I was browsing Deacon‘s site to see how he was doing with the people of various xtian stripes and their proclamations about what god wants them to do. It’s fun pay a visit.
And low and behold that most pernicious of snake oil salesman hove into view, the professional apologist. These guys earn a living defending their dogma from criticism because of something the believers or actual text says. But don’t think that these guys are your normal god botherer, no these guys don’t come down to pat answers when they are cornered. You know, “Well it takes faith” or, “god works in mysterious ways” etc.
No these guys take a whole other approach and have their own jargon, dictionary and supercilious hauteur. Before they’ll argue with you they will insist that you need to have read everything ever written by anybody connected to xtianity in a positive manner, however if you find anything untoward in any of them you can’t use that because they are obviously not of the superior classes of xtian apologist. I mean Strobel puhleeeze, he’s okay as gateway to the faith but not by any means a serious commentator. This was taken from the blog of one particularly odious member of the society of apologists. His ivory tower appears to be so high that he doesn’t understand the fact that the majority of xtians are indeed believers in a personal god and do try and convert you with the more regular arguments doesn’t enter into it. Strobel and his arguments actually make sense to them and he and his kind and their musings are as foreign to them as the thoughts behind string theory, if not more so.
The xtians who are liable to vote for a theocracy are not those in seminaries and university departments of religion. No most of the xtians in the world are going to follow simple all encompassing proclamations from their leaders.
The unfortunate thing about the output from this society is that it is virtually unreadable by anybody outwith the in group. And this is not because of lack of effort it is because of how the in group allows authors to reason. Plural words are not really plural, omnipotent means something completely different, supporting arguments are from other apologists based on what some other apologist wrote that was in turn based on a thought experiment. It is all so reminiscent of post modernism and the amazing output from that somewhat discredited discipline. Although I am sure somewhere there is a collection of “real” pomo intellectuals decrying the fact that we haven’t read their work illustrating that what was exposed as a farce was not “real pomo”. (On Deacon’s site I wondered if there is an equivalent to a Sokal type essay generator, so the poor sap apologists don’ have to trawl through obscure texts and convoluted reasoning to knock out an essay.)
I guess that the pomo err sorry xtian apologist elite can go on redefining the word omnipotent, god (plural vs singular) or even whether your invisible sky faerie wears a red hat or a blue one to their hearts’ content. Because it appears that the non-believers have a more real handle on how religion is practised in the actual world than the so-called religious highbrow.