Apologetics without Apology by Mark Brumley Greek word

“Apologetics without Apology” by Mark Brumley Greek word apologia “Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence” (I Peter 3: 15) Definition of

“Apologetics without Apology” by Mark Brumley Natural Apologetics Christian Apologetics Catholic Apologetics Natural = Philosophy = Reason Alone Christian & Catholic = Theology = Reason and Revelation

“Apologetics without Apology” by Mark Brumley Why do some people see bread and some people see Jesus?

“Apologetics without Apology” by Mark Brumley The Light of Faith and the Eyes of the Intellect

“Apologetics without Apology” by Mark Brumley Apologetics and Evangelization

“The Nature, Power, and Limitations of Apologetics” Handbook of Catholic Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ A Mini-Lesson in Logic Understanding • TERMS – Clear or Unclear Judging • PROPOSITIONS – True or Untrue Reasoning • ARGUMENTS – Logically Valid or Invalid “A term is clear if it is intelligible and unambiguous. A proposition is true if it corresponds to reality, if it says what is. An argument is valid if the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. If all the terms in an argument are clear, and if all the premises are true, and if the argument is free from logical fallacy, then the conclusion must be true. ” Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 19 -20

“The Nature, Power, and Limitations of Apologetics” Handbook of Catholic Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ Probable Arguments and Converging Clues

“The Nature, Power, and Limitations of Apologetics” Handbook of Catholic Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ Is this argument probable or demonstratively certain?

“Faith and Reason” Handbook of Catholic Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ Definition: “The Object of Faith” “The object of faith means all the things believed … This faith … is expressed in propositions. Propositions are … expressions of the content believed … without propositions, we cannot know or tell others what God we believe in and what we believe about God. ” Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 32 -33

“Faith and Reason” Handbook of Catholic Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ Definition: “The Act of Faith” The Four Dimensions of Religious Faith Emotional Intellectual Volitional Feeling of trust or confidence Stable and unchanging belief Act of the will; commitment to obey Hope deeper than a wish Belief deeper than an opinion Love deeper than a feeling Heart Choosing our fundamental option of yes or no to God and thus determining our eternal identity and destiny

“Faith and Reason” Handbook of Catholic Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ Definition: “The Object of Reason” Understood (Apprehension) Discovered (Judgment) Proved (Reasoning) “The object of reason means all that reason can know. This includes three kinds of things, corresponding to the ‘three acts of the mind’ in classical Aristotelian logic. It means all truths that can be [a] understood by reason (that is by human reason alone without faith in divine revelation), [b] discovered by human reason to be true, and [c] proved logically, without any premises assumed by faith in divine revelation. ” Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 35

“Faith and Reason” Handbook of Catholic Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ Definition: “The Act of Reason” “The act of reason … means all the subjective, personal acts of the mind by which we (a) understand, (b) discover, or (c) prove any truth. ” Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 36

“Faith and Reason” Handbook of Catholic Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ Definition: “The Act of Reason” Understanding Discovering Proving By reason alone and not part of divine revelation What a star is made of That Pluto exists The Pythagorean theorem By reason and by faith in divine revelation Why the universe is so well ordered The historical existence of Jesus That the soul does not die Not by reason, only by faith in divine revelation God’s plan to save us How much God loves us God is a Trinity Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 36

“Faith and Reason” Handbook of Catholic Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ Five Possible Answers to the Relation Between Two Sets of Things A B A A B B A=B A B

“Faith and Reason” Handbook of Catholic Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ Faith is a subclass of Reason = Rationalism R F “Rationalism holds that everything we can know by faith can be understood, discovered, or proved by reason, but not vice versa … Very few Christian thinkers have claimed this. Anselm seems to have been one … Hegel was a very different kind of rationalist … Today Hegel’s kind of rationalism is quite popular, but Anselm’s is … totally extinct. ” Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 38

“Faith and Reason” Handbook of Catholic Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ Reason is a subclass of Faith = Fideism F R “Fideism contends that the only knowledge … we can have is by faith … fideism must mean that either that all … truths, outside religion, … come under some kind of nonreligious faith … The main candidate for this ‘nonreligious faith” is faith in reason itself. Pascal, for instance, argued that to trust reason in the first place must be an act of faith and not rationally provable …” Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 39

