Talk:Apologetics
From Theopedia
Linking to pages that don't exist might be preferable, because it often encourages people to start contributing content. This is a common practice on wikipedia. Grace and peace! -Aaronshaf 19:46, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Contents |
Recent revert of Mrd edit
I reverted to previous version because Mrd's edit inserted a sentence into a "quote," which I'm sure was unintentional. We must find another way to introduce "God of the Gaps". Gomarus 10:25, 30 Oct 2005 (EST)
- Whoops, did I really? Sorry about that. I will think about this after church. Mrd 11:06, 30 Oct 2005 (EST)
Possible Approach
The problem that I have with the current Apologetics section is that it seems to aimed at Philosophers, who are but a fraction of those who apologetics are aimed at.
Could we re-structure it something like the following:
Apologetics
- brief definition - purpose
Apologetics for Philosophers
- current breakdown
Apologetics for Scientists
- Occam's Razor / "I have no need of that hypothesis" (LaPlace) - review of John Polkinghorne, Paul Davies, etc. - reference to God of the Gaps
Lifestyle Apologetics
- (dare I say it: apologetics for the non-intellectual?) address objections such as - uniqueness of salvation in Jesus (big bugaboo for many) - "we don't need a set of rules" - other ideas ?
Other Apologetics?
So: you guys have more experience at this encyclopedia design thing — is this a viable approach? Should the subsections be headings or separate pages, if so?
Mike Mrd 14:44, 30 Oct 2005 (EST)
- This looks good to me. I say go for it. If things need to be changed afterwards, we can work that out.
- I think there is a need to address apologetics with the terminology found in traditional Christian theology and Christian academia. There is certainly nothing wrong with a more novel approach, but I think we must find a way to include (and define) the classifications a reader will find in other sources: e.g. classical, evidential, presuppositional, or whatever. Gomarus 15:28, 30 Oct 2005 (EST)
Hi Gomarus, Your encouragement to link in with the classifications found in other sources is good advice, and I will ponder how to do that. My suggested approach was, however, my attempt at doing just that. I have two "groups" of apologetics texts on my bookshelf:
- the science apologetics of Polkinghorne and Davies; and
- "the others" (I was suggesting the name "Lifestyle Apologetics" for them) which include Mere Christianity, In Understanding be Men, Basic Christianity (and wasn't there Evidence that Demands a Verdict many years ago?).
These two groups seem to speak a completely different language from each other, and from the Theopedia article (the Theopedia discussions of cosmology, for example, worry about points that would be of no interest to most Physicists - we want to know how the laws of physics came to be so beautiful and self-consistent, why are there patterns that repeats themselves in totally unrelated parts of the cosmos. Maybe that's what that article was talking about, but it is using such a different language than, say, Stephen Hawking, that we miss the point.)
I'll keep thinking about it. Have to go do paid work now,
Blessings,
Mike Mrd 01:47, 31 Oct 2005 (EST)
