Audio only:
Dr. Karlo Broussard responds to critical comments on a prior discussion about apologetics, arguing that objections based on ineffectiveness, misused logic, or poor examples fail to justify abandoning apologetics altogether, while highlighting the need for charity and sound reasoning in its practice.
TRANSCRIPT:
Hey friends, welcome back to the channel. So glad to have you here with me today.
You might notice I’m in a bit of a different setup here for this video, and that’s because I thought every once in a while it might be beneficial for me to come to you and share some spontaneous thoughts on issues or maybe respond to comments on some of the episodes that don’t quite meet the mark for a full-blown episode for the channel, but nevertheless can be beneficial, fruitful, and helpful to think through some of these issues.
And so what I’d like to do in today’s video is respond to some comments that were offered in response to episode one, should we ditch apologetics? These comments are negative in nature and are offered as criticisms or counterarguments to some of the things that I said in episode 1.
Now, the first thing that I’d like to share in response is that I think these negative comments provide justification for episode one. One might think that, well, Karlo, why would you do a show providing a defense for apologetics? Like, doesn’t everybody think apologetics is a good thing to do?
Well, these three negative comments show that the answer is no. Not everybody thinks apologetics is something that we should be engaging in. A lot of people have negative views about apologetics. So at least at a bare minimum, these negative comments justify doing episode one and trying to provide a defense for continuing to do apologetics. All right.
So with that said, let’s now take a look at the three comments.
The first of which is in response to an argument that I posed at the beginning of episode one. I was responding to the argument that we should give up on apologetics because apologetical arguments don’t always work. So my response, my rebuttal of that was, if we should give up on apologetics because apologetical arguments don’t always work, well then we would have to give up on love and prayer too since love and prayer don’t always work too. They don’t bring about the desired result sometimes. But premise two, since we don’t want to and shouldn’t give up on love and prayer, then it would follow in the conclusion that we shouldn’t give up on apologetics either. simply because apologetical arguments don’t always work.
So this individual is responding to that argument by saying this actually Jesus told the apostles to shake the dust from their sandals of any place where the people didn’t believe. And this individual goes on to cite Matthew 10:9-14 and then concludes as always whatever you believe you will find proof of in the gospels and also for the exact opposite of what you believe too.
Now, as I read this comment, it seems that the individual thinks Jesus’s teaching to shake the dust off of their sandals, speaking to the apostles, means or proves that we should give up on apologetics entirely whenever apologetical arguments don’t work. But I don’t think Jesus’s teaching proves that thesis. If this teaching of Jesus were to prove that we need to give up on apologetics entirely simply because apologetical arguments sometimes don’t work well then Jesus would have intended would have had to intend for the apostles to give up on preaching the gospel itself to give up on the preaching ministry simply because some people don’t believe but of course that’s not what Jesus intends with this teaching in Matthew chapter 10. Rather, what Jesus is instructing the apostles to do is that whenever somebody or a particular city doesn’t receive the gospel message, then you just move on. You go to another city rather than driving to drive it down their throat. You just go on to another city. Jesus is not saying that whenever somebody doesn’t believe, well, you just stop the preaching ministry entirely. Again, if this were to prove what this individual thinks it proves, that’s what Jesus would have to have taught. But surely that’s not what Jesus is teaching.
Similarly, just because some people don’t buy the apologetical argument or the apologetical argument doesn’t work in a particular individual circumstance, that doesn’t mean we give up on apologetics entirely. It just simply means we move on to the next person rather than trying to drive the arguments down somebody’s throat and cast our pearls before the swine to refer to another teaching of Jesus.
So, while I appreciate this individual sharing his or her comments in response to that argument in episode 1, I do not think it proves what he or she thinks it proves. It fails to justify the thesis that we need to give up on apologetics entirely simply because apologetical arguments sometimes don’t work.
Okay, so here’s a second negative comment. And this also is in response to that argument that I gave at the beginning of the episode. And this individual writes this, “Wow, an amazing syllogism at the start of the program.” He’s referring to that argument that I just shared with you. I hope you don’t use it very often, and here’s why. And then this individual offers a parallel argument that apparently is intended to provide to show the absurdity of my argument. Premise one, if we give up on hating others, then we would also have to give up being unkind and resentful. Premise two, but we don’t want to give up being unkind and resentful. Therefore, conclusion, we shouldn’t give up on hating others. And the individual concludes my point is that your syllogism is useless as it can be used to justify almost anything.
Okay. And then in this case he’s saying it’s this argument this parallel argument is being used this logical form is being used to justify the conclusion we should not give up on hating others which of course is absurd.
Now, in response, this individual is correct that both arguments, my argument and this parallel argument have the same logical form. They’re both modus tollens arguments. If A, then B, not B, therefore not A. That’s the logical form of my argument in episode one. And that’s the logical form of this parallel argument. But just because two arguments have the same logical form and are sound and valid in their logical form, they’re both valid arguments. That doesn’t mean we have to we must ascent to both conclusions. Right? And the reason why we don’t necessarily have to ascent to both conclusions even though they both have the same logical form is because the premises are different, and we’re not going to assent to and accept the premises in both of the arguments.
