Introduction to Apologetics Essay Example for Free

Introduction to Apologetics EssayIntroductionThis is a critique of L. Russ renders The Advancement. In order to properly ascertain the individual comp anents as well as the overall success of bush-leagues work, this article deploys the use of a general summary, followed by a section of critical interaction, and last a conclusion. In the end, elements of Bushs argument prove invaluable, while others miss their target.SummaryChapter 1 begins with an historical review of the redbrick worldview formation. This includes first the secular worldview, inspired by the focus on emancipation inherent in the Enlightenment. Bush then begins to explore the details ofthe Christian alternative. This discussion reaches a terminate as he notes the contrast of the new and old worldviews. In the earlier view there is a natural stability in both history and in nature. Progress or decline atomic number 18 products of a persons relationship or lack of relationship to God, and neither is fatal historically (15). Ultimately Bush concludes, The older worldview is not true (just) because its old, and it too may be in need of refinement in light of better understandings of the Bible, but authentic Christianity is the scoop up antidote for a culture that is dying from the venom of the Advancement (17).See more how to write an introductionChapter 2 begins to set off the components of the overall worldview, that which Bush calls The Advancement. Here, again, Bush delves deeper into the historical relationships among science, secularism, and Christianity. He addresses the historic belief, God operates outside of the cause-and-effect pattern evident in the Universe (20). Bush notes that while cause-and-effect reasoning was originally limited to certain areas of study, lateity and postmodernity consume witnessed cause-and-effect spreading into countless fields (21).In addition, Bush explores the origins of modern materialism, uniformitarian thought, and evolution. From here he displays the historic sour of these philosophies on modern ethics. The most critical issue of ethics is the loss of humanness at the transfer of the animal origins suggested in evolutionary theory. Humans are no longer human. They are but nude apes (35).Chapter 3 explores The Advancement and Theory of Knowledge. The core of this address deals with the epistemological battle between conflicting philosophies of prey and subjective law. Bush notes that naive realism demands that the human mind is merely an effect of the system that created it. Therefore, he believes that this, in turn, places scientific study, amongst other things, at the mercy of subjective relativism (40).Bush compares this to fivefold epistemological views based on a theistic foundation. After several theories, he at last concludes that naturalismhas reclassified biblical ideas as culturally, earlier than reverently, inspired (52). The collective government issue of secular modernism is a loss of polit ical freedom and honorable accountability (50).Chapter 4 explores Modern Theistic Alternatives. Bush points to various groups of non-biblical philosophies such as process theological system and open theology, which recognize the potentiality, and even perhaps the need for God. However, he concludes that these beliefs are incomplete at best and through these beliefs, Ultimately, God is naturalized, and the modern worldview prevails (64). The following two chapters investigate naturalistic evolution. Bush spends Chapters 5 and 6 addressing the seven assumptions of evolutionary biology (65-72), ten axioms of modern scientific thought (72-76), and four basic beliefs of modern thinkers (77-78). He follows this groundwork with five simple objections to naturalistic evolution (80-83).Critical InteractionOverall, Bushs outline follows a semi-logical progression. However, in spite of the overall congruency, certain elements are lacking the necessary ingredients for a successful dissertatio n. Ultimately, Bushs massive undertaking becomes his downfall. The very concept of the Advancement is a smother of component worldviews. In his attempt to attack this comprehensive concept, Bush ends up falling victim to the very(prenominal) weakness as postmodernism. Ambiguity and muddled worldviews become self-contradictory. The book gives the impression of a single spend fighting a multitude of s state of warming enemies. In his worthy attempt at defeating the collective Advancement, Bush ends up using the wrong ammunition on the wrong enemy. This happens in two panaches. First, though he has the apprehension to break down the overall concept into its respective components, he often reverts back to addressing the overall mentality, which does not technically exist on a broad scale. The postmodern beast is like a serial of viruses that morph in their formation from host to host. The only way to attack it is piece by piece. The junto of postmodern beliefs never takes the sa me form from person to person. Therefore, addressing it as a collective whole finally fails.Second, he frequently attributes relativist beliefs to naturalism and vice versa. Bushs, lack of clarity is pervasive throughout the book. He bounces