A sense of belonging

 

An interesting video c/o Genetically Modified Skeptic (further GMS), an atheist YouTuber (his real name seems to be Drew). GMS argues that Christian apologetics is essentially a kind of quasi-intellectual shell game, since the *real* reasons for believing in a religious message usually aren´t intellectual. They are either based on subjective individual experience or (in most cases) a feeling of belonging to an in-group. Both are backed up by rituals, which act as reinforcers. Apologetics is a secondary tool used by a few people to further reinforce their beliefs if they have been severely challenged.  

The point of apologetics is almost never to actually “prove” anything, however. Rather, by staging a “debate” with the skeptic (such as an atheist), the apologist can paint his position as a legitimate alternative and thereby strengthen his position even if he technically loses the “debate” itself. A similar criticism has been leveled specifically against creationists by Steven Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins: the important thing for the creationist is the debate itself (especially if it´s with a prominent evolutionist), not whether they can “win” it, since the debate as such *is* “the win” for an otherwise obscure creationist (or at least obscure within establishment circles).

GMS then shows an excerpt from a video by prominent Christian apologist William Lane Craig, in which Craig seems to admit that apologetic arguments are indeed a kind of second tier evidences for the truth of Christianity, the real evidence being “the witness of the Holy Spirit” (it´s unclear what Craig means by this). Craig even says that a Christian must not be swayed by the second order evidences, because even if they sound convincing, the Holy Spirit somehow guarantees that they will be found wanting in the end. Christian faith can´t be based on the ever-shifting sands of purported “evidences”. But if so, what are we really supposed to be debating in the first place?

GMS also points out that he always receives more vitriolic comments when he attacks concrete abusive practices (or simply socialization techniques) within religious groups, than when he just attacks their theology. This, too, suggests that community-feeling is more important than nominal ideas for many religious people.

Interesting contribution, but…please note that the same thing can be said of atheists, too. For instance, it´s very common (based on anecdotal evidence) that Christian fundamentalists turn atheist when they are in college. That is, away from family and friends in a college dominated by atheists. It´s almost as if they want a sense of belonging or something…