So in my argument, if we should give up on apologetical arguments, if we should give up in apologetics because sometimes apologetical arguments don’t work, then we would have to give up on love and prayer too because sometimes they don’t work. That consequent logically follows from the antecedent. Okay? But premise two, we all agree with. We shouldn’t give up on love and prayer simply because sometimes they don’t work. And so therefore, the conclusion naturally follows. We shouldn’t give up on apologetics simply because apologetical arguments don’t always work. And so in that argument, we all agree, at least people of goodwill would agree that we shouldn’t give up on love and prayer.
In the parallel argument, even though it has the same logical form, we are not necessitated to ascent to the absurd conclusion we should not give up on hating others because we don’t agree with premise two, which stated we don’t want to give up being unkind and resentful. Nobody of good will believes that premise, thinks that premise is true. It’s absurd to say that we don’t want to give up on being unkind and resentful. No, people of goodwill want to give up being unkind and resentful. And so, because premise two of this parallel argument is false, we don’t ascent to premise two, the conclusion doesn’t follow. The argument doesn’t work. It doesn’t go through. Therefore, we would not have to assent to the conclusion that we should not give up on hating others. We can still hold that we must give up on hating others.
Okay? So again, even though both arguments have the same logical form, that doesn’t necessitate that we have to ascent to the conclusions in both arguments. And again, the reason why is because in the arguments, the premises are different. And while we’re assenting to the premises in one argument, we’re not assenting to the premises in the other argument. At least in particular, premise two of the parallel argument because premise one is sound like it’s true. If we give up on hating others, we would also have to give up being unkind and resentful. That consequent logically follows from the antecedent and that’s true. But because we reject premise two, that conclusion doesn’t follow. We do not have to ascent to that conclusion.
So again, I appreciate this individual sharing his or her comments in response to episode 1, but this parallel argument fails to show the absurdity of my argument.
Okay. Now, finally, the third comment that I’d like to interact with goes as follows. I think you’re giving people bad advice. Catholic apologetics is terrible right now and the advice currently given by Catholic apologists on YouTube is awful and mostly wrong. Thus, your advice is a disservice. You should encourage people to stop doing apologetics and learn the Catholic faith correctly before doing apologetics.
Okay. So, there are a few different things going on here in this comment. The first of which I I agree with. We need to learn the Catholic faith correctly before doing apologetics. No qualms there. So we have common ground here.
Now where I disagree with this individual is in the claim that we should stop doing apologetics. Now why does this person think we should stop doing apologetics? Well, the person says Catholic apologetics is terrible right now. Now the question becomes why does this individual think ap Catholic apologetics is terrible right now?
Well, one possible reason that this person gives is advice currently given by Catholic apologists on YouTube is awful and mostly wrong. Well, is it true that there are some Catholic apologists who give bad advice and their and the advice is wrong and who are engaging in fallacious argumentation, giving bad arguments in support of Catholic belief? The answer is yes. But just because some Catholic apologists fall short of meeting the mark of what it is to be a good Catholic apologist, that doesn’t mean we have to throw apologetics out the window entirely. And in fact, there are some Catholic apologists who do well in presenting arguments and support and defense of the Catholic faith. My own colleagues at Catholic Answers do this. Jimmy Akin, Joe Heschmeyer, Trent Horn. So just because some Catholic apologists don’t do very well in apologetics, that doesn’t mean we have to throw apologetics out entirely.
Now, there’s another possible reason why this individual thinks Catholic apologetics is terrible right now that I want to interact with. And that is perhaps this individual thinks it’s terrible because some Catholic apologists online give arguments in in a very aggressive and in even in sometimes uncharitable way where they cross the boundaries of charity and how they interact with their interlocutors and objectors. And if that’s the issue, I agree there are some who do that. But again, just because there are some Catholic apologists who fall short of exercising charity and doing apologetics in a charitable and cordial way, that doesn’t mean that apologetics itself is bad and that we need to, as this individual put it, stop doing apologetics.
So, I sympathize with some of the reasons why this individual has sort of this negative view of apologetics, but I don’t think it’s it justifies rejecting apologetics as a whole. In fact, I would invite this individual to show us how it’s done, right? Do apologetics in a way that’s consistent with charity, in a way that’s effective, and provide us an example of how to do apologetics, right? If there’s a problem in the world of apologetics, well, then provide for us a solution. That’s my invitation.
So, again, I appreciate all of these individuals who offered their comments in response to episode one, should we ditch apologetics? I do not think these negative comments justify the claims that they’re making, namely that we should just give up apologetics entirely. And at the same time, I do think that their comments provide some useful insights for us in evangelization as a whole and in particular in doing apologetics.
So my friends, I hope that what I shared with you today is in some way helpful for you, that you can garner some insights here that can be practically applicable in your own ministry of doing apologetics. And as always, I want to thank you for joining me. I invite you to consider supporting this podcast and help me keep this podcast video podcast going by supporting us over on Patreon at drcarlo.com with Dr. spelled out four different levels of membership that you can sign up for from $5 a month to $100 a month. What a variety of different perks that you can get in those different levels of membership. And again, like I said, that helps keep this podcast going. So, I would greatly appreciate your financial support over on Patreon. As always, until next time, God bless and I’ll see you around.