Particularly the implication that Christians cannot think for themselves.

I never said that, nor was it implied. What I said is "if Christian apologetics is to survive, it must engage in more than just the authority of tradition."

Consider (honestly, without attack, but with inspection): How can the "defense of the faith" be sustained in an age where knowledge and information are now readily available?

For many centuries, the masses were for the most part illiterate, and depended on the clergy to educate them about the world.

The clergy were the authority, and no tolerance was given to those who disagreed with the clergy.

The world, however, is becoming more and ...

Particularly the implication that Christians cannot think for themselves.

I never said that, nor was it implied. What I said is "if Christian apologetics is to survive, it must engage in more than just the authority of tradition."

Consider (honestly, without attack, but with inspection): How can the "defense of the faith" be sustained in an age where knowledge and information are now readily available?

For many centuries, the masses were for the most part illiterate, and depended on the clergy to educate them about the world.

The clergy were the authority, and no tolerance was given to those who disagreed with the clergy.

The world, however, is becoming more and more literate and the advancements of science and education are becoming a necessary resource for sustaining world wealth. Look at India, China, previously backward societies now advancing in high tech growth.

The world is no longer depending on religion for education. How, then, can "defense of the faith" compete with a rapidly evolving world where the authority of the clergy is diminishing?

Through education, people are now better able to test the validity of propositions; they demand evidence and solid reasons.

And since "faith" provides no method for determining if a proposition is true or false, it cannot be epistemologically valid.

Apologetics MUST find an answer to this, if it is to survive.

It was to this end that my statement was made.

And since "faith" provides no method for determining if a proposition is true or false, it cannot be epistemologically valid.

Well, I do not know about faith, but Christianity supports the notion of testing everything and holding to that which is good.
1 Thessolonians 5:21.
Also, it is clear to know God with all your Mind, which is a call to the use of logic, science, and clear thinking.

AL, Your coment suggests you are not familiar with the work of apologists, cultural, historical, doctrinal, theological or otherwise.

It also seems to me that your faith in science is misapplied faith. Science will never provide proof of the nonexistence of God. I cannot. In...

And since "faith" provides no method for determining if a proposition is true or false, it cannot be epistemologically valid.

Well, I do not know about faith, but Christianity supports the notion of testing everything and holding to that which is good.
1 Thessolonians 5:21.
Also, it is clear to know God with all your Mind, which is a call to the use of logic, science, and clear thinking.

AL, Your coment suggests you are not familiar with the work of apologists, cultural, historical, doctrinal, theological or otherwise.

It also seems to me that your faith in science is misapplied faith. Science will never provide proof of the nonexistence of God. I cannot. In fact, science leads to more questions. With everything thing we learn our ignorance is exponentially revealed.

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
1 Thess 5:21 (KJV)

That's an excellent quote. And I concur with it whole heartedly.

It is perfectly congruent with what I've been advocating. The problem arises when modern scientific advances utilize knowledge that does not support a scriptural world view.

For example, when people get sick and go to the doctor, the doctor looks for a natural cause and applies an antibiotic or whatever cures the malady.

The scriptural "casting out demons" hardly foots today's need for medical results. This fact causes one to question whether it ever did. Can you see this?

In order for apologetics to compete with the scientific method, it has to steak...

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
1 Thess 5:21 (KJV)

That's an excellent quote. And I concur with it whole heartedly.

It is perfectly congruent with what I've been advocating. The problem arises when modern scientific advances utilize knowledge that does not support a scriptural world view.

For example, when people get sick and go to the doctor, the doctor looks for a natural cause and applies an antibiotic or whatever cures the malady.

The scriptural "casting out demons" hardly foots today's need for medical results. This fact causes one to question whether it ever did. Can you see this?

In order for apologetics to compete with the scientific method, it has to steak out territory that doesn't require proof. This is precisely why FAITH is the pillar that upholds standard religion.

"Science will never provide proof of the nonexistence of God."

Nor is it the job of science! Science doesn't care about any religion. Science is in the business of finding out the TRUTH.

It is not perfect; it is open to all scrutiny, to all challenges, out in the open. It holds nothing as sacred, but invites open inquiry. Science LOVES to be found wrong! Because that means we've LEARNED something, and THAT'S the job of science.

So you are right. Science will not supply proof of the "non" existence of any god. Besides, proving a negative?

With everything thing we learn our ignorance is exponentially revealed.

Yes! Imagine how smart we were in the Dark Ages

PS: Why would faith in science be misapplied if it will never prove the non existence of a god? I'm not out to disprove the non existence of anything.

But through science, one gets smarter. In what way does one get smarter through faith, when faith has no way of determining a true from a false proposition?

As to the contradictions you build between apologetics and science, it seems you misunderstand the nature of apologetics. Apologetics attempts to answer the question: Why should I be a Christian? Or, in my situation, why should I be a Catholic Christian? This has little if anything to do with the "scientific method" as you portray it. In fact, in the application you seem to suggest, it is you who trespasses on questions which are out of the bounds or science, not theology extending beyond the bounds to which it is qualified.

You also seem to imply that it is only through the scientific method that intelligence can be measured:

But through science, one gets smarter. In what way do...

As to the contradictions you build between apologetics and science, it seems you misunderstand the nature of apologetics. Apologetics attempts to answer the question: Why should I be a Christian? Or, in my situation, why should I be a Catholic Christian? This has little if anything to do with the "scientific method" as you portray it. In fact, in the application you seem to suggest, it is you who trespasses on questions which are out of the bounds or science, not theology extending beyond the bounds to which it is qualified.

