I believe Matt Dillahunty to be a true blessing to the inadequacies of popular apologetics.
There is a misconception in the culture of Christian apologetics that thinks it has 'the' answer to truly deep philosophical and scientific questions. Dillahunty represents a popular rebuttal to this. An apologetic conversation, I would argue, operates on various levels. It could stagnate on the first level, which it often does, when arguing about the burden of proof. I do agree that if the burden of proof is a legitimate issue, it's got to be settled.
But if one or the other doesn't understand this issue, the conversation will literally fizzle out right there. After this issue is settled, we get to the meat. And even the meat has various levels. Popular-level apologetics can't get passed the second or third levels of depth in the philosophy, theology, or science that apologetic questions concern themselves with. Dillahunty's sharp and masterly grasp of logical method itself is a rallying cry to either acknowledge the inadequacies of popular level apologetics and/or to go deeper. This contention doesn't decry Dillahunty's abilities as on a popular level, but it does verify that he's confined to popular level responses because the majority of the apologists he debates do not show any evidence of having any acquaintance with deeper issues of philosophy, science, and theology.
 |
| Matt Slick |
If you want to be an apologist in a public forum, you have a responsibility to know the issues. Knowing the issues involves being able to go to the 9th, 10th, or 11th level of depth with the subject. Secondly, you cannot, (I repeat!), you 'cannot', have a script of an argument you want to force-fit your opponent into, especially against someone who already knows the script. The very spirit of Socratic dialogue is that you follow the argument wherever it goes. The intellectual humility and sophistication that must be ready to go down this path must be trained in logical thinking and be acquainted with the subject on a more than superficial level. This is just a fact. Christians aren't all called to be scholars; but if your calling is to defend Christianity in a public forum, you must do your part to be prepared spiritually and intellectually in order to represent the life of the mind in Christ to the non-Christian world. To do otherwise would mean being a substandard ambassador of Christ in the world.
The debate between Matt Dillahunty and Matt Slick displays these inadequacies almost perfectly. Slick's ministry is to be commended for its motives, but it must concede that it is far from the final word on the subjects it covers. Again, 99% of the material on carm.org is 2nd, 3rd level apologetics. It is not sufficient. The popular-level wall that the debate bumps into over and over again demonstrates this. Dillahunty does a masterful job (with some shortcomings I'll point out) using logic to point out inadequate, popular level apologetic method as evidenced by Slick.
Dillahunty admitted that there are absolutes of logic and that they may be immaterial in essence, yet cannot account for them with his worldview. His response was a 'naturalism of the gaps' argument. He said, 'some day we'll show how they can exist apart from a God by naturalism.' What an argument!
ReplyDelete