F R. M ATT H E W Z I M M E R

APOLOGETICS

ASSIGNMENT FOR NEXT WEDNESDAY

• Go to the Vatican website and open up the document Fides et Ratio • Either Google “fides et ratio” and follow the link or go to this

web address: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

• Outline the entire document, print out your outline, and bring to class next Wednesday• The outline should follow this model:• Introduction – know thyself (1-6)• Chapter 1 – The revelation of God’s Wisdom (7-15)

• Jesus, revealer of the Father (7-12)

• Etc.

• Read Chapter 4 (36-48)• Be ready for a quiz over this chapter if it seems like you didn’t

read it

IN CLASS ASSIGNMENT

• Split into groups• Put your names (first and last initial)on one sheet of

paper• Using complete sentences, answer the following

questions1. Have I ever been challenged on some element of the

faith? What was it?2. Has there ever been a time when I couldn’t answer a

question about the faith? What was it?3. For each person, write one question about the Faith

that you wish you knew the answer to next to your name.

APOLOGETICS, WHAT IS IT?

• 1. Pick a topic that you are passionate about and know a lot about.• 2. Pick a partner: Convince your partner why it is

important to be passionate about your topic.• 3. 3 groups to volunteer to demonstrate their

persuasive discussion. • 4. What two elements are necessary to be an

effective apologist?• 5. In regards to conveying a message in a

persuasive and effective way, what did you learn?

WHAT IS APOLOGETICS

•Although it might sound and look like it, apologetics is NOT apologizing in the sense of “being sorry for the faith”• We are not sorry for what we believe• The faith comes from God and therefore it is good

•Comes from the Greek word apologia which means “speaking in defense”•Apologetics = the discipline of defending a position through the systematic use of reason

WHAT IS APOLOGETICS

•Apologetics is a discipline•Word originally was used in a courtroom setting – prosecutor delivered the case against the defendant and the defendant offered the apologia•As a discipline, there is a structure to good apologetics• This is not simply a matter of spouting off truths but rather putting forth a rational argument

WHAT IS APOLOGETICS

•Apologetics is about defending a position•Strictly speaking, apologetics can be used for any position•3 Types of Apologetics:•A. Natural Apologetics: Existence of God, God’s

attributes:

•B. Christian Apologetics: How God’s presence is known.

• C. Catholic Apologetics: God’s intention to build the Church and empower the Church with His own grace and authority so that the jaws of

hell shall not prevail against it. •We are going to try to focus on C.

WHAT IS APOLOGETICS

•Apologetics is about using reason•We are given intellect/reason by God•We should be able to use our intellect to defend His teachings

WHY STUDY APOLOGETICS?• There are challenges to the Faith in our lives• Some will come from non-Christians• E.g. There is no God

• Some will come from non-Catholic Christians• E.g. Marriage is not a Sacrament

• Some will even come from Catholics who don’t always accept the teachings of the Church• E.g. Contraception is fine

• It is important to be able to explain the Faith to those who ask• It is even more important to know that there is a reason why the Church teaches what she does

WHY STUDY APOLOGETICS?

• Even the Bible tells us that we should be able to defend the faith• “Always be prepared to make a defense (pros

apologian) to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and respect.” (1 Pet 3:15)• Note the gentleness and respect – apologetics is not

about beating down an opponent

• “You are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense (apologia) and confirmation of the Gospel.” (Phil 1:7)

WHY STUDY APOLOGETICS?

• “Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense (apologian) of the Gospel.” (Phil 1:15-17)• “When they take you before synagogues and

before rulers and authorities, do not worry about how or what your defense (apologesesthe) will be or about what you are to say.” (Luke 12:11)

HISTORY OF APOLOGETICS

• The notion of defending the Faith comes about from the very beginning of Christianity

• One of the most important examples is Paul debating with the Athenians in the Areopagus (Acts 17:16-34)• Unlike defending the Faith against the Jews in which Paul uses

the Old Testament, here Paul uses philosophical language• Argues against the inconsistency of the Athenians in their

beliefs• Result of his argument: some believed, some scoffed, some

converted. These will happen to us as well.

