Posted: Apr 05, 2017 7:40 pm
It's worth noting the difference between apologetics and the scientific method when it comes to establishing truth.
The scientific method is where you look at the evidence, and come to tentative conclusions based on that evidence. When new evidence comes to light, you reassess your conclusions. You're always willing to change your mind when evidence demands it.
Apologetics is where you start with fixed beliefs, and then look for selected evidence to support those beliefs. When the evidence doesn't support the beliefs, you find ways of interpreting it that doesn't conflict. You may reselect the evidence you use (and the evidence you ignore), but the beliefs remain.
I need hardly tell you, or perhaps I do, that you'll find that people here regard the latter approach as intellectually dishonest, and generally contemptible.
The scientific method is where you look at the evidence, and come to tentative conclusions based on that evidence. When new evidence comes to light, you reassess your conclusions. You're always willing to change your mind when evidence demands it.
Apologetics is where you start with fixed beliefs, and then look for selected evidence to support those beliefs. When the evidence doesn't support the beliefs, you find ways of interpreting it that doesn't conflict. You may reselect the evidence you use (and the evidence you ignore), but the beliefs remain.
I need hardly tell you, or perhaps I do, that you'll find that people here regard the latter approach as intellectually dishonest, and generally contemptible.