“Faith and Reason” Handbook of Catholic Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ Faith and Reason are Interchangeable = Identity F=R “ … an identity between what is knowable by faith and what is knowable by reason, is a logical possibility, but no one we know of has ever held it. ” Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 39

“Faith and Reason” Handbook of Catholic Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ Faith and Reason are Mutually Exclusive = Dualism F R “Dualism is a popular position today … [It] simply divorces faith and reason, placing them into two separate compartments. It usually does this by (a) reducing reason to scientific, mathematical, and empirical reasoning and (b) reducing faith to a personal, subjective attitude. ” Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 40

“Faith and Reason” Handbook of Catholic Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ Faith and Reason Connect and Intersect = Partial Overlap F a b R c “If this is the correct position, it follows that the Christian apologist has two tasks: to prove all the propositions in class b and to answer all objections to the propositions in class a … Christian thinkers do not all agree about how many of the propositions of faith can be proved by reason, but most have held that some could (thus apologetics is possible) but not all (thus apologetics is limited). ” Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 40 -41

Five Possible Answers to the Relation Between Faith and Reason Only need Reason to know everything Everything I can know by Only need Faith to Faith I can know by know everything Reason and vice versa F R Faith for matters of Religion, Morals, etc. and Reason for everything else F F=R R There is some overlap/connection between what is known by Faith and what is known by Reason F R

“Faith and Reason” Handbook of Catholic Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ Faith and Reason Can Never Contradict Each Other: Only Falsehood Can Contradict Truth The authors on Summa Contra Gentiles I, 7 “Either Christianity is false, or reason is false, or – if both of them are true – there can never be any real contradictions at all between them since truth cannot contradict truth … We can misunderstand the faith, and we can misuse our reason. Opinions can certainly contradict faith, but reason itself cannot. ” Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 42

“Faith and Reason” Handbook of Catholic Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ Faith and Reason Can Never Contradict Each Other: God is the Teacher in Both Faith and Reason The authors on Summa Contra Gentiles I, 7 “Every possible argument against every Christian doctrine has a rational mistake in it somewhere and therefore can be answered by reason alone. If this were not so … then one of those arguments from unbelievers against one of the doctrines of Christianity … would really and truly prove … Christianity untrue. ” Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 43

“Faith and Reason” Handbook of Catholic Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ “There are three ways to be foolish: (a) to misapprehend or misunderstand or fail to grasp; (b) to be ignorant, to fail to know or discover; and (c) to be illogical and faith to prove, to commit a fallacy. At least one of these three follies, or mistakes, corresponding to the three “acts of the mind, ” must be present in every argument against the truth, and therefore also against the truth of the Christian faith. And since these three follies are follies of reason, right reason can refute them. ” Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 44

The Objects, Expressions, Acts and Problems of Reason Object: What is understood Object: What is discovered Object: What is proven (Expressed by a term, which is clear or unclear) (Expressed in a judgement, which is true or false) (Expressed in an argument, which is valid or invalid) Act: Understand Act: Discover Act: Prove/Reason Problem: misunderstand Problem: fail to discover or ignorance Problem: commit a fallacy

Absolute Relativism by Chris Stefanick

Absolute Relativism by Chris Stefanick

“Are Science and Religion Really Enemies? ” by Fr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk

False Dilemma Giving only two options when many exist If we do not pass gun control laws now, we will never stop the rising number of murders in Chicago

Ad Ignorantiam Claim that a statement is true or false because it is unknown Science cannot tell us about the outer limits of the universe so the universe must be infinite

Ad Baculum Appeal to force If you do not comply with the distribution of certain healthcare procedures, there will be severe monetary consequences

Ad Misericordiam Appeal to pity Look at these poor mothers who are burdened with the care of so many children in sub-Saharan Africa, we must promote population control

Ad Populum Appeal to majority Statistically most Americans are in favor of limiting the practice of Abortion, thus it should be limited

Ad Verecundiam Appeal to fame or expertise Dr. Smith has doctorates in medicine, law and physics and he says that the city should expand to outlying areas. Thus, Nashville must develop better commute systems to and from the suburbs.

Ad Hominem Personal Attack You cannot listen to what she has to say, can’t you see what kind of life she is living!

Hasty Generalization Considering only exceptional cases Two adults have drowned in the last week off the coast of Finland. We must mandate swimming lessons for all adults because clearly they do not know how to swim

False Analogy Comparisons which seem similar but are actually different The Church cannot tell me what I should do in my personal life, just like the government cannot tell me what color shoes to wear!

