Apologetics: practical vs. theoretical knowledge

A note from the author (11/5/2023): I originally wrote this back in September. I took it down because I was afraid it might be too negative and sound like I was attacking other apologists. Truth be told, I was a little annoyed when I wrote it. But I just re-read it and decided it's worth posting after all. So here you go.

Knowledge of what is is different than knowledge of how to. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who want to make a living by giving advice to other people on how to without having a lot practical experience.

If you want advice from somebody about how to invest in the stock market, you should talk to somebody who has been successfully investing in the stock market for a long time. You shouldn't go to somebody who has only read a lot of books about investing or taken college classes on investing but hasn't actually put that knowledge into practice.

Would you want to learn how to do brain surgery from somebody who had never performed a brain surgery but who had only read about it or came up with what he thought was a great idea? Would you want fishing advice from somebody who has only watched fishing shows on TV but has never gone fishing?

If you want parenting advice, you should go to somebody who has succesfully raised good, moral, well-adjusted, and successful children. I don't care if somebody has a PhD in psychology. If they haven't successfully raised children of their own, then their knowledge is only theoretical. It doesn't necessarily mean they have nothing to contribute, but they are not the best person to go to for advice, especially if you have access to somebody with real experience who has been successful.

Speaking of which, Brett and Erin Kunkle are the real deal.

The internet is full of people who want to give life advice, relationship advice, and all sorts of advice, but haven't lived long enough or had enough experience to really be qualified. Just today I stumbled across a 25 year old kid who called himself a life coach. That is ridiculous. He may have gained some insight from people who mentored him or from the short life he has lived, and maybe he has something to offer, but nobody should go to somebody that age for life advice. He doesn't have enough life experience to justify putting himself in that kind of position. If you want a life coach, go to somebody in their 60's or older, who has already lived out the majority of their lives. And go to somebody who has done so succesfully--who has had good relationships, done well in life, and is thriving.

Everything I've said so far is leading up to the real point I want to make in this blog post. There are a lot of people who are trying to make a living by being professional apologists. Apologetics is about defending your worldview, your beliefs, or whatever cause you want to promote. There are some apologists who actually do that, but many of them don't. Instead, they make their living by teaching apologetics to others. Their audience is other Christians, and they insulate themselves from real criticism.

The problem is that unless they have real world experience defending their beliefs and interacting with people who disagree with them, and unless they have had success in doing so, they aren't qualified to teach others how to defend their faith. A lot of people think they are qualified to teach because they've read a lot of books, watched a lot of lectures and debates, and they have developed a lot of theoretical knowledge. Theoretical knowledge is important, but it's not adequate to being a good apologist. Being a good apologist is something you learn by being in the trenches, dialoging with people, finding out what's pursuasive and what isn't, getting feedback from critics, etc. There's a trial and error aspect to communicating. As you go back and forth with people, you find out where your weaknesses lie. You may have weaknesses in communicating clearly, or you may have weaknesses in the content of your defense. You may have all the right answers and all the best arguments which you learned from books, but you are unable to have a productive conversation with people because they won't listen to you, or you can't control your emotions, you lack the people skills necessary to keep people interested, or you dont know how to communicate your knowledge in an accessible way.

This is something I've been thinking about for a few years. Since I have social anxiety, I don't engage in apologetics much in real life. Most of my interactions happen on the internet. They have happened on this blog, other people's blogs, and on YouTube, but the vast majority of it has happened on discussion forums. A few years ago, I was pretty active on Reddit. The longer I was there, the more I started noticing that I was mostly all alone. There were a few Christians trying to do apologetics on there, but I didn't see many people who were really good at it--who knew there stuff, were articulate, could respond well to objections, and could engage hostile people with grace and maturity. I began to wonder, "Where is everybody?" That's when I started thinking about this. There are a lot of people who presume to teach others how to defend their faith, but they aren't in the trenches doing it themselves. They are doing apologetics without an opponent.

I believe you can learn something from anybody. Everybody knows something, and most people know something most other people don't. But if you are going to seek out people to learn from, seek out people who know what they're talking about. If you want to learn how to defend your faith, learn from people who actually defend their faith, who listen to what their critics say, and who respond to their critics. And seek out, especially, people who are successful at it.

That last part is the hard to define, though. How do we measure success? At what point can we say that our apologetic method is effective? Success and effectiveness can be measured in different ways. A Christian can be considered successful if they were obedient in sharing the gospel even if nobody converts. Success is measured by their obedience and in overcoming whatever fear and anxiety they had about sharing the gospel. Success can also be measured by whether you got your point across in a way the other person could understand, even if the other person doesn't agree. Success can be measured by whether you maintained civility when dialoging with somebody about a controversial and emotionally charged subject. In the case of formal debates, success can be measured by your win rate. Yes, as crass as that may sound, that's how you measure success in debating. When it comes to apologetics, the purpose is to persuade, and the primary way we ought to measure the effectiveness of our apologetic is by whether it successfully persuades others.

