Talk:Apologetics/Archive 1

I found this article unattributed, but seeming to refute the idea that no empirical proof of the existence of God is possible. I have some background in theoretical physics and I personally found it to be quite convincing but would like to hear the opinions of others. If it is correct it is indeed "the most important and astounding scientific discovery in human history."

Modern Science finds God (Perhaps the most important and astounding scientific discovery in human history.)

There was a time when science seemed to be the enemy of religious belief &#8211; that time is no more! Modern physics and cosmology (science of the origin and development of the universe) now provide firm objective evidence of the existence of God, confirm the primary attributes of God, and show how God created the physical existence out of &#8216;nothingness&#8217;. This knowledge comes from a critical analysis of the &#8216;Big Bang&#8217; theory, Einstein&#8217;s Special Theory of Relativity, and work being done in quantum physics. The concepts behind this esoteric scientific knowledge can now be presented in such a way as to be understood by any person with a modern education.

1.	We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of cosmology that the physical universe we see today was created out of nothingness (meaning &#8211; no time, no space, and no matter). 2.	We also know that the beginning of the creation of the universe took place by light coming into existence at a singularity (a point with no dimension). 3.	We know that the matter of the physical universe was brought into being by photons (little packages of light energy) which, when colliding with each other, formed the virtually infinite number of protons, neutrons and electrons, which in various combinations make up everything in our physical world. 4.	In essence we can now accurately say that all the matter of the physical universe, ourselves included, is actually light slowed down. 5.	We know that the space which contains our physical universe is expanding. This is a concept so alien to human thought that until Albert Einstein developed his General Theory of Relativity early in the 20th century it had never occurred to any of the world&#8217;s great minds, but was stated in the Qur&#8217;an over 1400 years ago when Allah told us, &#8220;I am expanding the universe with my power&#8221;. Even Einstein was so astounded by his discovery that he falsified his data to show a universe that was not expanding, because he well understood that an expanding universe implies there was somewhere in the distant past a moment of creation for the universe. 6.	Einstein&#8217;s Special Theory of Relativity (which he actually called his Absolutism Theorem because he realized he had found the one thing in a relative universe that was absolute) is about the special qualities of light. 7.	The Special Theory of Relativity allows us our first objective glimpse into that which exists beyond the material world. 8.	We could have found anything once we got our first glimpse beyond the material world, but what we did find is indeed remarkable. We find Einstein&#8217;s Special Theory of Relativity showing us that the non-material existence beyond the physical world consists only of absolutes, and some of those absolutes are remarkably similar to what virtually everyone&#8217;s religion has considered being the primary attributes of God. 9.	Example One: As the speed of light (300,000km per second) is approached then time slows, and at the speed of light time does not pass. This means for a photon of light which travels at exactly the speed of light, time does not pass. Therefore the photon is outside of time, and ETERNAL. 10.	 Example Two: Since no time passes for a photon of light, and that photon can be observed at different places in space, therefore that photon of light is simultaneously in those different places (and many other places) at the same time, and therefore OMNIPRESENT. 11.	 Example Three: Since every bit of matter in the physical universe is created by the energy of light, and that light energy constantly sustains and directs the activity of every bit on matter in the physical existence, then there is no power other than the power of light, light energy is all the power that exists, and therefore OMNIPOTENT. 12.	 Example Four: Since all knowledge that exists, that ever existed, or will exist, is stored by light energy and transmitted through light energy then there is no knowledge beyond that intrinsic to light, and therefore OMNISCIENT. 13.	 Furthermore, light does not actually exist within the physical existence although we can somehow perceive it. As you approach the speed of light one of the three dimensions (length, height, and width), the dimension in line with the direction of motion, becomes progressively less, and at the speed of light that dimension becomes zero. To determine volume we multiply height times width times length, but if any one of those three dimensions is zero then the volume is zero, and that thing therefore does not exist in the material universe. Light occupies no volume of space and therefore has no existence in the physical universe. 14.	 And, while everything in the physical universe has some mass greater than zero, which is a necessary characteristic for existence in the material world, light has no mass at all. As you approach the speed of light mass increases, at the speed of light mass is infinite. Regardless of how tiny the amount of mass you begin with, that mass rises to infinity at the speed of light. Since photons travel at the speed of light and do not reach infinite mass it means that they had zero mass to begin with, and light therefore does not actually exist in the material world. 15.	 In the physical existence everything is relative, the absolute existence or non-existence of any quality is not and can not be expressed, everything exists between those two extremes of the continuum from absolute expression to absolute non-expression. We find, though, that beyond the material existence all qualities either exist in an infinite state or have no existence at all, there is nothing in between.