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc After this therefore because of this Just after a cold spell came through I developed an earache. The change in temperature caused my earache.

Begging the Question Failing to back up a claim Nike is the most quality basketball shoe on the market – just look at how quality they are!

Circular Reasoning Assuming what you are arguing for For greater financial stability you need to have a larger savings account, because the more you have in savings the more you are financially secure.

Straw Man Distorting the opponents position A small tax cut should be made for small-business owners. A tax cut! How can we afford billions of dollars of lost revenue to selfish and greedy business owners who do not even care for the needs of their own employees.

Composition/Division Drawing false conclusions from a whole or it’s parts Composition: This i. Phone malfunctions regularly. All i. Phones are junk. Division: The Ford Mustang won this year’s top prize for design quality. Its engine is the best designed engine in the world.

Non Sequitur Conclusion does not follow from the premises Affirming the Consequent: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained. (If A then B, B, therefore A) Denying the Antecedent: If it rains, the ground gets wet. It is not raining, therefore the ground is not wet. (If A then B, Not A, thus not B)

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God The Ontological Argument God as “Greatest Possible Being” FR, p. 27 -28; peterkreeft. com #13

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God The Ontological Argument 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Anselm's Version It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone. "God" means "that than which a greater cannot be thought. " Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality. Then a greater than God could be thought (namely, a being that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence). But this is impossible, for God is "that than which a greater cannot be thought. " Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality. From: Peter Kreeft’s “ 20 Arguments for the Existence of God”

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God The Argument from Change/Motion (Aquinas) God as “Unmoved Mover” CC, p. 21 -25; FR, p. 23 -24; peterkreeft. com #1

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God The Argument from Efficient Causality (Aquinas) God as “Uncaused Cause” CC, p. 21 -25; FR, p. 24; peterkreeft. com #2

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God The Argument from Time/Contingency (Aquinas) God as the “Self-Existent Necessary Being” CC, p. 21 -25; FR, p. 24; peterkreeft. com #3

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God The Argument from Perfection (Aquinas) God as the “Absolute Perfection” CC, p. 21 -25; FR, p. 24; peterkreeft. com #4

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God The Argument from Design (Aquinas) God as the “Mindful Designer” CC, p. 18 -20; FR, p. 24 -25; peterkreeft. com #5

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God The Kalam Argument God as the “Personal Mind Who Caused the Universe” peterkreeft. com #6

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God The Kalam Argument 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being. God as the “Personal Mind Who Caused the Universe” peterkreeft. com #6

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God The Argument from Miracles http: //www. lourdes-france. org/upload/pdf/gb_guerisons. pdf God as the “Supernatural Power Behind Miracles” CC, p. 28 -29; FR, p. 25; peterkreeft. com #9

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God The Argument from Miracles 1. A miracle is an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God. 2. There are numerous well-attested miracles. 3. Therefore, there are numerous events whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God. 4. Therefore God exists. God as the “Supernatural Power Behind Miracles” CC, p. 28 -29; FR, p. 25; peterkreeft. com #9

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God The Argument from Desire God as the “Fulfillment of an Unfulfilled Desire ” FR, p. 30; peterkreeft. com #16

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God The Argument from Desire 1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire. 2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy. 3. Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire. 4. This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever. " God as the “Fulfillment of an Unfulfilled Desire ” FR, p. 30; peterkreeft. com #16

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God The Argument from Conscience God as the “Source of Absolute Moral Obligations” CC, p. 25 -27; FR, p. 31; peterkreeft. com #15

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God The Argument from Religious Experience God as the “Supernatural Reality Experienced by Many” FR, p. 30; peterkreeft. com #18

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God The Argument from Religious Experience 1. Many people of different eras and of widely different cultures claim to have had an experience of the "divine. " 2. It is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about the nature and content of their own experience. 3. Therefore, there exists a "divine" reality which many people of different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced. God as the “Supernatural Reality Experienced by Many” FR, p. 30; peterkreeft. com #18

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God The Common Consent Argument God as the “Ultimate Being Deserving of Reverence” FR, p. 30; peterkreeft. com #19

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God Pascal’s Wager God as the “Best Bet” CC, p. 30 -33; FR, p. 33 -34; peterkreeft. com #20

The Problem of Evil by Peter Kreeft