“ apologetics without apology” by mark brumley

“Apologetics without Apology”by Mark Brumley

Greek word apologia

“Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with

gentleness and reverence” (I Peter 3:15)

Definition of


Natural Apologetics

Christian Apologetics

Catholic Apologetics

Natural = Philosophy = Reason Alone

Christian & Catholic = Theology = Reason and Revelation


Why do some people see bread and some people see Jesus?


The Light of Faith and the Eyes of the Intellect


Apologetics and Evangelization

Understanding

• TERMS – Clear or Unclear

Judging

• PROPOSITIONS – True or Untrue

Reasoning

• ARGUMENTS – Logically Valid or Invalid

“The Nature, Power, and Limitations of Apologetics”Handbook of Catholic Apologetics

by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ

A Mini-Lesson in Logic

“A term is clear if it is intelligible and unambiguous. A proposition is true if it corresponds to reality, if it says what is. An argument is valid if the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. If all the terms in an argument are clear, and if all the premises are true, and if the argument is free from logical fallacy, then the conclusion must be true.”

Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 19-20



Probable Arguments and Converging Clues



Is this argument probable or demonstratively certain?

“Faith and Reason”Handbook of Catholic Apologetics


Definition: “The Object of Faith”

“The object of faith means all the things believed … This faith … is expressed in propositions. Propositions are … expressions of the content believed … without propositions, we cannot know or tell others what God we believe in and what we believe about God.” Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 32-33



Definition: “The Act of Faith”

The Four Dimensions of Religious Faith

EmotionalFeeling of trust or

confidence

Hope deeper than a wish



Definition: “The Object of Reason”

“The object of reason means all that reason can know. This includes three kinds of things, corresponding to the ‘three acts of the mind’ in classical Aristotelian logic. It means all truths that can be [a] understood by reason (that is by human reason alone without faith in divine revelation), [b] discovered by human reason to be true, and [c] proved logically, without any premises assumed by faith in divine revelation.”

Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 35

Understood (Apprehension) Discovered (Judgment) Proved (Reasoning)



Definition: “The Act of Reason”

“The act of reason … means all the subjective, personal acts of the mind by which we

(a) understand,(b) discover, or (c) prove any truth.”




Definition: “The Act of Reason”Understanding Discovering Proving

By reason alone and not part of

divine revelation

What a star is made of

That Pluto exists The Pythagorean theorem

By reason and by faith in divine

revelation

Why the universe is so well ordered

The historical existence of Jesus

That the soul does not die

Not by reason, only by faith in

divine revelation

God’s plan to save us

How much God loves us

God is a Trinity




Five Possible Answers to the Relation Between Two Sets of Things

A

B

B

AA = B

A B A B



Faith is a subclass of Reason = Rationalism

R

F

“Rationalism holds that everything we can know by faith can be understood, discovered, or proved by reason, but not vice versa … Very few Christian thinkers have claimed this. Anselm seems to have been one … Hegel was a very different kind of rationalist … Today Hegel’s kind of rationalism is quite popular, but Anselm’s is … totally extinct.”




Reason is a subclass of Faith = Fideism

F

R

“Fideism contends that the only knowledge … we can have is by faith … fideism must mean that either that all … truths, outside religion, … come under some kind of nonreligious faith … The main candidate for this ‘nonreligious faith” is faith in reason itself. Pascal, for instance, argued that to trust reason in the first place must be an act of faith and not rationally provable …”




Faith and Reason are Interchangeable = Identity

F = R

“ … an identity between what is knowable by faith and what is knowable by reason, is a logical possibility, but no one we know of has ever held it.”




Faith and Reason are Mutually Exclusive = Dualism

F

R

“Dualism is a popular position today … [It] simply divorces faith and reason, placing them into two separate compartments. It usually does this by (a) reducing reason to scientific, mathematical, and empirical reasoning and (b) reducing faith to a personal, subjective attitude.”




Faith and Reason Connect and Intersect = Partial Overlap

F

R

“If this is the correct position, it follows that the Christian apologist has two tasks: to prove all the propositions in class b and to answer all objections to the propositions in class a … Christian thinkers do not all agree about how many of the propositions of faith can be proved by reason, but most have held that some could (thus apologetics is possible) but not all (thus apologetics is limited).”

Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 40-41

a

b

c

Five Possible Answers to the Relation Between Faith and Reason

F

R

R

FF = R

F R F R

Only need Reason to know everything

Faith for matters of Religion, Morals, etc. and Reason for

everything else

There is some overlap/connection between what is known by Faith and what is known by Reason

Only need Faith to know everything

Everything I can know by Faith I can know by

Reason and vice versa



Faith and Reason Can Never Contradict Each Other:Only Falsehood Can Contradict Truth

The authors on Summa Contra Gentiles I, 7

“Either Christianity is false, or reason is false, or – if both of them are true – there can never be any real contradictions at all between them since truth cannot contradict truth … We can misunderstand the faith, and we can misuse our reason. Opinions can certainly contradict faith, but reason itself cannot.”




Faith and Reason Can Never Contradict Each Other:God is the Teacher in Both Faith and Reason

The authors on Summa Contra Gentiles I, 7

“Every possible argument against every Christian doctrine has a rational mistake in it somewhere and therefore can be answered by reason alone. If this were not so … then one of those arguments from unbelievers against one of the doctrines of Christianity … would really and truly prove … Christianity untrue.”




“There are three ways to be foolish: (a) to misapprehend or misunderstand or fail to grasp; (b) to be ignorant, to fail to know or discover; and (c) to be illogical and faith to prove, to commit a fallacy. At least one of these three follies, or mistakes, corresponding to the three “acts of the mind,” must be present in every argument against the truth, and therefore also against the truth of the Christian faith. And since these three follies are follies of reason, right reason can refute them.”


