Most atheists should be familiar with various ways religious theists use to justify their beliefs, but is the ability of apologetics reaching a limit in being able to defend religious beliefs? Every time there are new advances in science, allowing us to explain more things naturalistically, apologetics has to stretch further and further. Has it stretched as far as it can go?
Tom writes:
I am like many atheists, not very interested in the bible, but I am interested in how religions, specifically Christianity since I live in the US, evolve their beliefs to better withstand the relentless erasure of their tenets by science and advancing society.
To me, it seems we've reached a particularly interesting plateau, where the imaginative work-arounds have reached their limits, so that most religious moderates choose to not talk about their beliefs, so that they can continue as they always have, without the added "stress" of outing themselves as agnostic or at least seriously questioning.
Thus the ones still arguing are either fully-invested in their religious beliefs or are dependent on those religious beliefs-theologians.
[original post]
Personally, I doubt that religious apologetics can ever run out of imagination to rationalize ancient superstitions. It does seem, though, as if more people are choosing to avoid talking about their beliefs rather than subject them to public debate and scrutiny. Is this because they feel that apologetics no longer serves them, or is there another cause at work?
No comments:
Post a Comment