The great significance of the above findings is they destroy any possible notion of the physical universe existing as a fixed number of material particles which are moved about by a fixed set of physical laws. It is exactly this incorrect understanding of the physical existence which forms the basis of the scientific philosophy of materialism. It is the philosophy of materialism, particularly secular materialism, which has allowed the belief in God to be so powerfully challenged by unbelievers in these past few hundred years, more or less from the time of Isaac Newton.

It is no longer intellectually possible nor logically reasonable, in light of the finding of modern physics and cosmology, to hold the view of the atheists (that there is no God). The only logically reasonable, and intellectually honest, conclusion that can be drawn from the findings of modern science is that God does exist, that the attributes of God are absolute, and that God did create the physical universe (including human life). We are presently at the beginning of the transition point from a secular materialistic world-view to a spiritual, God-centered world-view.

NOTE: These are only some of the simplified conclusions of a major work in progress, but we felt they are of such great significance that we had an obligation to offer them to the ummah (the human society of Allah&#8217;s Creation). The scientific facts behind these interpretations represent a virtual consensus by a number of the world&#8217;s leading physicists, including several Nobel Prize winning theoretical physicists. The interpretations themselves are at the cutting-edge of Islamic theological thought, but have so far been very warmly received by Muslim scholars across the world.

Is this apologetics?
I'm unfamiliar with this writer, but is Zacharias' book a work of apologetics at all? If it is, this is not the aspect of it that is relevant at Apologetics: "Another modern apologist is Ravi Zacharias, scholar of world religions from India, and author of The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha which compares Christianity with world religions and other modern movements."

Does the article need to be made clearer, or just this reference? Or is the new edit just a muddle that can be reverted? --Wetman 20:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, Zacharias is a modern apologist. I will therefore reinstated the edit, and will place a link to his organizational web page for your info. He is a very popular speaker at universities (worldwide - because of his extensive knowledge of eastern religions) as an apologist for Christianity. Pollinator 00:45, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ooops - I see someone has already taken care of it... 01:00, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Tactics of Apologia
Ran across Tactics of Apologia in clicking on random articles... that article is in need of major work and could perhaps be merged into Apologetics. -- NYArtsnWords 20:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttal (moved from article)
"This is an inaccurate picture of apologetics. While it captures some of the truth behind the concept, it unnaturally assumes that the individual who engages in the apologetic will omit truth as an attempt to deceive the hearer.  This is not necessarily accurate.  We see every day that individuals in political circles use rhetoric to convey a message or agenda.

''A message can be deceptive but that does not necessarily mean that all messages are untruthful or inaccurate. Above you find the statement, “Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause”. True apologetics is primarily concerned with arriving at the TRUTH and not deceiving the listener or reader.''

''The statement above is actually an example deceptive propaganda rather than apologetics. It uses a type of logic but is lacking context and support of its claim.''

Example:

If some A’s are B’s and all B’s are C’s then all A’s are C’s.

This is a false statement but unfortunately, it is the logic used by the above writer."

(written by ) This seems like an issue with the content rather than content itself. If someone wants to rephrase this to conform with NPOV go ahead. --Daniel Olsen 00:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologetics and World War I
The reason I put links, in the apologetics article, that are strange and to do with World War I, in an edit, was because I was making a metaphor and a comparison.

First, I compare all the contradictions and exclusivity between all the religions and their beliefs and claims in the world and the fact that it is difficult to know and find out which religion is the "one true religion" to the stalemate in the trenches, battlefields, and battlefronts of World War I. Second, I compare the fact that many of the arguments made by religions for them to be the one true religion are very weak and easily refuted and that there are more counter-arguments than arguments to the very heavy casualties of World War I. Third, I also compare that and many of the unsuccessful attempts by religions to give arguments for their beliefs (e.g. Intelligent Design) to many of the early unsuccessful attempts of the warring nations to break the stalemate (e.g. Gallipoli, Battle of the Somme, Battle of Passchendaele).

