To shuffle the format of what I’ve been doing–I don’t always want to have a streaming block of text–I’m obviously going to do something a little different. I became interested in apologetics from watching YouTube, and from time to time, I still explore the medium. I will often use videos from YouTube as prompts into the topic I’m going to write about. Recently, I found one that I’d like to use for the described use.
Usually, I like to avoid individuals like her on YouTube. They’re pseudo-intellectuals who spew sophistry, and really don’t add anything to the discussion. But for some reason, I feel obligated to tear this apart.
First of all, she uses the word “disproof” too liberally. Disproof means something was deductively and logically outright proven to be false. This is a bold and ambitious claim, hence, she better have one amazing argument to back it up. Alas, she doesn’t.
Her argument goes something like this:
Definition of religious apologetics = the practice of inventing “retroactive continuity to make reality and the book (the Bible) match” or “jumping through mental hoops or doing verbal gymnastics to make Scripture and reality agree”
1) Religious apologetics exist
Therefore, religion is false.
When you employ deductive reasoning like BionicDance is attempting to do, your argument must be valid. This means there’s no way the premises, or premise in this case, can be true and the conclusion false. It’s obviously not valid, so we can dismiss it right there. But lets for the sake of argument, grant her validity. Would the argument be sound?
Well, not likely. Her definition of religious apologetics is controversial and objectionable to begin with. The burden of proof falls on her in every case of religious apologetics to show her definition holds true. So, you can reject the only premise on the basis it’s false.
Moreover, the most popular definition of apologetics does have a religious connotation, but by no means is the discipline exclusive to the institution. Out of charity, I let BionicDance’s definition be solely attached to religion, but there potentially could be apologetics for anything. In fact, evolutionary apologists exist. So BionicDance, does that mean evolution is false? Even if the evidence seems to unequivocally support a proposition, apologists will still appear. For instance, I witnessed my brother defend Aaron Rodgers as being a good quarterback to some people who thought he was overrated during the Atlanta vs. Green Bay Divisional Playoff Game. As a side note, my brother was quite persuasive and compelling, but I digress.
BionicDance, I conclude that your video was clearly a rant and hardly an argument, “which sounds to me like you’re running on automatic instead of thinking.”