Robert Miller had this to say about the art of commending or defending the faith reasonably.
"In summary apologies almost never reach outsiders. When they do, they are almost never taken seriously; when they are, they are almost never persuasive. So, if the purpose of apologetics is to convince outsiders to adopt new beliefs, then apologies are almost always abject failures."
But can we revive it for our generation by learning from Kierkegaard?
Or take a cue from The Irony of David Letterman?
Some other nice readings
For the last few decades, a scholarly movement called reformed epistemology has made outstanding progress in tackling two biggest obstacles to faith - 'How can God allow evil?' and 'You must give me proofs'
Many will have idea about Alvin Plantinga's freewill defence for the first problem. On the second problem, he challenges the assumption that we must based our beliefs on an argument or evidence.
There are things we know that are 'properly basic', which we dun infer from other evidences... like the sky is blue, I'm having a headache etc.
"A properly basic belief is a belief that is not believed on the basis of other beliefs, but forms the basis for other beliefs."
Belief in God is a basic belief.
Here he evaluates Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments.. I wonder why it's not published yet...
Let's pray for these ministers in the academy to be faithful and fruitful..
"In summary apologies almost never reach outsiders. When they do, they are almost never taken seriously; when they are, they are almost never persuasive. So, if the purpose of apologetics is to convince outsiders to adopt new beliefs, then apologies are almost always abject failures."
But can we revive it for our generation by learning from Kierkegaard?
Or take a cue from The Irony of David Letterman?
Some other nice readings
For the last few decades, a scholarly movement called reformed epistemology has made outstanding progress in tackling two biggest obstacles to faith - 'How can God allow evil?' and 'You must give me proofs'
Many will have idea about Alvin Plantinga's freewill defence for the first problem. On the second problem, he challenges the assumption that we must based our beliefs on an argument or evidence.
There are things we know that are 'properly basic', which we dun infer from other evidences... like the sky is blue, I'm having a headache etc.
"A properly basic belief is a belief that is not believed on the basis of other beliefs, but forms the basis for other beliefs."
Belief in God is a basic belief.
Here he evaluates Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments.. I wonder why it's not published yet...
Let's pray for these ministers in the academy to be faithful and fruitful..
Comments