumably it is a way for Christians to defend theirbeliefs intellectually. I am skeptical of course and am having a discussion with someone on the literalness of the bible.

All the websites I can find seemed to be biased so am not getting a clear understanding of what they are. I would also like a counterpoint to them if anyone knows where one can be found.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. It's not bias you're seeing

Apologetics is devoted - in the theological sense - to defending and justifying the doctrines of Christianity.

You're not going to find "the other side of the argument," because, in apologetics, there really is none.

It's sort of like apologetics is Christianity's Karl Rove.

[SaveElmer]

3. Well is there a discussion of their use

From a non-religious source...or at least a dispassionate explanation of the system somewhere.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

7. Sure, if you remove the theological aspect,

then apologetics is nothing more than the systematic defense of any philosophy or value system.

There are lots of books on apologetics that will give you the information you need (don't use the Web for serious research - it won't get you anywhere).

The book that I most enjoyed was "Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis," by Bahnsen. It's dry and sometimes hard reading, but it's one of the few treatises available that is somewhat distanced from the pure association of apologetics with Christianity.

Understand, though, that the discipline - apologetics - exists primarily to promote the reality of Christianity, so something dispassionate - I presume you mean something that counters it - will be hard to find. Just imagine an atheist arguing that God doesn't exist, and an apologeticist explaining why the atheist is wrong.

[SaveElmer]

8. Thanks...I'll check out that book...

So in terms of Christianity, with a book as subject to interpretation as the bible is (even though evangelicals won't admit there is more than one interpretation), it is nearly impossible to argue against any defense on a rational, provable basis.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

9. Oh, hell, just consider this:

People who will never agree that there might be other life out there in the universe willingly give over their belief that a large man up in the sky is watching their every movement and determining their life after death.

There's nothing rational about the matter of religion, so, yeah, all of it is irrational. But, as an intellectual exercise, it's a blast.

My Jesuit teachers - bless them all - viewed apologetics with a big grin on their collective priest face, and had a great aphorism for such a situation:

"To those with faith, no explanation is necessary.
To those without faith, no explanation is possible."

My Catholic upbringing and Jesuit education successfully made a very good atheist of me.

Have fun.

[Az]

11. Jesuit education runs a fine line

Its suprising as many come out still believers as manage to. The Jesuits I have met have proven to be some of the most reasonable debaters in the theist community.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

12. They made a pretty fair lawyer out of me

And I wouldn't trade anything for what they did to my mind. They changed my life, they changed me, and I'll love them forever for that.

Amazing minds, amazing men, and Daniel Berrigan is still a hero, a friend, and a client of mine. I'm so happy for that.

[Az]

2. It is the active defense and representation of the belief

Typically associated with literal interpretation. There are very well developed arguments used to counter existing objections. Whether these arguments have any merrit or not is debatable.

A good source for information to give an apologist a good work out is www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

[SaveElmer]

5. So if one does not believe in the literal interpretation

Then it would be impossible to debate since the validity of the evidence is in question. I take it the source of the defense is strictly contained in the bible.

[Az]

6. The point is to defend the bible

Tactics however often run far afield from the bible.

[erichzann]

16. That is at least misleading

The point is to defend a position by appealing to commonalities with opposition. It is the "look how much we have in common" approach. I does not necessary have anything to do with "defending" the bible, especially if you mean a literal interpretation of the bible.

The bulk of Christian apologetics have to do with defending the idea that faith is compatible with reason rather than faith and reason being mutually exclusive. Subjects such as faith and science, faith and culture, faith an intellect, are all apologetic in nature. Talking about interpreting scripture in non-literal ways which are more easily reconcilable with science, reason and culture is also apologetic in nature.

Someone who stands up and shouts the Nicene creed and says "I'm right and you're wrong!" is not making an apologetic.

[erichzann]

14. That's completely wrong.

Christian aplogetics have to do with arguments for faith that take a correlational approach -- attempting to argue in defense of faith by pointing out commonalities between two different positions instead of differences. This specifically has to do (in most cases) with apologetic argments for faith as friend of reason and intellect, and for faith as compatable with secular aspects of society rather than radically set apart from them. It is most decidedly not associated with literal interpretation in many forms. That is to say, it is not a necessary component of apologetics that you be defending biblical literalism. In fact, in many if not most forms, some kind of alternative to biblical literalism is usually advocated as a "correlational" link between secular and religious, reason and faith.



From Wikipedia:
"Christian apologetics is the effort to show that the Christian faith is not irrational, that believing in it is not against human reason, and that in fact Christianity would contain values and promote ways of life more in accord with human nature than other faiths or beliefs."

[evlbstrd]

4. If what you mean is apologia, in the Catholic tradition,

it has traditionally been a written "confession" or explanation of one's beliefs and actions.

But if you really mean apologetics, it's a creationist education thing.
http://www.apologeticscourses.com/

edit: spelling, dammit
edit again: usage, dammit

[DUgosh]

10. Apololgetics in a rightwingnut shell

Rationalizations that fundamentalist use for contradictions in the Bible, which they believe is without contradiction.

[NMMNG]

13. Apologetics...

Essentially a bunch of fluff and smoke that Christians use to talk their way out of any conversation in which someone else tries to use logic, science and facts to refute their Bible tales.

[onager]

18. Buffy, that's...

the best definition I've seen of it.

Except maybe for Howard Beale's rant in Network. That summed it up pretty good too: "When all the other bullshit fails, they drag out the God bullshit.'

[erichzann]

15. How about a fair definition?

From Wikipedia:
"Christian apologetics is the effort to show that the Christian faith is not irrational, that believing in it is not against human reason, and that in fact Christianity would contain values and promote ways of life more in accord with human nature than other faiths or beliefs."

There's no need to speak in disparaging or inflammatory ways just to answer the original poster's simple question.

[Igel]

17. Apologetics started off early on.

Paul was an apologist. He gave speeches that were apologies. Not in the "please forgive me" sense, but "here are my reasons" sense. That is the core of an apology (apologia), and the semantic shift from apology = justification to apology = forgiveness-seeking is easy to understand.

Apologetics were very, very important in the first few centuries of Xianity: you go to a new area, and evangelize. Fine, "Christ is the Son of God, good news of the Kingdom of Heaven", yada-yada. First heckler: "So, why should I believe what *you* say." Wham: apologetics. Evangelization doesn't necessarily aim at conversions; proselytizing does, and requires apologetics when the audience isn't a pushover. New preachers had to be trained in the art and practice of delivering apologia. Hence, the discipline of apologetics.

Early apologies dealt with the reliability of the testimony. They pointed at the commonsensicalness of many Xian views, and how they play out in reality. They pointed out commonalities with other philosophies, or tried to make the claim that what the pagan religion in the area was after, really, is satisfied by Xianity. They pointed at martyrs, saying if these people believed it, it bears looking at--and, moreover, what are the odds they were bald-facedly lying, since it means they died for what they knew was a lie. Real apologia were in scant evidence for a long time, mostly reduced to a technique used in sermons, gutted of its value. Apologetics was resurrected as a serious discipline in the 19th century in response to a secular, non-traditional approach to the Bible. It continues, in a less scholarly way, today.

Come to think of it, whoever the apostle was early in acts on the first day of pentecost was also an apologist: these people aren't drunk, but ... (so on and so forth).