How To Avoid Definitional Apologetics

I see Ben Watkins joined Jeffery Lowder and Johno Pearce [The Tippling Philosopher] in calling himself a "Philosopher." I have resisted calling myself a philosopher because I have held to a higher standard. No more. I am a philosopher. You can call me that. If they are then I am. If my degreed educational credentials and years of college teaching and published books on philosophical issues doesn't call for it then something's wrong. I don't say this to demean them. I say this to join them, especially when it comes to any and all disagreements on the PoR that we may have between us [See Lowder Ignorance Tag below]. In fairness, a lot of philosophers disagree with me on the value of PoR and the use of Bayes Theorem, so I'm not asking for agreement, only a discussion between philosophers in addressing what I say. I think internet atheists who are addressing PoR questions should stop what they're doing until they read my book Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End. Full Stop. 

My case in point today concerns how to avoid Definitional Apologetics.

Over the last decade I have found that one bastion for Christian apologists has been philosophy, especially the philosophy of religion. The scholars have honed their definitional apologetics in such a fine-tuned manner that when engaging them in this discipline, it’s like trying to catch a greased pig. Or, to switch metaphors, trying to chase them down the rabbit’s hole in an endless and ultimately fruitless quest for definitions. What’s an extraordinary claim? What constitutes evidence? What’s the definition of supernatural? What’s the scientific method? What’s a miracle? What’s a basic belief? What’s a veridical religious experience? What’s evil? They do this just like others have done over questions like, “What is the definition of pornography?” And then they gerrymander around the plain simple facts of experience. I would rather deal in concrete examples like a virgin who supposedly had a baby and a man who supposedly was raised from the dead. [From Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End, p. 28]

A discussion started with Ben Watkins' intentionally provocative Tweet, and my response:

"You're wrangling about words. Stick to concrete cases. A maximally great being would not create this universe and this world with this kind [of] life in it." 

To see the problem with definitions just look at the results of his Tweet.

Along the way an irrelevant discussion took place, WTF??

In any case, Eric DeJardin responded: But considerations about what is presupposed, entailed, implied, or suggested by some concept or aggregation of concepts isn't a definitional or merely semantic concern. Rather, it's just thinking.

Loftus: Those things come out when dealing with concrete examples. In a different context I use the concrete example of the virgin birth of a son of god, rather than go back and forth trying to help believers understand what a miracle is by definition.

Nathan Nobis: Your point is not anything that Benjamin Blake Speed Watkins would deny. E.g. his premise 2 would be justified by mentioning specific cases. And his premise 1 would be explained by appealing to particular cases also. And your comment on his argument is just a single claim: it's not an argument. You don't appear to be disagreeing about anything interesting.

Loftus: The problem here is what you saw in the debate over words like "perfect" that ensued. When it comes to defining a miracle let there be no doubt that we're talking about a virgin birthed son of god. When it comes to the problem of evil let there be no doubt that we're talking about horrendous suffering like the Holocaust, or the massive numbers of children who suffer and die from natural disasters and/or starvation, or the kill or be killed law of predation in the animal world. Likewise when it comes to what a god would create let there be no doubt that we're talking about this universe and this world and this kind of life. Concrete cases bypass what counts as a miracle, how we are to define evil, and what one means by a perfect god. This is the difference that means all the difference if we seek to expedite belief change. Definitional Apologetics are used by apologists to obfuscate the real issues that need to be addressed.

Nathan Nobis: No, your final claim is just false. It's not an either/or. Concrete examples are used to explain and justify general claims and definitions and those generalizations are used to guide choices about particular cases.

Loftus: Sure, yes! But if the focus is on definitions the apologist will get you lost down a rabbit hole of words, thereby avoiding the impact of the concrete examples.

------

Finally, here is how to do things right by avoiding definitional apologetics. Read through this link, The Gateway to Doubting the Gospel Narratives Is The Virgin Birth Myth.

Be sure to follow the links in that post! That's how to do things right if we seek to change beliefs.

For the kicker read where I defend Hitchens' Razor. In it I write about concrete examples.

What I wrote in the above links about the virgin birth and miracles are the direct results of what you'll read in my book Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End. More than anything else they show how to address PoR questions.

--------------

Thank you for reading and for your support! We think you'll find a perspective here that you don't usually find elsewhere. Never miss out on future posts by following us. To make a donation please click here. If you buy anything on Amazon [US] through this link we receive a kickback at no cost to you. Thanks again!