“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
Natural
Apologetics
Christian
Apologetics
Catholic
Apologetics
Natural = Philosophy = Reason Alone
Christian & Catholic = Theology = Reason and Revelation
“Apologetics without Apology”
by Mark Brumley
Why do some people see bread and some people see Jesus?
“Apologetics without Apology”
by Mark Brumley
The Light of Faith and the Eyes of the Intellect
“Apologetics without Apology”
by Mark Brumley
Apologetics and Evangelization
“The Nature, Power, and Limitations of Apologetics”
Handbook of Catholic Apologetics
by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ
A Mini-Lesson in Logic
Understanding
• TERMS – Clear or
Unclear
Judging
• PROPOSITIONS
– True or Untrue
Reasoning
• ARGUMENTS –
Logically Valid or
Invalid
“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
“The Nature, Power, and Limitations of Apologetics”
Handbook of Catholic Apologetics
by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ
Probable Arguments and Converging Clues
“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?
“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
“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
Emotional
Intellectual
Volitional
Feeling of trust
or confidence
Stable and
unchanging
belief
Act of the will;
commitment to
obey
Hope deeper
than a wish
Belief deeper
than an opinion
Love deeper
than a feeling
Heart
Choosing our
fundamental
option of yes
or no to God
and thus
determining
our eternal
identity and
destiny
“Faith and Reason”
Handbook of Catholic Apologetics
by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ
Definition: “The Object of Reason”
Understood
(Apprehension)
Discovered
(Judgment)
Proved
(Reasoning)
“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
“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
(a) understand,
(b) discover, or
(c) prove any truth.”
Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 36
“Faith and Reason”
Handbook of Catholic Apologetics
by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ
Definition: “The Act of Reason”
Understanding
Discovering
Proving
By reason alone
and not part of
divine revelation
What a star is made
of
That Pluto exists
The Pythagorean
theorem
By reason and by
faith in divine
revelation
Why the universe is
so well ordered
The historical
existence of Jesus
That the soul does
not die
Not by reason,
only by faith in
divine revelation
God’s plan to save
us
How much God
loves us
God is a Trinity
Kreeft and Tacelli, p. 36
“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
B
A
A
A
A=B
B
B
A
B
“Faith and Reason”
Handbook of Catholic Apologetics
by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ
Faith is a subclass of Reason = Rationalism
R
F
“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
“Faith and Reason”
Handbook of Catholic Apologetics
by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ
Reason is a subclass of Faith = Fideism
F
R
“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
“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
“Faith and Reason”
Handbook of Catholic Apologetics
by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ
Faith and Reason are Mutually Exclusive = Dualism
F
R
“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
“Faith and Reason”
Handbook of Catholic Apologetics
by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli SJ
Faith and Reason Connect and Intersect = Partial Overlap
F
a
b
R
c
“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
Five Possible Answers to the Relation Between Faith and Reason
Only need Reason
to know everything
Everything I can know by
Only need Faith to
Faith I can know by
know everything
Reason and vice versa
F
F=R
R
Faith for matters of Religion,
Morals, etc. and Reason for
everything else
F
R
There is some overlap/connection
between what is known by Faith
and what is known by Reason
F
R
“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
“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
“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
The Objects, Expressions, Acts and Problems of Reason
Object:
What is understood
Object: What is
discovered
Object: What is
proven
(Expressed by a
term, which is clear
or unclear)
(Expressed in a
judgement, which is
true or false)
(Expressed in an
argument, which is
valid or invalid)
Act: Understand
Act: Discover
Act: Prove/Reason
Problem:
misunderstand
Problem: fail to
discover or
ignorance
Problem: commit a
fallacy
Absolute Relativism
by Chris Stefanick
Absolute Relativism
by Chris Stefanick
“Are Science and Religion Really Enemies?”
by Fr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk
False Dilemma
Giving only two options when many exist
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
Science cannot tell us about the outer limits of the
universe so the universe must be infinite
Ad Baculum
Appeal to force
If you do not comply with the distribution of certain
healthcare procedures, there will be severe monetary
consequences
Ad Misericordiam
Appeal to pity
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
Statistically most Americans are in favor of limiting
the practice of Abortion, thus it should be limited
Ad Verecundiam
Appeal to fame or expertise
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
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
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
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 hoc, ergo propter hoc
After this therefore because of this
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
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
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
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: 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
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)
Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God
The Ontological Argument
God as “Greatest Possible Being”
FR, p. 27-28; peterkreeft.com #13
Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God
The Ontological Argument
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
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”
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
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
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
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
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
Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God
The Kalam Argument
God as the “Personal Mind Who Caused the Universe”
peterkreeft.com #6
Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God
The Kalam Argument
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its
coming into being.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its
coming into being.
God as the “Personal Mind Who Caused the Universe”
peterkreeft.com #6
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
Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God
The Argument from Miracles
1. A miracle is an event whose only adequate
explanation is the extraordinary and direct
intervention of God.
2. There are numerous well-attested miracles.
3. Therefore, there are numerous events whose
only adequate explanation is the extraordinary
and direct intervention of God.
4. Therefore God exists.
God as the “Supernatural Power Behind Miracles”
CC, p. 28-29; FR, p. 25; peterkreeft.com #9
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
Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God
The Argument from Desire
1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds
to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in
time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
3. Therefore there must exist something more
than time, earth and creatures, which can
satisfy this desire.
4. 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
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
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
Fourteen Arguments for the Existence of God
The Argument from Religious Experience
1. Many people of different eras and of widely
different cultures claim to have had an
experience of the "divine."
2. It is inconceivable that so many people could
have been so utterly wrong about the nature and
content of their own experience.
3. 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
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
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
The Problem of Evil
by Peter Kreeft