By that criteria we might as well admit that most of us are not effective at all. In that last 25 years, there have been maybe a handful of times when somebody has contacted me and told me I changed their mind about something. But aside from somebody telling you that, you probably have no idea how many people you have influenced. People can be influenced who were just on the sidelines watching.

I have been talking so far about effectiveness in "doing apologetics," and by "doing apologetics," I mean communicating reasons to think your point of view is true to other people and responding to their questions and objections. Doing apologetics well requires having a good vocabulary, having good communication skills, having good people skills, and having some degree of cleverness. However, you can't even get off the ground if you don't have some knowledge. By stressing practical knowledge, I do not at all mean to diminish the necessity of theoretical knowledge.

In the case of theoretical knowledge, though, you should be mindful of who you go to for information. Do you go to your dentist for advice on how to fix your car? Do you go to your mechanic for dietary advice? Do you go to a doctor for legal advice or a lawyer for medical advice? If you want good theoretical knowledge, you should go to people who are experts in the subject you are interested in.

Apologetics is a multisciplinary field. It draws from other fields like history, science, philosophy, and theology. There are some apologists who are experts in one of these fields. William Lane Craig, for example, is an expert in philosophy. But most professional apologists are not experts in any particular field, and they quite frequently butcher some of the subjects they address in their literature and talks. I'm not saying you shouldn't bother reading apologetics literature at all. I think you should if you want to get into apologetics. What I am saying, rather, is that you should not rely solely on apologists for your information about science, philosophy, history, or theology. If you want to master some subject in apologetics that involves cosmology, then you should read literature from actual cosmologists. If you want to master historical arguments about Jesus, you should read literature from professional New Testament historians.

You shouldn't just read literature from people who agree with you either. If you were to get a PhD in physics, you'd be forced to read literature from people who subscribe to string theory and people who reject string theory. If you want to get a PhD in ethics, you'll be forced to read literature from people who subscribe to consequentialism and people who reject consequentialism. Part of becoming educated in a particular subject involves hearing all the voices of all the people who are experts in that field. If you want to become a good competent apologist, you should strive to become as well-equipped as you can on whatever subject in apologetics you want to specialize in. It's good to know a little bit about everything, but realistically, you're never going to be an expert on everything.

My advice is only aimed at those who want to excel at apologetics. If you want to dip your toe in, sure, just read a few apologetics books. But if you want to become a good apologist, you need to be mindful about who you learn from. When it comes to theoretical knowledge, go to people who are experts in their field. Think of apologetics books as introductions to various topics, not as authoritative sources. When it comes to practical knowledge, go to people who are actually engaging in apologetics and doing it well, not people who are simply teaching other people to do apologetics without doing it themselves. And by "doing it," I don't mean just writing blog posts or books or making youtube videos. I mean interacting with people who disagree with them, subjecting their arguments to scrutiny. And if you decide you want to become a professional apologist (i.e. make a living at it), please don't become somebody who does apologetics without an opponent. If you do, you will be doing yourself and your audience a disservice.

"The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him." Proverbs 18:17

Did Paul really perform miracles?

Yes, probably. You can go now.

Seriously, though. . .the book of Acts says that Paul performed multiple miracles, but it's easy to see why somebody might be skeptical. However, there are some things Paul wrote in his own letters that aren't as easy to deny.

I'm not just talking about a situation in which Paul says he did a miracle or that he witnessed a miracle. That, too, would be easy to deny. We could just say Paul tells tall tales. Instead, I'm talking about a situation in which Paul claims to have done a miracle that his audience witnessed.

For example, in 2 Corinthians 12, Paul was defending his apostleship. He talked about these grand visions he had and how God gave him a thorn in his flesh to keep him humble. He says that he is not inferior to other apostles, then follows it by saying, "The distinguishing marks of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs, wonders, and miracles" (2 Corinthians 12:12).

That is pretty crazy, if you think about it. Whereas anybody might just make up a story they hope their audience will believe, Paul is reminding his audience of something they are in a position to know about. He's claiming they saw it themselves. They would know whether that was true or not. If it wasn't, we should expect them to think, "What on earth is he talking about?" And we wouldn't expect Paul to say something like that if he knew they knew it wasn't true.

If Paul was lying, then that's some major gaslighting.

If Paul is telling the truth, as he almost certainly was, then what sort of an event might he have been talking about? One possibility is that Paul's signs and wonders are no different than what we see in a lot of charismatic churches today. There's little evidence that anything miraculous is taking place, but people seem to think the Holy Spirit is healing people, casting out demons, knocking them down, making them speak in tongues, etc. There's a lot of silliness and hysteria that goes on in some charismatic churches. There's probably nothing miraculous going on most of the time, but people do believe there is. Maybe something like that is what Paul is referring to.