Object:What is understood

(Expressed by a term, which is clear

or unclear)

Act: Understand

Problem: misunderstand

Object: What is discovered

(Expressed in a judgement, which is

true or false)

Act: Discover

Problem: fail to discover or ignorance

Object: What is proven

(Expressed in an argument, which is

valid or invalid)

Act: Prove/Reason

Problem: commit a fallacy

The Objects, Expressions, Acts and Problems of Reason

Absolute Relativismby Chris Stefanick

“Are Science and Religion Really Enemies?”by Fr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk

False Dilemma

If we do not pass gun control laws now, we will never stop the rising number of murders in

Chicago

Giving only two options when many exist

Ad Ignorantiam

Science cannot tell us about the outer limits of the universe so the universe must be infinite

Claim that a statement is true or false because it is unknown

Ad Baculum

If you do not comply with the distribution of certain healthcare procedures, there will be

severe monetary consequences

Appeal to force

Ad Misericordiam

Look at these poor mothers who are burdened with the care of so many children in sub-

Saharan Africa, we must promote population control

Appeal to pity

Ad Populum

Statistically most Americans are in favor of limiting the practice of Abortion, thus it should

be limited

Appeal to majority

Ad Verecundiam

Dr. Smith has doctorates in medicine, law and physics and he says that the city should expand to outlying areas. Thus, Nashville must develop

better commute systems to and from the suburbs.

Appeal to fame or expertise

Ad Hominem

You cannot listen to what she has to say, can’t you see what kind of life she is living!

Personal Attack

Hasty Generalization

Two adults have drowned in the last week off the coast of Finland. We must mandate

swimming lessons for all adults because clearly they do not know how to swim

Considering only exceptional cases

False Analogy

The Church cannot tell me what I should do in my personal life, just like the government cannot tell me what color shoes to wear!

Comparisons which seem similar but are actually different

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

Just after a cold spell came through I developed an earache. The change in temperature caused

my earache.

After this therefore because of this

Begging the Question

Nike is the most quality basketball shoe on the market – just look at how quality they are!

Failing to back up a claim

Circular Reasoning

For greater financial stability you need to have a larger savings account, because the more you

have in savings the more you are financially secure.

Assuming what you are arguing for

Straw Man

A small tax cut should be made for small-business owners.

A tax cut! How can we afford billions of dollars of lost revenue to selfish and greedy business owners who do not even care for the needs of

their own employees.

Distorting the opponents position

Composition/Division

Composition: This iPhone malfunctions regularly. All iPhones are junk.

Division: The Ford Mustang won this year’s top prize for design quality. Its engine is the best

designed engine in the world.

Drawing false conclusions from a whole or it’s parts

Non Sequitur

Affirming the Consequent: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained.

(If A then B, B, therefore A)

Denying the Antecedent: If it rains, the ground gets wet. It is not raining, therefore the ground

is not wet. (If A then B, Not A, thus not B)

Conclusion does not follow from the premises

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God

The Ontological Argument

God as “Greatest Possible Being”

FR, p. 27-28; peterkreeft.com #13


The Ontological Argument

Anselm's Version1. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality

than in the mind alone.2. "God" means "that than which a greater cannot be

thought."3. Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality.4. Then a greater than God could be thought (namely, a being

that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence).

5. But this is impossible, for God is "that than which a greater cannot be thought."

6. Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality. From: Peter Kreeft’s “20 Arguments for the Existence of God”


The Argument from Change/Motion (Aquinas)

God as “Unmoved Mover”

CC, p. 21-25; FR, p. 23-24; peterkreeft.com #1


The Argument from Efficient Causality (Aquinas)

God as “Uncaused Cause”

CC, p. 21-25; FR, p. 24; peterkreeft.com #2


The Argument from Time/Contingency (Aquinas)

God as the “Self-Existent Necessary Being”



The Argument from Perfection (Aquinas)

God as the “Absolute Perfection”



The Argument from Design (Aquinas)

God as the “Mindful Designer”



The Kalam Argument

God as the “Personal Mind Who Caused the Universe”

peterkreeft.com #6


The Kalam Argument

God as the “Personal Mind Who Caused the Universe”

peterkreeft.com #6

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.

2. The universe began to exist.3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its

coming into being.


The Argument from Miracles

God as the “Supernatural Power Behind Miracles”


http://www.lourdes-france.org/upload/pdf/gb_guerisons.pdf


The Argument from Miracles

God as the “Supernatural Power Behind Miracles”


1. A miracle is an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.

2. There are numerous well-attested miracles.3. Therefore, there are numerous events whose

only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.

4. Therefore God exists.


The Argument from Desire

God as the “Fulfillment of an Unfulfilled Desire ”

FR, p. 30; peterkreeft.com #16


The Argument from Desire

God as the “Fulfillment of an Unfulfilled Desire ”


1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

3. Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

4. This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever."


The Argument from Conscience

God as the “Source of Absolute Moral Obligations”



The Argument from Religious Experience

God as the “Supernatural Reality Experienced by Many”



The Argument from Religious Experience

God as the “Supernatural Reality Experienced by Many”


1. Many people of different eras and of widely different cultures claim to have had an experience of the "divine."

2. It is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about the nature and content of their own experience.

3. Therefore, there exists a "divine" reality which many people of different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced.


The Common Consent Argument

God as the “Ultimate Being Deserving of Reverence”



Pascal’s Wager

God as the “Best Bet”


The Problem of Evilby Peter Kreeft

“ apologetics without apology” by mark brumley

Documents

ronald tacelli sjdefinition

act of faith

ronald tacelli sjis

christian catholic

human reason

act of reasonthe act

ronald tacelli sja minilesson

apologyby mark brumleywhy