“
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 61

“ Apologetics without Apology” by Mark Brumley PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 108 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

“ Apologetics without Apology” by Mark Brumley. Greek word apologia “ Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence” (I Peter 3:15) Definition of. “ Apologetics without Apology”

Download Presentation

“ Apologetics without Apology” by Mark Brumley

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

“Apologetics without Apology”

by Mark Brumley

Greek word apologia

“Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence” (I Peter 3:15)

Definition of


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

“Apologetics without Apology”

by Mark Brumley

Natural = Philosophy = Reason Alone

Christian & Catholic = Theology = Reason and Revelation


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

“Apologetics without Apology”

by Mark Brumley

Why do some people see bread and some people see Jesus?


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

“Apologetics without Apology”

by Mark Brumley

The Light of Faith and the Eyes of the Intellect


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

“Apologetics without Apology”

by Mark Brumley

Apologetics and Evangelization


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

“The Nature, Power, and Limitations of Apologetics”

Handbook of Catholic Apologetics

by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ

A Mini-Lesson in Logic

“A term is clear if it is intelligible and unambiguous. A proposition is true if it corresponds to reality, if it says what is. An argument is valid if the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. If all the terms in an argument are clear, and if all the premises are true, and if the argument is free from logical fallacy, then the conclusion must be true.”

Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 19-20


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

“The Nature, Power, and Limitations of Apologetics”

Handbook of Catholic Apologetics

by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ

Probable Arguments and Converging Clues


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

“The Nature, Power, and Limitations of Apologetics”

Handbook of Catholic Apologetics

by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ

Is this argument probable or demonstratively certain?


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

“Faith and Reason”

Handbook of Catholic Apologetics

by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ

Definition: “The Object of Faith”

“The object of faith means all the things believed … This faith … is expressed in propositions. Propositions are … expressions of the content believed … without propositions, we cannot know or tell others what God we believe in and what we believe about God.”

Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 32-33


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

“Faith and Reason”

Handbook of Catholic Apologetics

by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ

Definition: “The Act of Faith”

The Four Dimensions of Religious Faith


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

“Faith and Reason”

Handbook of Catholic Apologetics

by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ

Definition: “The Object of Reason”

“The object of reason means all that reason can know. This includes three kinds of things, corresponding to the ‘three acts of the mind’ in classical Aristotelian logic. It means all truths that can be [a]understood by reason (that is by human reason alone without faith in divine revelation), [b] discovered by human reason to be true, and [c] proved logically, without any premises assumed by faith in divine revelation.”

Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 35


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

“Faith and Reason”

Handbook of Catholic Apologetics

by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ

Definition: “The Act of Reason”

  • “The act of reason … means all the subjective, personal acts of the mind by which we

    • understand,

    • discover, or

    • prove any truth.”

  • Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 36


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

“Faith and Reason”

Handbook of Catholic Apologetics

by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ

Definition: “The Act of Reason”

Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 36


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

“Faith and Reason”

Handbook of Catholic Apologetics

by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ

Five Possible Answers to the Relation Between Two Sets of Things

A = B

A

B

A

B

A

B

B

A


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

“Faith and Reason”

Handbook of Catholic Apologetics

by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ

Faith is a subclass of Reason = Rationalism

“Rationalism holds that everything we can know by faith can be understood, discovered, or proved by reason, but not vice versa … Very few Christian thinkers have claimed this. Anselm seems to have been one … Hegel was a very different kind of rationalist … Today Hegel’s kind of rationalism is quite popular, but Anselm’s is … totally extinct.”

Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 38

R

F


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

“Faith and Reason”

Handbook of Catholic Apologetics

by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ

Reason is a subclass of Faith = Fideism

“Fideism contends that the only knowledge … we can have is by faith … fideism must mean that either that all … truths, outside religion, … come under some kind of nonreligious faith … The main candidate for this ‘nonreligious faith” is faith in reason itself. Pascal, for instance, argued that to trust reason in the first place must be an act of faith and not rationally provable …”

Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 39

F

R


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

“Faith and Reason”

Handbook of Catholic Apologetics

by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ

Faith and Reason are Interchangeable = Identity

F = R

“ … an identity between what is knowable by faith and what is knowable by reason, is a logical possibility, but no one we know of has ever held it.”

Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 39


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

“Faith and Reason”

Handbook of Catholic Apologetics

by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ

Faith and Reason are Mutually Exclusive = Dualism

F

“Dualism is a popular position today … [It] simply divorces faith and reason, placing them into two separate compartments. It usually does this by (a) reducing reason to scientific, mathematical, and empirical reasoning and (b) reducing faith to a personal, subjective attitude.”

Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 40

R


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

“Faith and Reason”

Handbook of Catholic Apologetics

by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ

Faith and Reason Connect and Intersect = Partial Overlap

“If this is the correct position, it follows that the Christian apologist has two tasks: to prove all the propositions in class b and to answer all objections to the propositions in class a … Christian thinkers do not all agree about how many of the propositions of faith can be proved by reason, but most have held that some could (thus apologetics is possible) but not all (thus apologetics is limited).”

Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 40-41

F

a

b

R

c


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

R

F

F

F

R

R

F

Five Possible Answers to the Relation Between Faith and Reason

Everything I can know by Faith I can know by Reason and vice versa

Only need Reason to know everything

Only need Faith to know everything

F = R

R

There is some overlap/connection between what is known by Faith and what is known by Reason

Faith for matters of Religion, Morals, etc. and Reason for everything else


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

“Faith and Reason”

Handbook of Catholic Apologetics

by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ

Faith and Reason Can Never Contradict Each Other:

Only Falsehood Can Contradict Truth

The authors on Summa Contra Gentiles I, 7

“Either Christianity is false, or reason is false, or – if both of them are true – there can never be any real contradictions at all between them since truth cannot contradict truth … We can misunderstand the faith, and we can misuse our reason. Opinions can certainly contradict faith, but reason itself cannot.”

Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 42


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

“Faith and Reason”

Handbook of Catholic Apologetics

by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ

Faith and Reason Can Never Contradict Each Other:

God is the Teacher in Both Faith and Reason

The authors on Summa Contra Gentiles I, 7

“Every possible argument against every Christian doctrine has a rational mistake in it somewhere and therefore can be answered by reason alone. If this were not so … then one of those arguments from unbelievers against one of the doctrines of Christianity … would really and truly prove … Christianity untrue.”

Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 43


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

“Faith and Reason”

Handbook of Catholic Apologetics

by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ

“There are three ways to be foolish: (a) to misapprehend or misunderstand or fail to grasp; (b) to be ignorant, to fail to know or discover; and (c) to be illogical and faith to prove, to commit a fallacy. At least one of these three follies, or mistakes, corresponding to the three “acts of the mind,” must be present in every argument against the truth, and therefore also against the truth of the Christian faith. And since these three follies are follies of reason, right reason can refute them.”

Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 44


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

The Objects, Expressions, Acts and Problems of Reason

Object:

What is understood

(Expressed by a term, which is clear or unclear)

Act: Understand

Problem: misunderstand

Object: What is discovered

(Expressed in a judgement, which is true or false)

Act: Discover

Problem: fail to discover or ignorance

Object: What is proven

(Expressed in an argument, which is valid or invalid)

Act: Prove/Reason

Problem: commit a fallacy


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

Absolute Relativism

by Chris Stefanick


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

Absolute Relativism

by Chris Stefanick


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

“Are Science and Religion Really Enemies?”

by Fr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk


False dilemma

Giving only two options when many exist

False Dilemma

If we do not pass gun control laws now, we will never stop the rising number of murders in Chicago


Ad ignorantiam

Claim that a statement is true or false because it is unknown

Ad Ignorantiam

Science cannot tell us about the outer limits of the universe so the universe must be infinite


Ad baculum

Appeal to force

Ad Baculum

If you do not comply with the distribution of certain healthcare procedures, there will be severe monetary consequences


Ad misericordiam

Appeal to pity

Ad Misericordiam

Look at these poor mothers who are burdened with the care of so many children in sub-Saharan Africa, we must promote population control


Ad populum

Appeal to majority

Ad Populum

Statistically most Americans are in favor of limiting the practice of Abortion, thus it should be limited


Ad verecundiam

Appeal to fame or expertise

Ad Verecundiam

Dr. Smith has doctorates in medicine, law and physics and he says that the city should expand to outlying areas. Thus, Nashville must develop better commute systems to and from the suburbs.


Ad hominem

Personal Attack

Ad Hominem

You cannot listen to what she has to say, can’t you see what kind of life she is living!


Hasty generalization

Considering only exceptional cases

Hasty Generalization

Two adults have drowned in the last week off the coast of Finland. We must mandate swimming lessons for all adults because clearly they do not know how to swim


False analogy

Comparisons which seem similar but are actually different

False Analogy

The Church cannot tell me what I should do in my personal life, just like the government cannot tell me what color shoes to wear!