Now let me talk about the comparisons to do with my edits: Fourth, I compare the arguments of the Christians for the existence of a theistic God and Christianity to be the one true religion, the Christian countercult movement, Christian missions, and their criticisms and arguments against other religions, pantheism, parapsychology, and the New Age, etc, to the Spring Offensive of World War I, by Germany. I compare the fact that the Christians are (or at least seem to be) pretty successful in their attempts to show that their religion is true and that they are false, right now, to the fact that the Spring Offensive was actually pretty successful, and it achieved great results, at first. I compare the arguments of the Christians to the tactics used by Germany in the Spring Offensive. I compare the fact that, at least now, Christians do (or at least seem to do) have more arguments and apologists for their religion and against others than other religious believers, to the fact that Germany had more troops than the Allies, at first. Fifth, I compare the apologists for other religions and pantheism (e.g. A. L. De Silva, Gunapala Dharmasiri, Red Jacket) to the commanders of the Allied armies (e.g. Ferdinand Foch). I compare organizations for the apologetics of pantheism (e.g. World Pantheist Movement, Universal Pantheist Society) to the United States during World War I. Sixth, I compare their statements to (or at least try to) refute and counter Christianity and its arguments and to defend belief in pantheism to the Second Battle of the Marne. Seventh, I compare their statements to (or at least try to) "fight back" against the Christianity and even challenge, reject, and refute it, to the Hundred Days Offensive of World War I. Eighth, if they succeed in refuting Christianity and showing their religion or pantheism to be true, then I compare that to the Allied victory in World War I.

The Anonymous One 10:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed Raelians
We do not need an entry for everyone who does not engage in apologetics, and statements like "there are many websites that shun them" that have nothing to do with apologetics. Kungfukats2 (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

POV in "Colloquial Usage"
This line "Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term generally has a pejorative meaning. " seems to be one point of view from opponents of apologetics. Simply saying they "have been characterized" does not seem to undo the weight it lends to the anti-apologetic feel of the segment. If this idea is going to be included it should be followed by a common response of apolotics to this accusation, or it should not be included.


 * The above statement is mine. I thought I would come back here to see if anyone had made a change to the section or commented on what I had to say. I also looked again at the section in the article and reread it. The entire paragraph that makes up the section "Colloquial Usage" would make one think that most people speak of apologetics in a negative manner. I also looked a bit more at the rest of the talk page and found that someone had, at one time, posted a rebuttal to the claims in "Colloquial Usage" making that section 2 or 3 paragraphs and obviously a bit larger. Instead of rewording or cutting down the extra that didn't need to be there, user Daniel Olson simply removed all but the current paragraph leaving it very anti-apologetic POV.  In addition to the entire section having the anti-apologetic feel, it doesn't seem to me to be labeled right.  It seems a bit more like it should be labeled "Criticisms" instead of "Colloquial Usage" since the latter gives one the idea that the word apologetics is most often used in a negative manner. I have never made edits to actual articles, but this one seems simple enough that I may if no one else does soon. Or perhaps getting rid of the whole section as it does not contain any references, though I think having a "Criticisms" section is a good idea. 98.215.128.112 (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The quoted segment should be on the wiki page. Regardless of the 'position' that usage represents, being a more colloquial and less historically established usage, it is used in that manner commonly and leaving it out of Wikipedia would leave the information grossly incomplete. It is in fact the very reason i visited this page as dictionary definitions were proving inadequate.

I dont understand the need for a paragraph commenting on how people /should/ use the phrase be it pro or con as that would be unnecessary and POV, but the quoted segment, or some permutation thereof, is necessary to include because its how a notable portion of people /do/ use the term today. This wouldnt be POV as there is no suggestion to the reader as which interpretation they should use, and including the quoted information itself is no more POV than including the etymology of the word. Why there would need to be some extra paragraph condemning that usage of "apologists" is what i dont understand especially when there is no such recommendation of the term either.

