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.
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.