Post h oc ergo propter hoc

After this therefore because of this

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

Just after a cold spell came through I developed an earache. The change in temperature caused my earache.


Begging the question

Failing to back up a claim

Begging the Question

Nike is the most quality basketball shoe on the market – just look at how quality they are!


Circular reasoning

Assuming what you are arguing for

Circular Reasoning

For greater financial stability you need to have a larger savings account, because the more you have in savings the more you are financially secure.


Straw man

Distorting the opponents position

Straw Man

A small tax cut should be made for small-business owners.

A tax cut! How can we afford billions of dollars of lost revenue to selfish and greedy business owners who do not even care for the needs of their own employees.


Composition division

Drawing false conclusions from a whole or it’s parts

Composition/Division

Composition: This iPhone malfunctions regularly. All iPhones are junk.

Division: The Ford Mustang won this year’s top prize for design quality. Its engine is the best designed engine in the world.


Non sequitur

Conclusion does not follow from the premises

Non Sequitur

Affirming the Consequent: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained. (If A then B, B, therefore A)

Denying the Antecedent: If it rains, the ground gets wet. It is not raining, therefore the ground is not wet. (If A then B, Not A, thus not B)


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God

The Ontological Argument

God as “Greatest Possible Being”

FR, p. 27-28; peterkreeft.com #13


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God

The Ontological Argument

Anselm's Version

It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone.

"God" means "that than which a greater cannot be thought."

Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality.

Then a greater than God could be thought (namely, a being that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence).

But this is impossible, for God is "that than which a greater cannot be thought."

Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.

From: Peter Kreeft’s “20 Arguments for the Existence of God”


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God

The Argument from Change/Motion (Aquinas)

God as “Unmoved Mover”

CC, p. 21-25; FR, p. 23-24; peterkreeft.com #1


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God

The Argument from Efficient Causality (Aquinas)

God as “Uncaused Cause”

CC, p. 21-25; FR, p. 24; peterkreeft.com #2


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God

The Argument from Time/Contingency (Aquinas)

God as the “Self-Existent Necessary Being”

CC, p. 21-25; FR, p. 24; peterkreeft.com #3


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God

The Argument from Perfection (Aquinas)

God as the “Absolute Perfection”

CC, p. 21-25; FR, p. 24; peterkreeft.com #4


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God

The Argument from Design (Aquinas)

God as the “Mindful Designer”

CC, p. 18-20; FR, p. 24-25; peterkreeft.com #5


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God

The KalamArgument

God as the “Personal Mind Who Caused the Universe”

peterkreeft.com #6


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God

The KalamArgument

Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.

The universe began to exist.

Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being.

God as the “Personal Mind Who Caused the Universe”

peterkreeft.com #6


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God

The Argument from Miracles

http://www.lourdes-france.org/upload/pdf/gb_guerisons.pdf

God as the “Supernatural Power Behind Miracles”

CC, p. 28-29; FR, p. 25; peterkreeft.com #9


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God

The Argument from Miracles

A miracle is an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.

There are numerous well-attested miracles.

Therefore, there are numerous events whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.

Therefore God exists.

God as the “Supernatural Power Behind Miracles”

CC, p. 28-29; FR, p. 25; peterkreeft.com #9


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God

The Argument from Desire

God as the “Fulfillment of an Unfulfilled Desire ”

FR, p. 30; peterkreeft.com #16


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God

The Argument from Desire

Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever."

God as the “Fulfillment of an Unfulfilled Desire ”

FR, p. 30; peterkreeft.com #16


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God

The Argument from Conscience

God as the “Source of Absolute Moral Obligations”

CC, p. 25-27; FR, p. 31; peterkreeft.com #15


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God

The Argument from Religious Experience

God as the “Supernatural Reality Experienced by Many”

FR, p. 30; peterkreeft.com #18


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God

The Argument from Religious Experience

Many people of different eras and of widely different cultures claim to have had an experience of the "divine."

It is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about the nature and content of their own experience.

Therefore, there exists a "divine" reality which many people of different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced.

God as the “Supernatural Reality Experienced by Many”

FR, p. 30; peterkreeft.com #18


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God

The Common Consent Argument

God as the “Ultimate Being Deserving of Reverence”

FR, p. 30; peterkreeft.com #19


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God

Pascal’s Wager

God as the “Best Bet”

CC, p. 30-33; FR, p. 33-34; peterkreeft.com #20


Apologetics without apology by mark brumley

The Problem of Evil

by Peter Kreeft


  • Login