"opponents of apologetics" and "anti-apologetic" criticism is irrelevant to the colloquial usage as they have specific correlation with apologetics defined as: "discipline of defending a position (usually religious) through the systematic use of reason." and not the colloquial usage. The usage is not what is in contention as when an apologist is called such, in a colloquial manner, it wouldnt be the usage of the word they would dispute but the accusations it implies. So presenting anti-apologist to mean anti-the-colloquial-usage-of-apologetic is a misrepresentation of the term here. The colloquial usage is not some sort of endorsement but just an alternate, pervasive, and modern definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.171.206 (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources for any of these claims? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Mormonism
Why is 'Mormon' a sub-section of Hinduism? To begin with, the correct section title should read "Mormonism" not "Mormon, and it should be a sub-section of Christianity (since Mormonism is "Christian Primiitvism" according to the opening passage of the "Mormonism" article). Or at the very least it's own section, if not a sub-section of Christianity. I would edit it myself, but couldn't figure out how to edit the table of contents. To have it listed under Hinduism is misleading, blatantly inaccurate, and I would expect is a result of outright vandalism, honestly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.44.142 (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously a mistake, now corrected. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You're arguing between Tolkien and Rowling. It's all bullsh!t and made up, my friend. You can have any figure decide they are part one sect or another. That's how religions work.

-G

Propose to remove text from lead that conflates apologetics and apologist
The term apologetics does not refer to political apologists. The following should be removed from the lead as misleading, the word apologetics is not used in politics as is described, but as the word apologist alone, just as is seen in the sources cited.

''In political usage, apologetics is used in a negative fashion to describe the defence of controversial actions or policies, like terrorism or politically repressive governments.[2][3] '' Comments?

KSci (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed lead change defining the scope of "apologetics" more narrowly in terms of religious concepts.
This change would address a problem where the topic's subject matter is taking two divergent paths "the disciplines of religious apologetics" vs. "defending a non-religious position as an apologist". Note that christian apologetics is a separate topic.

This change would narrow the scope of the definition of "apologetics" to include only religious apologetics to match the religious project category.

"Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, 'speaking in defense') is the theological or religious discipline of defending beliefs and doctrines through the systematic use of information."

KSci (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Propose to modify sentence in the article lead to clarify scope of usage.

 * proposed change modifies this sentence

"In modern usage the term 'apologetics' is largely identified with debates over religion and theology in the USA and is rarely heard in the UK (although the related word 'apologist' is used in British English)." to say this instead. "In modern usage in the USA, the term 'apologetics' is identified with debates over religion and theology. The term is rarely heard in the UK."

KSci (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization of topic
I made some changes already, but I think even greater changes to this entry are needed. Most notably, I think the paragraphs on Tertullian and John Henry Newman need to be moved beneath the Religion header and their appropriate faiths. The purpose of the Religion section seems to be to name notable apologists and their texts as categorized by their religion. Tertullian and John Henry Newman are clearly apologists for specific religions. The Native American Red Jacket's paragraph should also be moved under the religion header, because he is cited for defending his religion.

Then, the section that is presently labeled "Notable apologists" should be relabeled. The preceding headers, "Religion" and "Literature" are definitive types of apologists whereas the remaining apologists are unique and notable for defending something other than religion and literature. Perhaps the new header should be "Other types of apologists" or "Notable apologists of other causes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.198.128 (talk • contribs) 28 November 2014‎

Most of the above reorganization suggestions were implemented.

KSci (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Summary of recent edits and invitation for additional improvements
I've made a number of edits to clean up this article, which was disorganized, repetitive, and often off-topic. I implemented some of the suggestions in earlier talk. This article would benefit greatly from expert review and additions to most all of the non-Christian entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSci (talk • contribs) 03:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism
Under the section, Roman Catholicism, it is written like an advertisement, and should be remedied or removed. It names no old apologists, only newer ones, and names a CD, and where to buy it.--Craxd (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC) I removed the reference to the CD and where to buy it, as suggested.

KSci (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Evolved meaning
The meaning of the word "apologist" has evolved to often mean "unconditionally defending a [predetermined] position with no regard for reasoning or logical consistency, evidence or empirics." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.144.159 (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The article placement in Wikipedia indicated the intention that this should be an article about religious apologetics. I "un-evolved" it to remove the extraneous and non-religious material described, as you suggested.

