NationStates Jolt Archive

Now I've been told by Lux that apologetics does not get peer reviewed because it is regarded as a philosophy not a science. That I know of philosophy does not make statements of fact but rather is a practice of questions. Apologists seem to regularly make statements of fact such as God created the world in 6 24 hour days, God flooded the world beyond the tops of the highest mountain peeks, An ark carried the life that was to repopulate the world after the great flood, The tower of Babble was where languages became diversified etc. If the field of apologetics is a valid field of study than obviously there most be some peer review process. I have not discovered any.

Perhaps I'm wrong but I would be more inclined to listen to an apologist if I knew some one was checking into that apologists claims. The way it is right now it seems I could make any claim about the Bible so long as I claim that claim proves the authenticity of the Bible and no one in the field of apologetics will dispute it. I could claim something like the Bible is written with magical lettering that when placed together in a certain logical and Holy way form a picture of Jesus Christ on the cross and no one who has written an apologetic book or is in that field of study will attempt to dispute it.

Peer review is how other fields of research gain their legitimacy why shouldn't apologetics be subject to the same scrutiny?

Now I've been told by Lux that apologetics does not get peer reviewed because it is regarded as a philosophy not a science. That I know of philosophy does not make statements of fact but rather is a practice of questions. Apologists seem to regularly make statements of fact such as God created the world in 6 24 hour days, God flooded the world beyond the tops of the highest mountain peeks, An ark carried the life that was to repopulate the world after the great flood, The tower of Babble was where languages became diversified etc. If the field of apologetics is a valid field of study than obviously there most be some peer review process. I have not discovered any.

Perhaps I'm wrong but I would be more inclined to listen to an apologist if I knew some one was checking into that apologists claims. The way it is right now it seems I could make any claim about the Bible so long as I claim that claim proves the authenticity of the Bible and no one in the field of apologetics will dispute it. I could claim something like the Bible is written with magical lettering that when placed together in a certain logical and Holy way form a picture of Jesus Christ on the cross and no one who has written an apologetic book or is in that field of study will attempt to dispute it.

Peer review is how other fields of research gain their legitimacy why shouldn't apologetics be subject to the same scrutiny?

uh.. because no one would ever agree on anything.
Religion is often ambiguous, faith can't be proven, people will believe what they want to anyway. There is no equivalent to the scientific method that could be or even should be applied to apologetics.
The best thing to do is research it yourself and come up with your own conclusion.
Don't take anything at face value and don't believe something because someone else says it is so. Check it out always.

All things should gain legitimacy through careful scrutiny by others. I would say that apologetics is no different, that indeed it does have that questioning. Thus, the cause for the disagreements and splits within religious institutions.
- Friedrich Tomalson
Sophmore, Tyslan High