• There are countless other examples in the New Testament of various authors (especially Paul) defending the faith to others such as the Jews

HISTORY OF APOLOGETICS

• The early Church Fathers also spent a lot of time with apologetics• By Church Fathers we mean the early Theologians of the

Church who taught and wrote about the Faith in roughly the first 8 centuries of the Church

• St. John Damascus is considered the last Church Father in the Roman Catholic Church

• After the Apostolic age there was a great need for apologetics for two major reasons• Persecutions• Heresies (especially Gnosticism)

ST. JUSTIN MARTYR

• One of the most important of the early Apologists• Lived around 100-165 AD• Converted to Christianity from Platonism• Had studied Philosophy looking for truth

• Major apologetic works• Dialogue with Trypho the Jew – used messianic prophecies

from Hebrew Scriptures to prove that Jesus is the Messiah• Apologies – two works in which he appealed for the civil

toleration of Christianity and argued that it was the true philosophy

• Not particularly consistent but given his early writing that isn’t surprising

ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

• Lived around 150-215 AD• Continued to use arguments from both philosophy

(especially Plato and the Stoics) and Jewish writings• Wrote Protrepticus, an apologetic work that was

much more sophisticated than the earlier attempts

ORIGIN

• Lived around 185-254 AD• Considered the most important of the 3rd century

apologists• Most important work was Contra Celsum (“Against

Celsus”)• Replied to the critiques of Christianity made by Celsus• Offered a historical defense of the Resurrection• Showed that the miracle stories of paganism are far less

credible than those of the Gospels

ST. AUGUSTINE

• Lived 354-430• Bishop of Hippo• Converted from Manicheism (dualistic philosophy of

good and evil gods) to Platonism and then to Christianity

• Wrote many apologetic works• Highlighted the importance of faith and reason

working together• “For understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore, do not

seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that thou mayest understand” (fides quaerens intellectum)

• “For faith is understanding’s step; and understanding faith’s attainment”

ST. ANSELM

• Lived 1033-1109• Bishop of Cantebury• Focused on the priority of faith• “For I do not seek to understand in order to believe but I

believe in order to understand” (credo ut intelligam)

• Comes up with the ontological proof for the existence of God• Starts with idea of “that than which nothing greater can

be thought”• Infers the being (ontos) of God• Not the strongest argument, but evidence of attempts to

“prove” the existence of God

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

• Lived 1225-1274• Aristotle had been recently reintroduced into

Europe by the Muslim philosophers• Aquinas created a Christian philosophy using the

structure and logic of Aristotle• Seen primarily in his Summa Theologica

• Thoughts on Faith and Reason• Some truths about God are discoverable through reason or

through faith• Some truths about God are discoverable only through faith• Even those truths discoverable through reason are

commended to faith as reason is finite and faulty

METHOD OF APOLOGETICS

• Reminder: Apologetics = the discipline of defending a position through the systematic use of reason• This class will use the classical method of

apologetics to look at various Church teachings• We’ve already followed that in some manner in

looking at the history of apologetics• We will use Scripture and Tradition heavily in

the various questions we look at• We will also use both Faith and Reason as we

look at the various questions

FIDES ET RATIO

• Fides = Faith• Ratio = Reason• “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the

human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth – in a word, to know himself – so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.”• Blessed John Paul II – introduction to Fides et Ratio

FIDES ET RATIO

• While Blessed John Paul teaches the importance of both faith and reason, he continues to stress the primacy of faith in matters of Theology• “It should nonetheless be kept in mind that

Revelation remains charged with mystery. It is true that Jesus, with his entire life, revealed the countenance of the Father, for he came to teach the secret things of God. But our vision of God is always fragmentary and impaired by the limits of our understanding. Faith alone makes it possible to penetrate the mystery in a way that allows us to understand it coherently.” (p. 13)

FIDES ET RATIO

• Credo ut Intelligam (“I believe that I may understand”)

• Intelligo ut Credam (“I understand that I may believe”)

• Both of these are important for Blessed John Paul• “There is thus no reason for competition of any kind

between reason and faith: each contains the other, and each has its own scope for action.” (p. 17)

• This is also not purely theoretical but practical• “No less important than research in the theoretical field is

research in the practical field – by which I mean the search for truth which looks to the good which is to be performed.” (p. 25)

