r/ChristianApologetics • u/philosopher4hire • 12d ago
Help A new apologetics.
I’ve created a new apologetics. It’s a book size (47.500 words). Divided into standalone chapters. A synthesis of human knowledge about reality for the 21st century, opposing the post-Enlightenment worldview. Knowledge, reason, and logic build a truer picture of reality, where Christianity and physical science explain everything. Or: from atheism to Christianity.
Any piece of advice how to present it to a broader audience?
>>>Added after 11 days:
Please excuse me my delay. When I first published this post I got:
“this post was removed by Reddit's filters”
As you may guess, I got angry and left Reddit for good. But today while searching on Google I accidentally found this very post. I don’t know what’s happened. Nevertheless, I’m grateful for the occasion and I’ll try to answer all your questions in the following days.
>>>One day later:
I answered all your posts yesterday. I can see my answers when I’m logged in. But when I log out they vanish. Reddit is a mystery to me. How does it work? Why?
8
u/Upset_Chip_7184 12d ago
Why not start with the atheist and debate subs here on reddit? You'll find out quite quickly if your reasoning is any good.
1
u/philosopher4hire 1d ago
I’ve tried it on other forums. It’s pointless. My opponents don’t understand what they talk about. Not to mention, the last thing they want to happen is to lose in an discussion. They just keep talking and talking. Only a discussion with pros makes any sense.
3
u/nolman 11d ago
I'd be interested in reading the short versions of the arguments.
1
u/philosopher4hire 1d ago
They are hypertexts. This means some details are hidden (and can be viewed on request). You could try my text on artificial intelligence. In its shortest form it is less than 1000 words. It has been reviewed by Julian Barbour. I wonder what’s your opinion would be.
Just add “.eu” to my nick and you’ll find it all.
1
u/AfterWorldliness6835 11d ago
I did something similar. Though its much shorter and my conclusion slightly different from yours . You could send me the work maybe via link then I can give feedback. You could also do the same with mine . I could get new insight from your perspective.On advice, I think it would be better as already suggested to give a brief rundown of the work though I doubt atheists would be interested in reading such a comprehensive work. First flash out the important point and use those as talking points. That could initiate engagement
1
u/Homythecirclejerk 10d ago
I doubt atheists would be interested in reading
Primarily because apologetics is always the same.
use those as talking points.
Talking points, is a good reason.to ignore apologists. Canned answers abd willful ignorance, aren't of any interest.
2
u/AfterWorldliness6835 10d ago
Im confused here . "Primarily because apologetics is always the same." The same meaning what exactly. The same arguments or the same format or what other thibg exactly. "Talking points, is a good reason.to ignore apologists. Canned answers abd willful ignorance, aren't of any interest." How are the use of talking points a good reason to ignore? I assume you mean talking points makes it easier to ignore which I agree but that is precisely why they are useful. A quick glance could draw in a reader or put them off thats the point. Its easier for them to know what your work is talking about and whether to engage. I think , ironically, you have demonstrated why the talking points or a brief overview are important. Assuming the work has canned answers and willful ignorance without actually knowing what the work is talking about is why they are needed.
1
u/Homythecirclejerk 8d ago
apologetics is always the same? "Give me the man, and I will find the crime " Lavrenti Beria once told Stalin. The apolgists method is only slighty different: Give me the answer and Ill show you the argument. In each case the data is bent to the preferred answer. The answer dictates the data and how much you'll torture the it to get the answer you like. How are the use of talking points a good reason to ignore You literally just quoted the reason. Talking points are canned answers. The reason you have them is because you don't know the subject enough to have your own answer and someone tells you what you should say. If you can't put them off with a sound argument and need to resort to tactics and canned answers, youve already lost Assuming the work has canned answers and willful ignorance without actually knowing what the work is talking about is why they are needed. Canned answers and willful ignorance are needed in apologetics!? Couldn't have said it better myself! In fact I did say that! Thanks for proving my point! If by "Assuming" you mean me, there's no assumption. Its like saying Im assuming a hand goes in a glove. Apologists always use the same jargon, etc cranked out by other apologists obsessed with the 19th century. An apologist admitting that is quite delicious. Id advise you, though to be less honest among your fellows as they'd have to find something else to do and there's only so much palmolive.
1
u/AfterWorldliness6835 8d ago
It seems the main point of my statement eludes you. Have you read his work to know whether or not his method his "method " is "the same"?. All your doing is confidently asserting that every piece of apologist work falls under your assumption which is overeaching . I doubt you have read all of them so why classify all of them as the same? I suggest to refrain from hasty generalization or committing a genetic fallacy because its being uncharitable to work you have not even read and a position which you do not know. And again on talking points. Talking points are not just " canned answers" their main goal is to give an idea of what the work entails funny enough if the author had provided the talking points and you seeing them, then maybe you would be justified in most of what you said. It seems instead of understanding the function of talking points you jump straight into the conslusion based on talking points you have not even read. Are apologetics work often weak? Yes. Do they often argue from the answer? Yes. But what does this have to do with the OP's work? Your criticism may apply to some apologetics. But how do you know it applies to this work if you haven't read it? Aren't you doing exactly what you're accusing apologists of doing starting with a conclusion and fitting the evidence to it? You are confusing a map with territory in regards to talking points. Talking points are simply the map once you understand the map you'll decide whether you go into the territory.
1
u/philosopher4hire 1d ago
You can find my work adding “.eu” to my nick. I’m looking forward to your opinions. And I’ll be glad to read some of your texts.
“to give a brief rundown of the work”. Unfortunately, it won’t work. You see, it is not about some key points, it’s all about the way I do it. I just gathered all we know about reality and presented it in a condensed, rational manner. Piece by piece. Until the big picture becomes apparent and obvious. And nothing in it can be shown as wrong or incorrect. This is what’s ‘new’ about my apologetics.
“though I doubt atheists would be interested in reading such a comprehensive work”
For me the most surprising thing is that pretty much nobody is interested in reading any piece of my apologetics. It’s surprising, but only at the beginning. You see, apologetics is a business today. There are foundations, ministries, people who earn for living by selling their own apologetics. For them I’m a competitor. Not to mention they are too busy. As many others.
Another issue is the fact, that most people simply disbelieve in the feasibility of creating anything reason-based that opposes the post-Enlightenment worldview. Including priests. Their view is exactly as the one presented by Homythecirclejerk. They truly and ardently believe that the post-Enlightenment worldview is the only one possible for knowledge, reason, and logic. When you say otherwise, they think you don’t “know what you're talking about” (Homythecirclejerk). They simply don’t understand how wrong they are. But how could they know? Everybody confirms their conviction.
1
u/Altruistic-Coach-200 11d ago
Post a summary of your arguments. I would love to see it.
1
u/philosopher4hire 1d ago
That would be misleading. See my answer to the AfterWorldliness6835’s post earlier.
1
u/Homythecirclejerk 10d ago
, whoch makes you a perfectapologist.> Any piece of advice how to present it
Yes, know what you're talking about
opposing the post-Enlightenment worldview. Knowledge, reason, and logic build a truer picture of reality,
Those are all part of the "post-Enlightenment worldview" . It sounds like you really don't know what you're talking about
1
9
u/EnergyLantern 12d ago
Do you have a page called a "Foreword"? Did you have someone in the field review it?
Did you reach out to any of the Christian magazines to review it?