back and forth between this multitude of worldviews and theories, often with little description of how he intends to relate them one to another.Bush tends to confuse broad, sweeping statements that render worldview differentiation difficult to assess. To the modern mind progress is inevitable (15). In context, It is difficult to discern whether Bush is referencing secular minds, Christian minds, or the all-inclusive popular depression of modernity, irrespective of religious foundation. As Bush acknowledges, chronological limits are not always clear and ideas come along gradually (7). Phrases such as modern mind become increasingly ambiguous in the thick of paragraphs and subsections, which themselves are bouncing between religion, secularism , time periods, and keystone philosophies that transcend designated periods or belief structures. The end result is a dizzying series of statements that present more frustration and confusion than clarity and conclusion.Specific statements that lack reference work further confound Bushs message. In Chapter Two, he claims that there are three ideas that guide up the longstanding alternative worldview of Christianity stability in nature, spiritual warfare, and historical change initiated by divine intervention (9). Bush gives no indication about where he has derived these three ideas. He does this multiple time throughout the book. Chapters 5 and 6, as mentioned in the summary, are made up of lists of apparent assumptions, axioms, and beliefs that represent the foundations of multiple worldviews. However, again, Bush neglects to cite his reasoning for calling upon these specific elements of each worldview. This may leave readers questioning the authenticity of the claims, and if it doesnt, perhaps it should. These lists are especially important to the overall purpose of the book as they represent the aggregate of alternative worldviews, which Bush is seeking to critique. Without clarification of source and accuracy, readers should be cautious in adopting his overall strategy, though individual responses still have value.In addition to issues of clarity and viability, Bush has a tendency to gauge secular worldviews from the subjectivity of a Christian understanding. This is most evident in his repeated portrayal of naturalism as ethically un feasible. While this may certainly be true, and while it may provide a valuable argument in some light, Bush confuses the need for morality with the need for truth.His response to the loss of humanness associated with natural evolution is, It is not an optimistic picture (78). While this is certainly a viable proclamation, it ultimately does little to answer the question of truthfulness. Morality is contingent upon trut h and not the other way around. The truth of moral and logical principles does not correspond to reality in the same way as do statements about observable empirical facts. Assuming that Gods truth is correct, then a lack of morality is a viable argument. However, the argument relies upon the presupposition that Gods truth is, in fact, correct.Bush continually fails to fully consider the worldview he addresses. One example of this is found in his discussion of why Modern Thought Fails(59-61). Again, he seems to confuse the ultimate reality of objective truth, with the anthropomorphic limitations of subjective truth. Truth, as it has been traditionally defined, does not exist necessarily in this modern scientific worldview. There is only temporary correctness, warranted assertions, and majority opinions (60). This is not an accurate assessment. Bush is simply acknowledging that human subjectivity and limitation keeps humanity from discovering ultimate truth. That does not mean that t his truth does not exist.The true divergence in the two worldviews lies where the ultimate truth is found. For science, ultimate truth is in natural law. That does not change based on our momentary correctness, assertions, or opinions. wishwise, biblically speaking, humanity operates similarly, but God is the ultimate source of truth rather than natural law. Human subjectivity exists in both models, and this momentary understanding may be accurate or inaccurate.However, the point is simply that human subjectivity fails to influence ultimate truth in either model. Bush misses this in his conclusion, The relativism of modern thought is self-defeating (80). This is simply not true. Relativism only acknowledges the finite nature of human understanding.ConclusionLike an under trained spy in the enemys camp, Bushs Christian worldview and assurance upon morality remains overly influential in his assault on the mixed set of hypotheses that make up The Advancement. His inability to remain focused on a single worldview sucks the reader into a tornadic war against a constantly shifting, ever-growing enemy. In the end Bush may succeed in refuting the validity of the umbrella view of The Advancement, on the basis of self-refutation, but fails to win the individual battles that truly matter.BibliographyBush, L. Russ. The Advancement. Nashville Broadman Holman, 2003.Groothuis, Douglas. Christian Apologetics A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith. Downers Grove IVP Academic, 2011.