FIDES ET RATIO

• Paul in the Areopagus• “Frequent allusions to popular beliefs deriving for the

most part from Stoicism”• An ancient Greek philosophy from early 3rd century BC• Saw philosophy as a way of life to remove destructive

emotions

• Since he was speaking to non-Jews, he realized that Christians needed to use language they could understand• Gentiles wouldn’t accept “Moses and the prophets”• They could accept natural knowledge and the voice of

conscience

• We might have to use language appropriate to our situation as well

FIDES ET RATIO – PHILOSOPHY

• Christianity adopted philosophy early on• There was a danger to this• Philosophy is properly understood as practical

wisdom and an education for life• Some of the “philosophies” of the time (and even

now) were considered to be reserved for those who were “perfect” (e.g. Gnosticism)• Early Christian writers warn not to subordinate

the truth of Revelation to the interpretation of philosophers

FIDES ET RATIO – PHILOSOPHY

• The first task for Christians was to proclaim the Risen Christ• They still desired to deepen their understanding

of the faith• “The encounter with the Gospel offered such a

satisfying answer to the hitherto unresolved question of life’s meaning that delving into the philosophers seemed to them something remote and in some ways outmoded.” (p. 38)• This is, in part, why we have as much equality as

we do in the world – Christianity was for all, not just the “perfect”

FIDES ET RATIO - PHILOSOPHY

• Although wary of an incorrect use of philosophy, many of the early Christian writers began to use philosophy, especially Platonic, to make their arguments

• This methodology of “Christianizing” philosophy would be used throughout most of the Church’s history

• The study of philosophy was what led St. Augustine to Christianity and he worked to make the two work together• “In him too the great unity of knowledge, grounded in the

thought of the Bible, was both confirmed and sustained by a depth of speculative thinking.” (p. 40)

FIDES ET RATIO - PHILOSOPHY

• Even though they used philosophy to make their arguments, early Christian writers didn’t blindly accept everything that the philosophical systems put forth• “What does Athens have in common with Jerusalem” –

Tertullian

FIDES ET RATIO – PHILOSOPHY

“It is here that we see the originality of what the Fathers accomplished. They fully welcomed reason which was open to the absolute, and they infused it with the richness drawn from Revelation. This was more than a meeting of cultures, with one culture perhaps succumbing to the fascination of the other. It happened rather in the depths of human souls, and it was a meeting of creature and Creator. Surpassing the goal towards which it unwittingly tended by dint of its nature, reason attained the supreme good and ultimate truth in the person of the Word made flesh. Faced with the various philosophies, the Fathers were not afraid to acknowledge those elements in them that were consonant with Revelation and those that were not. Recognition of the points of convergence did not blind them to the points of divergence.” (p. 41)

FIDES ET RATIO - PHILOSOPHY

• The function of reason is NOT to pass judgment on the contents of faith

• The function of reason is to find meaning, to discover explanations which might allow everyone to come to a certain understanding of the contents of faith

• There is a fundamental harmony between the knowledge of faith and the knowledge of philosophy• “Faith asks that its object be understood with the help of

reason; and at the summit of its searching reason acknowledges that it cannot do without what faith presents” (p. 42)

FIDES ET RATIO - PHILOSOPHY

• Thomas Aquinas is given a high place of honor in this entire process• “The Church has been justified in consistently proposing

Saint Thomas as a master of thought and a model of the right way to do theology.” (p. 43)

• Faith has no fear of reason, but seeks it out and has trust in it

• Faith builds upon and perfects reason• Aquinas sees two types of wisdom• Philosophical wisdom which is based upon the capacity of

the intellect to explore reality• Theological wisdom which is based upon Revelation and

which explores the contents of faith

SPLITTING FAITH AND REASON

• Thomas held that although there is a link between philosophy and theology, there is also a need for a certain level of autonomy between them so they can perform well in their respective fields• Unfortunately, this legitimate distinction became

a separation from the late Medieval period on• Due to the separation, there has been the

tendency to completely remove either Faith or Reason from a person’s understanding of the world

FIDES ET RATIO – REMOVING FAITH

• When Faith is removed, we enter into rationalism• Rationalism = the idea that human reason is the

sole source and final test of truth• Tendencies of rationalism• Philosophical speculations are taken as scientific facts• Science is falsely supposed to be in opposition to religion• Either completely rejects religion and revelation or pushes

them off to the sidelines as something having no place in the public sphere

• Some philosophies that fall under Rationalism are Atheism, Materialism, Pantheism, Nihilism, etc.

