"Apologetics" (from the Greek apologia, meaning "defense") are that brand of scholarship that sets out to prove or defend a particular religious perspective, tradition, or community. Although apologetic works are occasionally published by mainstream Religious Studies presses and journals, they are much more likely to be published in venues explicitly devoted to that purpose. This raises an interesting question. Do apologetics constitute a legitimate subdiscipline of Religious Studies? Or a separate discipline entirely?
To adequately answer this question, I think we need to make an important distinction between confessionalist and rationalist apologetics.
Confessionalist (also known as "presuppositional") apologetics are those that begin with a certain set of non-negotiable religious propositions and then seek to reconcile those propositions with the evidence. Here the goal is not so much to make a strong evidentiary case for one's religious beliefs as to show that those beliefs have not been absolutely falsified. Confessionalist apologists select not the most probable reading of the evidence, but the most probable one that harmonizes with those religious propositions that they consider non-negotiable. This sort of apologetic scholarship is designed only to remove obstacles to the operation of supernatural faith in converting or retaining the believer.
Rationalist apologetics are quite different. A rationalist believes things because they seem probable, given the available evidence. S/he makes no distinction between religious and scientific propositions, preferring to subject both kinds to the same epistemological standard. Rationalist apologists set out to make a strong rational and empirical case for religion, in order to show logically or scientifically that religious propositions are more likely to be true than untrue. When a rationalist becomes persuaded that the weight of logic or evidence are against a particular religious proposition, s/he will tend to either abandon that proposition or retreat to a confessionalist stance.
Rationalist apologetics, I think, clearly do constitute at least a subdiscipline of Religious Studies. They deal with Religious Studies subject matter, and do so according to Religious Studies standards. (Whether they do so well, of course, varies from case to case.) Confessionalist apologetics, however, do not follow the standards of Religious Studies in their treatment of their subjects, and therefore fall outside that discipline.
This is not to say that confessionalist apologetics are illegitimate. Just that they are illegitimate as Religious Studies scholarship. Probably confessionalist apologetics should be seen as a form of religious practice. They actively contribute to religious traditions, helping keep them alive and relevant to the modern world. When we classify them this way rather than judging them by the standards of secular scholarship, they take on a different kind of legitimacy: the legitimacy of liturgy. They also become an object rather than a subject of Religious Studies.
16 comments:
"Do apologetics constitute a legitimate subdiscipline of Religious Studies?"
No, because they are intentionally biased. Good research needs to minimize bias which is impossible to do when you you set out with an agenda.
Apologetics are pseudo-intellectuals who are not accepted by the mainstream academic community (as you admit) because they do not deserve to be.
I am LDS and proud of it but the fact that we have so many intellectual want-to-be's trying to spin evidence to back their pet LDS opinions is an embarrassment. How can true academics ever take such people seriously? People who's entire lives are trying to force square pieces into round holes and calling it good research!
Hi Joseph,
I don't think that is necessarily true of all apologists or apologetic scholarship. Those religious propositions for which reasonably good and responsible arguments can be made-- such as that Jesus or Moses really existed and really did some of the things attributed to them in the Bible-- often do get defended and accepted in mainstream academic venues. James K. Hoffmeier's Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition, for example, is clearly an apologetic work, but is also fairly well-respected as a solid contribution to mainstream Biblical Studies scholarship. I think Hoffmeier is the kind of "rationalist apologist" I mentioned in my post-- he believes the Exodus really happened because he is persuaded by the evidence, not just because he accepts the a priori authority of the Bible. Now, he may very well be wrong, but I wouldn't refer to his work as pseudo-intellectual.
Also, note that starting with an "agenda" is not necessarily a bad thing unless your agenda is inflexible. Most people who write a book start out with some idea in advance of what their thesis will be. (In fact, most PhD programs actually require that you lay out your thesis in writing before you begin writing the dissertation itself.) Although these writers are starting out with an "agenda", it is an "educated" agenda that they have decided on because they are persuaded by a preliminary analysis of the evidence. If further investigation leads them to conclude their "agenda" was erroneous, they abandon or change it. But if further investigation only confirms their initial hypothesis, then they finish their work and seek publication. Starting with an "agenda" helps one formulate a research design and ask appropriate questions.
A rationalist apologist is one who, like the scholars above, has a "flexible" agenda that he is willing to change or abandon. A confessionalist apologist is one who has an "inflexible" agenda. Most apologists, admittedly, fall into the latter category. But IMO not all.
Anyway, hope that helps you see what I'm getting at. Peace,
-Chris
Thanks Chris, that was helpful. Sorry if my comment was too strong.
I respect apologetics that get their work published in mainstream venues as to me this shows their case is strong and they are doing legitimate research. To all such apologists I apologize as I know you do great work.
I also admire those who are flexible like your say.
LDS scholars need to be a little more like Richard Bushman and Henry Eyring, scholars who are respected by the mainstream and not like those who are not.
Thanks, Joseph. I agree. Bushman's biography is really very well done.
Frankly, I had always defined apologist as confessionalist apologist. At least those are the majority whose work I read from time to time.
"Probably confessionalist apologetics should be seen as a form of religious practice. They actively contribute to religious traditions, helping keep them alive and relevant to the modern world."