You also seem to imply that it is only through the scientific method that intelligence can be measured:

But through science, one gets smarter. In what way does one get smarter through faith...

Think about the implication of this statement. The scientific method by definition is only qualified to commont on the natural or physical universe -- hypothesis, experiment, conclusion, verification. As such, philosophy and many other endeavors of the human mind are not "scientific". By your definition Plato was a dunce. So to with Locke, Hume and countless others. Though you may be biased toward the scientific method, it is not the only way in which the human mind expresses itself or by which intelligence can be measured.

By setting up Christian apologetics in opposition to "free thinkers", you infer that Christions are not free thinkers.

Christians are not free thinkers. That does not, however, imply that they are stupid.

"Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logical principles and not be compromised by authority, tradition, or any other dogma." [source: wikipedia]

"Though you may be biased toward the scientific method, it is not the only way in which the human mind expresses itself or by which intelligence can be measured."

I agree on both counts. "Faith", however, is certainly not a met...

By setting up Christian apologetics in opposition to "free thinkers", you infer that Christions are not free thinkers.

Christians are not free thinkers. That does not, however, imply that they are stupid.

"Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logical principles and not be compromised by authority, tradition, or any other dogma." [source: wikipedia]

"Though you may be biased toward the scientific method, it is not the only way in which the human mind expresses itself or by which intelligence can be measured."

I agree on both counts. "Faith", however, is certainly not a method by which intelligence can be measured, nor is it a form or method of obtaining knowledge.

To say, therefore, that science "is only qualified to commont on the natural or physical universe" does NOT automatically qualify faith to comment on the un-natural universe (or any other).

In fact faith remains disqualified to do so since it has no means of determining a true from a false proposition, spiritual or otherwise.

--
"Apologetics attempts to answer the question: Why should I be a Christian?"

In a formal or standard context:

"The term comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογία), meaning defense of a position against an attack."

That common definition is the way I understood it.

"Today the term "apologist" is colloquially applied in a general manner to include groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies, or denying certain events, even of crimes." [same source]

It would appear that your first usage was the common one. It was how I understood it.

But again, in what way does one get smarter through faith? All else aside, Christian apologetics must come to grips with this. That's all my original comment was trying to say.

Christians are not free thinkers. That does not, however, imply that they are stupid.

"Freethought
is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed
on the basis of science and logical principles and not be compromised
by authority, tradition, or any other dogma." [source: wikipedia]

Again, this is why it is helpful to be precise with language. Free thinking is not freethinking.
A small difference in spelling that has a great effect on connotation.
If you notice, you repeat your mistake in your reply. If you do not
wish to "imply that they are stupid", simply spell the word correctly.

As to the latter porti...

Christians are not free thinkers. That does not, however, imply that they are stupid.

"Freethought
is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed
on the basis of science and logical principles and not be compromised
by authority, tradition, or any other dogma." [source: wikipedia]

Again, this is why it is helpful to be precise with language. Free thinking is not freethinking.
A small difference in spelling that has a great effect on connotation.
If you notice, you repeat your mistake in your reply. If you do not
wish to "imply that they are stupid", simply spell the word correctly.

As to the latter portion of the discussion, neither I nor any
traditional apologetics claims "one get[s] smarter through faith."

I also did not suggest faith was a measure of intelligence. So you
call for apologists to "come to grips" seems to be a joust at a straw
man.

It seems to me that you are confusing a few concepts here. First, you use the term faith and apologetics
interchangeably. These are disparate acts. Furthermore, while you are
correct in the definition of apologetics, I am not sure you understand
its application. It may give a rationale as to why a man makes a leap
of faith, but it is not the leap itself.

Similarly, you still seem to be confusing intelligence and the functions or uses of intelligence.
Debating whether "one get[s] smarter" through faith or the scientific
method is pointless. As I have already said, faith is a different
concept that you misapply in this instance. And as to the scientific
method or apologetics, they are uses to which we put intelligence --
just as are philosophy, music or writing. Intelligence is the source,
they are simply the manifestations.

I don’t mean to offer something totally new, but I think it is time to bring to the fore what classical apologists have generally regarded as merely a preparation for apologetics: a consideration of the impediments to faith. Such impediments are all the intellectual, emotional, cultural and psychological factors, both conscious and subconscious, which make it impossible for a given person to genuinely consider the Christian message.

"...a consideration of the impediments to faith." These are your own words; there's no straw man here.

You are showing clearly and unambiguously there is a purpose to drive people to consider FAITH. You then list the impediments to it.

The first...

I don’t mean to offer something totally new, but I think it is time to bring to the fore what classical apologists have generally regarded as merely a preparation for apologetics: a consideration of the impediments to faith. Such impediments are all the intellectual, emotional, cultural and psychological factors, both conscious and subconscious, which make it impossible for a given person to genuinely consider the Christian message.

"...a consideration of the impediments to faith." These are your own words; there's no straw man here.

You are showing clearly and unambiguously there is a purpose to drive people to consider FAITH. You then list the impediments to it.

The first on your list is "intellectual".

I have simply stated that:

Since faith is epistemologically INVALID, why on earth should it be a CONSIDERATION?

Would you consider the tooth fairy on faith?

PS: This will be the last time I attempt to explain what I believe you already understand. Which is...

The greatest impediment to Christian apologetics is "all the intellectual, emotional, cultural and psychological factors, both conscious and subconscious, which make it impossible for a given person to genuinely consider the Christian message."

Peace be with you cniq cniq.