The question seems counter-intuitive, doesn't it? Christian apologists attempt to defend "the truth of Christianity" by presenting their arguments for god's existence, the inspiration of the Bible, the divinity of Christ, et cetera. The apologists believe they need Christian apologetics because Christianity is true, and the Bible tells us to "be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15).
I read this quote from Lee Strobel posted on Apologetics 315:
"For me, apologetics proved to be the turning point of my life and eternity. I'm thankful for the scholars who so passionately and effectively defend the truth of Christianity - and today my life's goal is to do my part in helping others get answers to the questions that are blocking them in their spiritual journey toward Christ."
Allow me to get sidetracked here: notice how Lee compares questions to roadblocks. For Lee Strobel, questions get in the way, and need to be taken care of. To an extent this is true: we ask questions all the time in the attempt to find answers. But Lee's quote gives the impression that questions are to the mind what illnesses are to the body. Apologetics, then, is like antibiotics. I can imagine Strobel saying something like, "Good thing we got those pesky questions out of the way."
Sorry Lee, but questions are a good thing. I despise the idea that faith is somehow a virtue. Christians maintain that it is, even doing so implicitly as Lee Strobel does in this quote. Questions are indicative of doubt, and doubt is inherently evil, but imagine if doubt weren't demonized by religionists. Would they have as many followers? I mean, they're called "sheep" for a reason. Okay, let's get back on track...
Lee is basically saying that he's saved from eternal damnation because he encountered some smart apologists who convinced him that Christianity is true. Good thing for Lee, right? I mean, not only was he lucky enough to run into folks who were smart enough to figure out that god exists and that Jesus Walker Christ is his only begotten son, but Lee was actually intelligent enough to understand and see the soundness of the apologists' arguments.
Sounds good, I guess, until I read what the Bible says.
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)
When I was a Christian apologist, I believed that Christianity was true, and anyone who didn't believe it either a) never bothered to look at it seriously, or b) was being willfully ignorant. Of course, I wanted to believe that the truth of Christian theism was obvious because that gave me more reason to feel confident in my beliefs. Romans 1 was a great comfort to me.
Then I learned over time that Christianity isn't obviously true (although deep down I always understood that), so I determined to be the best Christian apologist I could be and present only the best arguments. But when, time after time, the skeptics offered excellent responses to even the finest arguments I and other Christians presented, I grew discouraged. "If god is real," I questioned, "why isn't his existence and the truth of Christianity more obvious?" That eventually led to my asking, "If Christianity is true, who do we even need apologetics?"
If Christianity is true, then Romans 1 stands true as well: people know the truth (because god's qualities are evident in creation), but those who do not believe suppress the truth by their wickedness. If that's the case, then no amount of argumentation or debate is going to change that, because a person's non-belief isn't an intellectual matter, but an ethical matter. All the arguments for god's existence and all the Lee Strobel-esque "historical evidences" for the historicity of the Bible and the resurrection of Jesus are at best superfluous and a waste of time.
But that can't be right either. Calling myself an atheist isn't the result of my rebelling against god or "suppressing the truth by my wickedness." I didn't give up my Christian faith so I could go do naughty things or rebel against my creator. I can't rebel against someone I don't believe in. If I saw good reason to believe, I most certainly would. If Christianity is true, why doesn't god provide that evidence? If Christianity really is true, then the intellectual roadblocks should be removed so accepting or rejecting Christ is primarily an ethical matter rather than an intellectual one. If Christianity is true, why is the collection of flimsy, weak or just plain illogical arguments found in "Christian apologetics" all god has seen fit to offer?
I reached both a point of acceptance and a point of comfort with the label "atheist" only after a long and difficult struggle with coming to terms with what I truly know and believe. Wanting to do the right thing was the reason I struggled so much. Had I given up the struggle and given in to my prejudices, I'd still be a Christian. Hell, I'd probably still be a Christian apologist, making myself believe that the study of Christian apologetics is somehow relevant.
Dead-Logic.com