• “Deprived of what Revelation offers, reason has taken side-tracks which expose it to the danger of losing sight of its final goal” (p.48)

FIDES ET RATIO – REMOVING REASON

• When Reason is removed, we enter into Fideism• Fideism = the idea that unaided human reason is

incapable of reaching any certitude and human knowledge consists entirely in an act of faith

• Tendencies of Fideism• Distrust in human reason• Science and Religion are seen as complete opposites

• Some philosophies that fall under Fideism are Agnosticism, Fundamentalism, etc.

• “Deprived of reason, faith has stressed feeling and experience, and so runs the risk of no longer being a universal proposition…faith then runs the grave risk of withering into myth or superstition.” (p. 48)

FIDES ET RATIO

“This is why I make this strong and insistent appeal—not, I trust, untimely—that faith and philosophy recover the profound unity which allows them to stand in harmony with their nature without compromising their mutual autonomy. The parrhesia (speaking truth) of faith must be matched by the boldness of reason.”

ARGUMENTATION

• Although it is important to be able to defend the faith using reason, it is also important that we use reason properly

• One thing that is often done in arguments is using a fallacy to try to prove your point• This can be done on either side of the argument

• Fallacy = Deceptive arguments which seem to be valid and true but are not

• It can be fairly difficult to recognize fallacies although our world is rife with them

• Fallacies can be seen on television, in movies, in political debates, in religious debates, on YouTube, and practically anywhere somebody is talking

• It should be noted that just because an argument has a fallacy that does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is false (although it might be). It merely means that the argument is not sufficient to prove the conclusion.

EXAMPLES OF FALLACIES FROM TV

THREE GENERAL TYPES OF FALLACIES

• Fallacies of Language• These fallacies involve using words in various ways to try

to confuse your opponent or obfuscate (make unclear) what you are actually saying

• Fallacies of Relevance• These fallacies are based around trying to turn the

argument away from the actual issue into something that is easier to prove

• Fallacies of Presumption• These fallacies are based around supposing the truth

about some statement that may not be true

FALLACIES OF LANGUAGE

• Equivocation• Amphiboly• Composition• Division• Accent• Figures of speech

EQUIVOCATION

• Using a word with the same spelling or sound that has different meanings• Examples• You shouldn’t take a course that teaches you how to

argue. You argue too much already.• What is natural is good, but to make mistakes is

natural. Therefore it is good to make mistakes.• No U-turn. No, you turn.

AMPHIBOLY

• Using a phrase in which the meaning is ambiguous (unclear)• Examples• You would be lucky to get him to work for you• Because he’s that great or because he never works?

• I can assure that no person would be better for this job.• Is it that there is nobody else who is better qualified or that it

would be better to hire nobody than to hire this person

• If Croesus wages war against the Persians, he will destroy a mighty kingdom• Doesn’t say which kingdom will be destroyed – turned out to

be his own!

COMPOSITION

• Taking words or phrases as a whole which should be interpreted separately• Example• Thieves and murderers won’t go to heaven, but I will get

to heaven because I’m a thief and not a murderer• You like beef, potatoes, and green beans, so you will like

this beef, potato, and green bean casserole• Do you like eggs, pizza, cake, fish, oranges, milk, and yogurt?

Together?

DIVISION

• Taking words or phrases as separate which should be interpreted as a whole• Examples• Bill lives in a large building so his apartment must be

large• Men get paid more than women so the male janitor must

get paid more than the female CEO• The ball is blue, therefore the atoms that make it up are

blue

ACCENT

• Using a word or phrase that can be interpreted differently by its emphasis• Examples• John is not a depraved murderer• That’s good

• John is not a depraved murderer• Hey, he may be a murderer but at least he’s not depraved

• John is not a depraved murderer• He may be depraved but at least he’s not a murderer

• This is really only a problem in written argumentation

FIGURES OF SPEECH

• Wrongly inferring similarity of meaning from similarity of word structure• Example• What is immaterial is not material• What is insoluble is not soluble• Therefore, what is inflammable is not flammable

FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE

• Red herring• Ad hominem• Ad populum• Ad misericordiam• Ad verecundiam• Ad baculum• Suppressing the facts

RED HERRING

• Proving a conclusion other than the one that should be proved• Examples• There have been bad popes; therefore the pope is not

infallible• Infallibility does not mean impeccability. To prove that the

pope is not infallible would require finding a case where he taught something as infallible but it wasn’t.