Actually, I think this is very important. This is exactly how I view apologists generally. I think they serve an important function, just not one that works for me.
Re Joseph
I agree whole-heartedly with your first comment. I think the real problem is that you say they try to spin evidence to back their pet LDS opinions. But the truth of the matter is, they spin evidence to back the opinions of the church at large. Take the historicity of the BoM for example. It's clear, after Holland's talk, where the cultural teaching of the church is - that it's historical. Does the evidence point to this? Does anyone who is not an apologist believe this? I say no, and hence I think this is more than just a "pet LDS opinion." For this reason alone I am unwilling to completely disparage apologists (though they drive me crazy). They keep the faith and hope of many people alive. To truthseekers such as ourselves this is hard to understand.
One question for Chris. Which Mormon apologists do you feel fit the "rationalist apologist" description?
I like Bushman, and respect him a great deal, but I have little to no confidence that he would ever part with his belief in Joseph Smith regardless of the evidence. What does this make him?
Perhaps we need to separate belief in something from one's rational view. Perhaps one can admit that something is highly unlikely and yet still choose to believe it. This gives validity to the believing rationalist apologist.
Justin,
One good rationalist apologetic work is the Edwards and Edwards chiasmus study in BYU Studies. It used scientific methodology, was very persuasive, and the authors indicated that they would have published their results regardless of what the outcome was.
I don't know that we can pigeon-hole any one person as 100% rationalist or confessionalist. Probably there's a spectrum.
My impression of Bushman is that he has a very short list of non-negotiables. This allows him to be flexibly rationalistic about most things, but also to maintain belief in a few basic doctrines. He also tries to take a "suspensive" approach in his scholarship, meaning that he brackets religious truth claims and tries to approach his subject matter in a way everyone can agree on. He doesn't succeed in that-- there are definitely a lot of embedded apologetics in RSR-- but he's a fair and balanced enough person that his apologetics aren't too objectionable.
Perhaps one reason there aren't a lot of thoroughly rationalist Mormon apologists is that thorough rationalists don't stay Mormon very long. But a larger reason is probably that the Church explicitly endorses a confessionalist view.
Peace,
-Chris
"I don't know that we can pigeon-hole any one person as 100% rationalist or confessionalist. Probably there's a spectrum."
Agreed.
" He also tries to take a "suspensive" approach in his scholarship, meaning that he brackets religious truth claims and tries to approach his subject matter in a way everyone can agree on."
Yeah. I saw your article at BCC where you argue against suspensive historiography. I thought it was good.
"He doesn't succeed in that-- there are definitely a lot of embedded apologetics in RSR-- but he's a fair and balanced enough person that his apologetics aren't too objectionable."
Yeah, I have noticed some apologetics in RSR, but as you say, they aren't overwhelming and are not hard to accept in general.
"Perhaps one reason there aren't a lot of thoroughly rationalist Mormon apologists is that thorough rationalists don't stay Mormon very long. But a larger reason is probably that the Church explicitly endorses a confessionalist view."
Yeah, I've noticed this. Do you think the Church endorses this explicitly, or implicitly through fear of church discipline? In the past, the Church has used the latter (read: september six).
It is explicit as well. See Packer's "Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect" speech, for example.
Yes, I've read that talk (which was exceptionally disturbing). I guess I was thinking more along the lines of the church today. Do you think the type of mentality hinted at in that talk still exists with many of the leaders and apologists (besides E Packer obviously)?
BTW, I thoroughly enjoy your blog and participation in the b'nacle. Keep up the good work!
Thanks, Justin. Yes, I think that mentality is still there. Most of the leaders wouldn't come across as strongly as Packer does, but I think they'd all agree that the purpose of apologetics is merely to remove objections to the operation of the Holy Ghost, and at the end of the day faith has to trump reason. They probably vary as to which principles they consider non-negotiable, though.
What do you think about Kierkegaard's approximation argument? Do we take the leap of faith. When I was folowing the S/R theory it was like pulling teeth trying to understand what each side was saying and wondering why they did not accept my view (the s/r view).
Hi, Noel. The "approximation argument" assumes that true religious faith must exclude the possibility of error-- i.e. that one must possess absolute certainty in order to have true faith. I dispute this assumption. It is arbitrary, and I daresay it isn't the experience of most religious believers. (There are lots of other problems with the argument as well, but I don't want to go off on too much of a tangent here, so hopefully the above will suffice.)
Of course, there is a place for all sorts of perspectives in religious studies.
True Stephen, but the discipline also has certain methodological norms that some apologetic works may not meet due to their presuppositional approach.
In my time in the LDS church I started subscribing to Dialogue. I once asked an American couple what the LDS leadership thought of Dialogue. Their response was that the church was uphappy about the response made by a certain Historian to a Presbyterian pastor on the 1820 revival question (Dialogue, Spring 1969). I learnt later through buying a back issue that this was by Wesley Walters and Richard Bushman. I notice that Walter's paper is never mentioned in RSR as well as Milton Backman's book on the FV.I always understood that the scholarly practice was to mention in your paper those who disagree with you. Maybe Bushman was not very proud of his effort. Walters said he presented his paper to Dialogue and they took a long time responding. His wry comment was that it was probably circulated through the whole BYU history department.
Post a Comment