KSci (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Social movements and apologetics
A form of apologetics that is not considered is that associated with social construction, especially around gender. There is a considerable volume of Feminist apologia and a somewhat smaller volume of masculinist stuff. While this is conventionally regarded as "advocacy" much of it is quite obviously an apologetic and thus deserves to have a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.84.253 (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe this subject matter would be within the scope of the articles purpose, which seems to have been to include only the topic of religious apologetics.

KSci (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Consistency of the presumed topic of the article
The title of this article is "Apologetics" but most of its sections&#8212;most egregiously, the lead section&#8212;are written as though the topic were "Apologist". Can we talk about either changing the title to "Apologist" or rewriting the text so that it is predominately about apologetics rather than apologists? —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel like this article isn't biased enough. You can't defend a faith using reason because it is precisely that. A faith. Faith is believing in something even though there is no evidence for it and you have no reason to believe it. In short, religious apologetics need to be ridiculed for their wasted effort trying to convince rational thinking people that their batshit insane religion is legitimate.

DISCUSS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.127.202 (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I agreed with this assessment and modified the lead to narrow the focus to religion and clarify what appears to be the original intended topic of religious apologetics.

KSci (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Plato
The Plato section doesn't mention how he's an apologist. --Arperry 21:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is true, and I agreed, but modified to remove a duplicate references to Plato and what appeared to be excessive detail digressing on the Plato topic.

KSci (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Apologetics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110821133320/http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/1998/issue57/57h012.html to http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/1998/issue57/57h012.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120718093548/http://www.catholiceducation.org:80/articles/apologetics/ap0088.html to http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0088.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Page Deletion
@Mark viking - Thank you for giving your attention to the apologetics page. I see that you are a veteran editor, so I could use some advice on how this page might be revived/improved. I've worked on this a few evenings, but didn't see how it should be cultivated for more appeal. If you are willing to discuss the options for doing this, I'd be greatly appreciative.

KSci KSci (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Deletion was not a consensus opinion. Proposal withdrawn   K Sci  &#160; (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi KSci, Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. I think you have done good work on improving the article. I removed the proposed deletion because the problems you described--how to create a neutral article, what is due weight for the different aspects of apologetics, some editing conflicts--are all matters of editing, not deletion. Deletion is for when a subject is not notable or has no reliable sourcing, or that the article is so bad, that it is harmful or unreadable. None of those seemed to be the case here, so deletion seemed controversial to me. Of course, I have no authority and if you think the article is truly hopeless, you could bring it up for discussion at Articles for Deletion.
 * As for improving the article...as a lay reader with no particular expertise, it strikes me as a broad concept sort of article, where the idea of apologetics is present in many religions, but may be treated differently in each. Broad concept articles are fine; a typical structure is a set of sections, each section being a summary of a main article, or if there is no main article, with citations of its own. The article is already partly of this structure. What this article may usefully discuss beyond a list of summaries, is some sense of comparative apologetics--what is similar and what is different among different religions? For this, the article would need sources that compared apologetics in different religions, in order to avoid synthesis on our part. Are there any sources out there that discuss comparative apologetics? --Mark viking (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I too am even slower in giving you a response. There's no hurry here, so that's not a problem.
 * I listed the page for deletion to see if there was any interest at all in keeping it. You qualify!
 * Ironically I listed the article for deletion after I spent quite a bit of time cleaning up a vandalism mess by some people with more than a little anti-religious POV. The vandalism was, it seemed, unopposed by any actual religious apologetics editors. The template at the top of the page says this article is of high importance, but it appeared to me that the article was abandoned.
 * I was not sure I wanted to "sign up", if you will, to keep an eye on this article so it wouldn't get trashed again. I have since decided that I will keep an eye on this article and perhaps add to it here and there. I know Christian and atheist apologetics pretty well, and I know a decent amount of Islamic apologetics (there is overlap). I also know some deist apologetics, but deism is more a category than a specific religion.
 * I'm taking your advice with the hope that as the article improves editors with the requisite knowledge will come forward.


 * Thanks for responding, Mark, and for taking the time to offer suggestions.


 *   K Sci  &#160; (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)