Problems with Apologetics (Part 1): Good News vs. Bad News
For as long as I can remember, I found the topic of apologetics intriguing. I've always been a sucker for a good debate. The quick wit of Christopher Hitchens and the sharp analytical mind of William Lane Craig are testaments to the rich capability of the human mind. I am by no means a formally trained philosopher and took the easier path of theology. But I am nonetheless invested in how the Christian faith stands up to scrutiny and I thought it would be interesting, hopefully, to share some of the problems I've encountered thinking about the rationality of Christianity. Like all things relating to these debates, many of these objections are hardly new. But I do feel that we have overstated our case in different ways. Hopefully, these brief objections encourage Christians to steel-man the "other side" of the debate.
Bad News Does Not Demand Good News
Many apologists appeal to the existential anxiety we face when considering that the final state of matter is death. In other words, the thought of our solar system being swallowed up by the sun is scary. The future of our expanding universe essentially being empty is unnerving. The fact that our bodies turn into dust disturbs us. Some of these considerations are extrapolated from physical data. Others, like when we bury a loved one, are experienced in our lifetime. There is a lot of bad news relating to our existence. Christian apologetics claims that this makes no sense apart from some kind of hope. Existence is so meaningful that it appears to require some kind of special, transcendent quality.
I do believe in the hope of the Christian faith. I do believe that this life is not all that there is. But this is not the result of requiring good news to offset the bad news. My experience of hope results from my own encounter with the risen Christ in a deeply personal way. The risen Christ defies what is natural to this world. It is not the counterpoint of death; it is foreign, new, and stands outside of all rational expectations.
But I also accept that the possibility of nothingness does not demand the existence of not-nothingness (this is my best attempt at sounding like a philosopher because they always write sentences that I have to read more than once and half the time don't understand.) In other words, if a doctor gives me the news that I have terminal cancer, I cannot demand the existence of a silver lining. If non-existence is what comes after existence, I am not at liberty to deny this possibility because I do not like this prospect. This might not feel fair. This might not make sense. But that is assuming existence requires justice and intelligibility.
I understand that this apologetical argument is just that: an existential argument. It is not meant to stand alone and it cannot give absolute proof for the existence of God, let alone the existence of the Christian God. It speaks to what we experience. Many do feel the vastness of space and time demands some kind of explanation. And the possibility of there being nothing after death is quite overwhelming. But some find this possibility enriching and rewarding. Some find meaning in the idea of finiteness. We must be aware that for some, this argument falls quite flat and actually speaks against their existential comforts. And we owe it to people to respect that perspective if we are going to engage them with existential arguments.
