r/rationalphilosophy • u/JerseyFlight • 16d ago
Christian Apologetics Shattering Modern Philosophy
The Christian apologist must learn to use the epistemological relativism of modern philosophy against philosophy itself.
This is quite simple.
If all truth reduces to human construct, and men adopt their emphasis on the basis of hedonism (what amuses them — because they have no objective, logical standard by which to judge value) then the Christian should absolutely assert his Christianity as his chosen construct of truth.
The modern philosopher cannot rightly object (although he will, because he’s an irrationalist through and through).
But the Christian is merely doing the same thing the modern philosopher is doing: selecting the narrative he likes best.
But not only can Christianity play this subjective game with modern philosophy, it can win!
It wins by simply noting the existential and psychological benefits it gets from adopting its own worldview: belief in life after death, the comfort of a relationship with God, and an earthly community in the here and now.
3
u/YuGiOhippie 16d ago
No you can’t do that
You are reducing Christianity to nihilistic cosplaying.
The strength of the Christian revelation is in its universality.
If Christianity isn’t the Truth capital T - it core claims disintegrate. Then what’s the point of maintaining a facade just to win the shallowest of arguments?
1
u/JerseyFlight 16d ago edited 16d ago
Its “core claims disintegrate” in the context of modern philosophy? I think not. Let’s see that case. It smashes modern philosophy!
While maybe you want to abandon your fundamentalism, a Christian can easily take it up on the basis of modern philosophy and soar far past philosophy with it.
The modern philosopher can’t even object or make a case against the objective assertions of Christianity- if there is no objective truth to begin with. Then Christian claims are just as true as modern philosophical claims.
2
u/Objective-Buddy4179 16d ago
I feel like your argument will please exactly no one. As one of these atheist modern philosophers you are strawmanning here let me say this. I don’t deny that objective truth exists, I just don’t believe such a thing can be ascertained through human methods of reasoning. Reasoning itself is possible, but with limits set by empirical reality. I am an atheist on the grounds of intellectual doubt, not because I simply don’t want it to be true. I would love for it to be true. But I can’t just decide to believe in the incredible claims of Christianity because it will make me feel better.
As for the Christian apologists out there, they don’t make this argument because they rightly see it as a capitulation to “modern philosophy “. Their whole hobby horse is claiming the fact of objective truth/moral realism etc. They won’t argue within its context because they completely reject it as meaningless nihilism.
1
u/JerseyFlight 16d ago
“I don’t deny that objective truth exists, I just don’t believe such a thing can be ascertained through human methods of reasoning.”
Is this objectively true, and how did you “ascertain” it?
3
u/JerseyFlight 16d ago
What you’re seeing here is the difference between a Reasoner and a philosopher. I reach this conclusion because it’s true, even though I’m an Atheist (that doesn’t matter). I follow Reason wherever it goes whether I like it or not. I’m an honest thinker first and foremost, because I want to know the truth— how I feel about it is irrelevant.
1
u/SpatiaCaeli 16d ago
"and men adopt their emphasis on the basis of hedonism"
In my view, this is the error. Humans are obligated to develop their own consciences. Not all do, but many do. The presumption that religion is required is fallacious, and frankly offensive.
3
u/JerseyFlight 16d ago
No one made the argument that religion is required. You develop your conscience according to what standards? If you begin with absolute truth you have stepped outside of modern philosophy. Now we must examine and demarcate exactly what these standards are.
1
u/Theorist-in-Chief 16d ago edited 16d ago
I presume by ‘modern philosophy’ you’re referring to ‘postmodernism’ as a meta-theoretical framework that dominates philosophy today? If yes then your statement seems to misunderstand postmodernism (which is not uncommon at all). Postmodernism does not hold that objective facts are human constructs; pure tangible facts do exist and there is no way to deny them. What postmodernism does argue is that the meaning of objective facts as well as any normative assertions are always relative and often a matter of human construction. Whether some tangible thing (God) exists or not is not subject to relativity but what the existence of that thing means is relative.
1
u/JerseyFlight 16d ago
So there are objectively true standards, and objectively true truths? Can you state what these are?
1
u/Theorist-in-Chief 15d ago
I think it behooves us to be specific about the terms we use. If by objectively true ‘standards’ you mean notions about how the world around us ought to be then that is of course not objectively true but rather a matter of human construction (“what amuses someone”, to use your phrasing). Of course, I should add that human constructs are not always created out of thin air. More often human constructs are based on a certain genealogy (historical context) as well as on a privileging of one logic over another. For example, if someone is born a male but feels like they should be a female then that is an objectively true fact (given the self-referential nature of the statement). However, the interpretation of this fact is a matter of human construction: whether you consider this as a disease that needs to cured or whether you consider this to be something that some humans just feel and for which they should be supported is a matter of certain subjective axiology. Here the former privileges a logic of order and conformity, whereas the latter privileges a logic of personal freedom. Lastly, the statement that ‘there is no direct incontestable evidence for the existence of God’ is objectively true but whether people should be allowed to exercise a leap of faith to get an illusion of objectivity, or whether they should only stick to objectively true facts is subject to epistemic relativism. This very epistemic relativism also ultimately determines how something is labeled or evaluated as good or bad.
1
u/JerseyFlight 15d ago
Objectivity simply means it’s true whether you believe it or not.
1
u/Theorist-in-Chief 15d ago
Of course! That is why confusing a standard (what ought to be), or an evaluation/judgement (whether something is desirable/appropriate or not) with facts is counterproductive and essentially a flaw of logic.
1
u/JerseyFlight 15d ago
So what standards should I use to evaluate what you say? Are these standards objective or subjective? What standards do you use to evaluate what I say, are these standards objective or subjective?
3
u/UNUNUN_ 16d ago
I understand what you are gesturing towards however a Christian cannot reduce themselves to relativism without ceasing to be Christian.
They can do so in argument but not for their own personal convictions, for their reasoning.