Empirical Apologetics

[Guest guest]

Nice text. Very informative. I'll send it on dk.livssyn

 

 

 

> 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.