That seems unlikely, though. In the case of these charismatic churches, the hysteria and belief people have about these faith healers and word-faith preachers is the result of them already being converted to the worldview, and them having their expectations up. It's different in Paul's case because it looks like, from other passages, that it was common for Paul to use signs and wonders in his evangelism. He was in the process of converting people who did not already believe.

There are a handful of places where Paul reminds his audiences that he is not a good speaker. He expects his audience to already know this. He attributes their conversion to the power of Holy Spirit rather than the pursuasive power of his words. For example, in his first letter to the Thessalonians, he said:

"For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sakes" ~1 Thessalonians 1:5

I used to read that and think Paul was just talking about the inner work of the Holy Spirit in changing people's hearts so that they would be receptive to Paul's message. But when looking at it in light of 2 Corinthians 12, I'm not so sure if that's what he meant. Consider what he said to the Corinthians in an earlier letter.

"And when I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come as someone superior in speaking ability or wisdom, as I proclaimed to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I also was with you in weakness and fear, and in great trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of mankind, but on the power of God." ~1 Corinthians 2:2-5

In this passage, Paul says he came to them "in demonstration of the Spirit and of power," but in 2 Corinthians he says, speaking to the same audience, that he performed signs, wonders, and miracles (2 Corinthians 12:12). It's possible he's talking about two dististinct events, but I doubt it. I suspect when Paul refers to the "demonstration of the Spirit and of power" that accompanied his speech, he was talking about the signs and wonders he performed for the Corinthians.

When Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, he had not yet visited Rome. He was writing to a church he did not plant. But he explains his mission to gentiles in that letter. He says,

For I will not presume to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me, resulting in the obedience of the Gentiles by word and deed, in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Spirit; so that from Jerusalem and all around as far as Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ." ~Romans 15:18-19

It looks like it was normal for Paul to present the gospel to people both in word and in demonstrations of the Spirit that manifest themselves in signs and wonders. That's a pretty bold thing for Paul to say, and it should be a little startling for us to read.

There is always room for doubt, but considering the fact that Paul claims on multiple occasions to different audiences that his preaching of the gospel was regularly accompanied by signs and wonders which were instrumental in the conversion of his audience, and he even says these thing to the very people who were the recipients of the message and the signs, that it almost definitely happened. Add to that Luke's account of Paul's miracles in Acts, and this strikes me as good evidence that Paul performed miracles. At the very least, if you're bent on being skeptical, Paul performed what he and his audience took to be miracles.

Is Last Thursdayism possible?

Last Thursdayism is the idea that all of us and the world around us just came into existence last Thursday. We have what appear to be memories of a past that pre-dates last Thursday because when we came into existence, our brains were formed in such a way as to contain those false memories.

Last Thursdayism isn't actually a belief a certain segment of the population believes in. It's mainly just used as a thought experiment to illustrate certain points. I've invoked it to illustrate how it's possible to know some things without being able to prove them. I can't prove that anything happened before last Thursday, but I'm nevertheless justified in thinking it did. However fallible my memory may be, it still justifies me in believing certain things about the past.

Last Thursdaism can't be disproved by some appeal to evidence because the world would look exactly the same whether it's true or false. Our memories would be exactly the same, too.

This thought experiment rests on the mere possibility of Last Thursdaism. A person might object to Last Thursdaism on the basis of something else they know by intuition--it's impossible for something to come from nothing. If it's impossible for something to come from nothing, then Last Thursdaism isn't possible.

Does this undermine the thought experiment? I don't think it does. First, I think Last Thursdaism can be offered as a logical possibility. Creation out of nothing isn't a logical impossibility. It's more of a metaphysical impossibility. So Last Thursdaism can be logically possible without being metaphysically possible.

Second, it depends on what you're using Last Thursdaism to illustrate. I use it to illustrate the fact that we can know some things without having to prove them. A person might object to my illustration by saying, "We know there's a past because creation out of nothing is impossible, so things couldn't have just popped into being fully formed." But the reality is that we all know there's a past, and our intuition about creation out of nothing has nothing to do with it. We don't reason from that intuition to our belief in the past. That makes the impossibility of creation out of nothing irrelevant to the illustration.

Third, as I've said in some previous posts, I don't think thought experiments necessarily have to describe possible states of affairs in order to do some work for us. Even if we grant that Last Thursdaism isn't possible (whether physically, logically, or metaphysically doesn't matter), we can imagine it being possible, and we can use that imaginary state of affairs to illustrate our point. It's similar to how Aristotle imagined a state of affairs in which the law of non-contradiction didn't hold in order to illustrate why we all know it does. His scenario wasn't possible, but it gets the point across.