What could you teach people without ever explicitly mentioning religion, that would raise their general epistemic waterline to the point that religion went underwater?
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. − 1 Thessalonians 5:21.
Confound not truth with falsehood, nor knowingly conceal the truth. - Quran 2:42.
Except “truth” in these memeplexes is regularly redefined to mean “the beliefs of our religion, which are ‘proved’ by the existence of our holy books.”
It’s not an argument, but it is a fact that the (observed, socially accepted) meaning of “truth” in Christianity, Islam, and possibly other religions is vastly different from the simple meaning of truth.
I’m sure actually rigorous apologetics realize this shift in the definition of truth doesn’t constitute an argument. However, “raising the sanity waterline” isn’t helped terribly much by convincing a (relative) few academics with (relatively) small readerships that defending religion isn’t a worthwhile use of their time.
This one seemed sketchy to me, until I remembered that the older meaning of “prove” was not to establish irrefutably, but to put to the test. Taken in that light, it makes a lot more sense.
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. − 1 Thessalonians 5:21.
Confound not truth with falsehood, nor knowingly conceal the truth. - Quran 2:42.
Except “truth” in these memeplexes is regularly redefined to mean “the beliefs of our religion, which are ‘proved’ by the existence of our holy books.”
That’s not an argument that religious apologists really use, though, so much as it’s a parody of apologetics.
It’s not an argument, but it is a fact that the (observed, socially accepted) meaning of “truth” in Christianity, Islam, and possibly other religions is vastly different from the simple meaning of truth.
I’m sure actually rigorous apologetics realize this shift in the definition of truth doesn’t constitute an argument. However, “raising the sanity waterline” isn’t helped terribly much by convincing a (relative) few academics with (relatively) small readerships that defending religion isn’t a worthwhile use of their time.
This one seemed sketchy to me, until I remembered that the older meaning of “prove” was not to establish irrefutably, but to put to the test. Taken in that light, it makes a lot more sense.