Thanks for this discussion on method. Whether it was intended or not, parts 1 and 2 provide a succinct look at the two poles of apologetics: the argument(s) for the "thing," on the one hand, and the use of arguments to persuade, on the other; from David's emphasis on the arguments with a philosophical emphasis through Paul Gould's expansion into the aesthetic and cultural to Paul Copan's focus on persuasion. Disagreements over what apologetics is can result from not giving both poles their due. I picked up the attitude during my schooling years that it was all about arguments; if people didn't get it, they were just being "intellectually dishonest," and one could shake the dust off one's shoes and leave them for evangelists to deal with.
Louise Cowan's line, "I had been expecting logical proof of something one was intended to recognize. What was needed was a way of seeing," is not only quotable but keeps in view both of the poles. I think it's fair to point out that recognition can come through logical proofs; people are wired differently (and I don't think she would have differed, from what I heard from her at UD). I think we'd all agree, at least, that recognition is what we want to give people the chance to experience.
Thanks for this discussion on method. Whether it was intended or not, parts 1 and 2 provide a succinct look at the two poles of apologetics: the argument(s) for the "thing," on the one hand, and the use of arguments to persuade, on the other; from David's emphasis on the arguments with a philosophical emphasis through Paul Gould's expansion into the aesthetic and cultural to Paul Copan's focus on persuasion. Disagreements over what apologetics is can result from not giving both poles their due. I picked up the attitude during my schooling years that it was all about arguments; if people didn't get it, they were just being "intellectually dishonest," and one could shake the dust off one's shoes and leave them for evangelists to deal with.
Louise Cowan's line, "I had been expecting logical proof of something one was intended to recognize. What was needed was a way of seeing," is not only quotable but keeps in view both of the poles. I think it's fair to point out that recognition can come through logical proofs; people are wired differently (and I don't think she would have differed, from what I heard from her at UD). I think we'd all agree, at least, that recognition is what we want to give people the chance to experience.