Empirical Apologetics

[Guest guest]

Empirical Apologetics

by Steve Petermann

 

Throughout history religious adherents have attempted to defend their

positions against other systems and critics. This effort is often called

apologetics. Now apologetics can come in many forms depending on the

epistemic resources chosen. For example, within a given religious tradition

the scope of an apologetic may be restricted to how scripture is

interpreted. One finds this in the apologies presented by various

"denominations" within a particular religious tradition. Or apologetics may

branch out beyond a particular tradition to defend itself against other

religious systems, i.e. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, etc.

When apologetics branches out from its provincial borders, as it has often

had to, in order to be successful it must find some common epistemic ground

upon which to argue. Otherwise it runs the risk of being defeated due to

circular arguments.

 

Particularly since the Enlightenment religious apologists have had their

work cut out for them as they have faced new challenges based on the

epistemic resource of empiricism. By empiricism, what I mean is the stance

that theories(and claims) must be evaluated and tested against observations

instead of relying strictly on intuition or revelation. In this case the

common epistemic ground is what can be gleaned from empirical observations.

Now at this point it should be noted that religious folk are not the only

ones who do apologetics. Those elements who were challenging religious

sentiment during this period, particularly the scientific materialists, were

engaging in empirical apologetics as well. They looked to empirical

resources to support their own particular metaphysical leanings. Is there

any doubt that Dawkins, Dennett, Pinker, Weinberg, and others are the modern

day counterparts of these earlier materialistic apologists?

In this new arena of empiricism the religious apologists, in order to

effective, could not use scripture or ecclesiastic authority as part of

their argument. Instead they had to look to empirical observations to

support for their claims. And this they have attempted to do. One prominent

case in point has involved the biblical literalists, particularly the young

earth creationists. Their foray into empiricism to support their position is

well documented. However, the observations and their interpretations coming

out of that movement have been, by in large, dismissed out of hand by not

only the scientific community but also many of the scientifically educated

public. Their presentation of empirical findings just hasn't gained any

traction outside their own adherents. Very few, if any, prominent scientists

lined up in support of their empirical claims. They just weren't taken

seriously.

Today, however, the landscape of empirical apologetics has changed

dramatically. Recently some of the discoveries of science that can be used

to support a religious apologetic cannot be so easily dismissed. The

discovery of the incredible fine tuning of the cosmos, friendly to life

first comes to mind. It has been so difficult to refute on its own merits

that strange apologetic alternatives like "multiverse" theories have sprung

up.

Almost concurrently the microscopic exploration of biotic reality has also

produced empirical observations that are ripe for religious apologetics. The

mind blowing complexity that has been discovered has called into question

the bedrock foundation of non-teleological apologetics, Darwinian theory.

And these empirical observations are not just coming from religious

apologists but from scientists on all sides of the aisle. And this time

there are prominent thinkers supporting a teleological position. Has the

high ground for apologetics shifted in favor of the teleologists? Perhaps

not yet, but at least the landscape has leveled a great deal since earlier

attempts. It will be interesting to see how further in-depth observations

into cosmic and biotic emergence play out in the apologetics of opposing

worldviews.

At this point I think it is also important to ask how far an empirical

apologetic can go. Given the nature of empiricism, it can only go so far.

Can empirical observations be stretched far enough to provide overwhelming

support for a particular religious tradition? Not likely, in my opinion.

Perhaps most religious traditions neither expect or even seek that kind of

support. At the very least, religious empirical apologists may now be

perceived as a significant force to be reckoned with.