An open letter was recently brought to my attention. The title of the letter reads thus: A Declaration of War on Young Apologists. Provocative! Given that, I figured I’d venture to give a few comments. I’ll note out at the outset, I think it is a mixed-bag. I agree with some and disagree with some too. Here are some of my thoughts.
https://thechurchsplit.com/index.php/2024/01/03/a-declaration-of-war-on-young-apologists/
“However, there are many of us whose young age and quick study has led to losing sight of the goal of apologetics.”
Absolutely true in my estimation. I can say this because I have been one of these folks. There have been various points in my life where Christianity and its defense was merely an intellectual exercise. I had lost sight of what the true end goal of apologetics should be: help the doubter, correct the unbeliever, and prepare the church for their own encounters with the previously mentioned types.
Continuing: “Tearing down pop apologists (Frank Turek is the preferred punching bag these days) is spare-time enjoyment. Now, Turek isn’t my favorite, but he’s a darn good apologist who has had the career and impact that his detractors will never have.”
Some true, some not.
1) Though I do not think I have done so on this blog, I have been highly critical of Turek in private correspondence and comment threads.
2) I do agree that the tearing down of “pop-apologists” is becoming vastly overdone. Indeed, in most cases I’ve seen (looking at you, Randal Rauser) it is incredibly pretentious. Often times, in circles deeply entrenched in academic philosophy, New Testament scholarship and philosophical theology, it becomes very easy to forget the vast swaths of laity that are not deeply entrenched in the academic world.
3) Now, with respect to the first two points: Turek is often picked on, sure; but it is important to note that Turek has thrown himself into the ring with heavy-weights, e.g., his debate with Jeff Lowder. Furthermore, he also appeared on Capturing Christianity with the title "Prove Frank Turek Wrong: God exists." Anyone that has watched Capturing Christianity knows that Cameron frequently brings on heavy hitters, such as Graham Oppy, Dan Linford, Joe Schmid (an agnostic, but can argue for both atheism and theism with vigor), and Alex Malpass.
4) Lastly, on this point: I do think that Frank Turek means well. He runs a successful ministry and seems like a nice enough fellow. If I recall correctly, Turek has also served our country in the air force--a good mark of moral character and backbone. So, my concluding remarks on Turek: I just think he can often go over his own head (cf. his debate with Lowder).
Next: "They spend a lot of time criticizing the work of well-known figures. What they want to do is point out flaws in popular arguments (like the moral argument, or minimal facts argument for the resurrection) in order to address them and make the argument stronger and present a stronger Christianity."
1) I do not think that there is a problem with pointing out problems with popular arguments per se. In my opinion, it is balancing act. On top of critiquing the pop arguments, are you also addressing the arguments against Christianity at least (it should be more time) as much?
So, when they go on to say: "some of them do this far too often," I agree.
2) The minimal facts argument makes a good foil for my next point. How exactly would Stockman and Hess differentiate between tearing down the popular figures and critiquing an argument they genuinely do not believe works.
Here, I can only speak for myself. I do not think the minimal facts case works. I am a maximalist, in the same vein as Drs. Tim and Lydia McGrew. So, if I were leading an (say) apologetics course, I would give the students (a) my reasons for thinking the minimal facts approach doesn't work; and (b) how to argue a maximalist case.
I would like to see a response to this qualm of mine in particular (genuinely, this is not meant in a sarcastic manner, lest anyone be confused.)
Continuing: "Of course, if an apologist like Frank Turek or Michael Licona is incorrect on something, it should be (graciously) pointed out. But, by who? Twenty-something’s with YouTube channels that nobody watches?"
1) Why? Of course, the freshly acquainted 20-something year old should not.
But what disqualifies, say, me? I am a 20 something, but I have spent the last 8 years of my life researching. Indeed, with regards to the resurrection in particular, I helped put this document together while I was in high school. I do not claim that this is due to some genius on my part, or some special endowment from God; rather, I was blessed to find my niche very early on. Like all of us, I still have much to learn. But, at the same time, I have put in what I deem to be considerable leg work. Or, to take an even better example, my friend and co-blogger Bram Rawlings. A true theological prodigy if there ever was one. Should anyone doubt his intellect and learnedness, please read his posts here, and the various appearances he has made on Youtube.
2) Furthermore, how can iron sharpen iron (Proverbs 27:17) if young folks are not allowed to put their thoughts and queries out there?
2a) I will grant an olive branch here, however: I do not think a 20-something should be critiquing the experts from any position of authority, e.g., "I've read X amount of books, therefore I am basically an expert." That can breed overconfidence and arrogance. I can say this because I was once like this!
Next: "Below are a couple examples of the sorts of things these individuals actually say in italics. These people are actually serious; they’re not joking.
'But there are countless examples who are less popular than Frank Turek, but are better at defending the Christian faith. Joshua Rasmussen, Rob Koons, Eleonore Stump, Alexander Pruss, Joshua Sijuwade, Andrew Loke, Timothy McGrew, and Richard Swinburne are all great places to start.'
The claim is that you should start with these. Not gradually work your way up to, but start with. All of these names are indeed great thinkers. Worth reading. These are arguably the cream of the crop when it comes to intelligent Christians. But they are (with the possible exception of Rasmussen) horrible places to start."
By way of reply:
You can actually start with more than Rasmussen. Why couldn't a newbie pick up Lydia McGrew's book on undesigned coincidences? Andrew Loke is a very accessible scholar, who posts laymen's versions of his work on Youtube. Richard Swinburne also has a book for the general laity called "Is There a God?" This was actually the first philosophy of religion book I read. Did I understand all of it at the time? No, but I have zero regrets about starting there and learned so much.
Next: In fact, I would recommend a presuppositionalist as a starting place before I would recommend that someone start with Andrew Loke or Richard Swinburne. (Bear in mind that I believe Presuppositionalism is utterly worthless in advancing Christianity.)
Presumably because Stockman and Hess get their ideas of presupp from the likes of Bruggencate. In that case, I agree. Totally useless and misguided. But what about the likes of James N. Anderson, Greg Welty, Paul Manata, and the late Steve Hays?
"When has Frank Turek been billed as an expert on Phil. Religion? Who, of his audience, has even heard the term “philosophy of religion”? Why anyone is looking to Frank Turek as a philosopher of religion is a mystery to me."
See my points above on Turek's presentation.
"For example, it’s great that you can point out the flaws in JL Schellenberg’s Hiddenness Argument. When’s the last time you met someone who uses that? I would be very surprised if it’s ever happened. So what do you have for college students facing unbiblical views on sexuality, or religious pluralism?"
A common objection from people in younger generations is the hiddenness argument (although not in a sophisticated manner). If you have some objections to Schellenberg's articulation, then you have overlapping replies to the two respective "arguments."
I do agree that more apologists who consider themselves more academic should better equip themselves for the common objections one often encounters on a college campus. Everyone needs to climb down from the ivory tower once in awhile.
(Arguments is in air quotes for the young people's question, not Dr. Schellenberg, who is a very sharp and probing philosopher.)
"Don’t you know what it’s like to be in conversation with a skeptic and they bring up Sobel’s Bayesian argument against the resurrection, or quote Graham Oppy’s Arguing About Gods to you?…you don’t? Yeah, me neither."
1) Everyone's social context is different. What if a kid is in a philosophy class with others who take philosophy seriously?
2) As mentioned above with regard to Schellenberg's argument, learning and understanding the counter arguments to more academic work can - and often does - have a downstream effect on addressing some of the popular stuff.