This perspective argues that apologetics often prioritizes defending a specific doctrine over genuinely seeking truth. It suggests that apologetic efforts can sometimes involve tactics to sidestep evidence, create doubt, or introduce unrelated ideas to uphold a particular belief, even if it contradicts scriptural data. The claim here is that apologetics may actually serve to reinforce interpretations or teachings that might otherwise be seen as flawed or misleading, rather than defending the faith or God Himself.
The apologetic agenda is never about understanding the scriptural data or determining what is truth, but about defending a predetermined dogma.
This involves undermining any attempts to determine truth that opposes the pet dogma in question. This is done beyond working around the data to introduce doubt, and squeezing in the possibility that the dogma is correct. Even if it means distracting by bringing Into the conversation concepts not shown by the data.
Apologetics is an intellectually dishonest endeavor used to enforce inerrancy.
The faith doesn’t need defense. God doesn’t need a defense. Inaccurate interpretations of scripture and corrupt teachings do.
I don’t actually think apologetics is about defending the faith or convincing unbelievers. It’s about giving believers something to cling to, to tell themselves they aren’t irrational. Hence, apologetics does tend to be more in the vein of pep talks.
I’m not sure this sort of nuttiness qualifies as what I’d call apologetics. I was thinking of more serious apologetics, which I do think is aimed more at reassuring believers than defending the faith against unbelievers or convincing unbelievers.
That’s one problem today: Tik Tok, Twitter, YouTube, blogs, podcasts and whatnot have spawned a new breed of “apologists” and “experts” who may in fact be uninformed at best and complete nutcases at worst. When I think of apologetics, I think of people and materials a little more serious - more in the vein of William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas.
Of course, the social media plague isn’t limited to Christianity or religion. In the few areas where I actually am something of an expert, I’m constantly dealing with people who think that having watched three YouTube videos puts them on the same level as someone with 50 years of serious study.
Expertise isn’t respected. Battling a student freshly minted with a high school diploma over some bit of Civil War history that is documented and factual has become the norm in the university classroom.
Battling some Piper fan boy on social media brings a similar response.
