In a previous post (see here), we concluded that David Fitch’s initial salvo against evidence-based apologetics substantially misses the mark. First, it is nothing less than a strawman to represent the evidentiary apologist as invoking the “authority and objectivity” of science as a whole to put through her claims. Secondly, it is false and self-defeating to claim that since scientists are subject to bias, it follows that there is no objective scientific basis for saying what is an error. If that were so, we noted, there would be no objective basis for Fitch’s claim that his brand of postmodernism is true while evidentiary apologetics is in error. For of course he is no less agenda driven than the rest of us. Continue reading
In his book, The Great Giveaway (Baker, 2005), postmodern theologian, David Fitch, attempts (unsuccessfully, I believe) to undermine the practice of “evidentiary apologetics” – what he takes to be the “strategy” on prominent display in such popular works as “New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell and The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel,” as well as “Creationist science and the ‘inerrancy’ defense of Scripture” . Continue reading
More than once I’ve heard (or read) people complain that too many popular writings/talks by Christian apologists lack the care and precision their topics require. While it’s important to address difficult issues in ways that non-specialists can understand, one must take care to ensure that simplification does not end up as distortion. (It’s rarely helpful to present ideas that are easy to refute, but not actually believed by anyone.) Unfortunately, I have to agree that this happens far too regularly within apologetics circles. However, this is not simply a problem that arises among ill-equipped Christian apologists. In what follows I aim to show that this is also a problem among those critiquing Christianity (or just critiquing arguments in its favor) and I hope to use a prominent atheistic philosopher as an example of what we Christian philosophers should be doing more regularly.
According to Notre Dame historian, Mark Noll, the scandal of the evangelical mind “is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.” Nowhere is this more evident than in the on-going love affair between evangelical Christianity and postmodern thinking. We’re sorry to say it, but it’s a dangerous liaison. And sadly, if Noll is right, evangelicals, since they don’t have much of a mind, will be the last ones to see it. Having eyes, they yet fail to see. Continue reading