• That guy couldn’t have murdered his wife. He was always nice to me and helped his mom mow her lawn.

AD HOMINEM

• Attacking the person instead of the argument• This is a very common fallacy in politics and on the

elementary school playground

• Examples• Personal abuse• Attack on character, nationality, or religion• Mud slinging• Name calling• Charges of inconsistency• Etc.

AD POPULUM

• Appeal to popular prejudices• Basically, if most people agree that something is correct

then it must be correct

• Example• Most people believe the world is flat. Therefore it must

be flat.• Most people in the 1960’s thought that blacks and whites

should be segregated. Therefore it was good that they were segregated.

AD MISERICORDIAM

• Appeal to pity rather than deal with the issue at hand• Examples• You should hire me because my grandmother is dying.• I should receive an A in this class because if I don’t I

won’t get a scholarship.

AD VERECUNDIAM

• Appeal to misplaced authority• This happens when somebody who is well known or

experienced in a particular area makes a claim about an area in which they are not experienced. Because they are well known, people assume they are an expert.

• Be careful of biased opinions in this one, even from somebody who truly is an expert• For example, Bob is an expert on stocks. He

recommends you buy Walmart stock. What he isn’t telling you is that he is currently trying to sell all of his Walmart stock and needs somebody to buy them.

AD BACULUM

• Appeal to force or fear• Example• You know, Professor, I really need to get an A in this class.

I’d like to stop in later to talk about that. I’ll be in the building anyway to see my father. You know, the guy who is your boss.

SUPPRESSING THE FACTS

• Ignoring any facts that are contrary to what you are trying to prove• Examples• Many movie posters include the good reviews. What

about the negative reviews?• A friend tells you to wager money on a certain college

football team X because they have won all 10 of their games up to this point. Further investigation shows that they have played only lower ranked FCS teams, barely beat them, and are playing Alabama in their next game.

• St. Thomas Aquinas says “It seems that God does not exist.”• This comes from the Summa but is in a part where he lays

out the argument against the existence of God.

FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION

• Accident• Confusion of Absolutes• Begging the question• False cause• Non sequitur• False assumption• Illicit generalization• Ad ignorantiam• Argument from silence

ACCIDENT

• Affirming or denying a thing wrongly according to accidental characteristics• Example• You say that you ate the food that you brought.

However, you brought raw meat. Therefore, you must have eaten raw meat.• Whether or not it is cooked, it is still the meat you brought

• Alcoholic drinks lead to drunkenness and should therefore be forbidden

• Good food leads to overeating and should therefore be forbidden

CONFUSION OF ABSOLUTES

• Interpreting an absolute statement as qualified, or vice versa.• Examples• Germans are good musicians; therefore, a particular

German is a good musician• True for German’s as a whole, but not necessarily true for

individual Germans

BEGGING THE QUESTION

• Assuming the truth of the conclusion in the premises• This is also known as circular reasoning

• Examples• If such examples were not illegal, then they would not be

prohibited by the law.• Why are they prohibited by the law? Because they are illegal.

• An employer needs a reference from Bob. Bob says Jill can give one. Employer asks how he can trust Jill. Bob says he can vouch for Jill.

• Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

FALSE CAUSE

• Assuming cause-effect relationship to before-after effects• Confusing causation and correlation

• A and B regularly occur together. Therefore A is the cause of B.• Example• There have been many examples of people playing

violent video games and then becoming violent in real life. Therefore, anybody who plays violent video games will become violent in real life.

• There have been wars fought over religion. Therefore, all religious people want to start wars.

NON SEQUITUR

• The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises• Example• Cows give milk; But sheep have wool; Therefore, goats

chew cud• Men are human; Mary is human; Therefore, Mary is a man

FALSE ASSUMPTION

• Using an implied premise that is false• Example• All men are smart. John is a man. Therefore John is smart

ILLICIT GENERALIZATION

• Making universal statements on insufficient evidence• Example• Tom is driving through Lincoln for the first time. He sees

10 people, all of them are children. Therefore, Tom says that only children live in Lincoln.

AD IGNORANTIAM

• Assumption that what cannot be proven is false or that what cannot be refuted is true• Examples• You cannot prove that God exists. Therefore God does

not exist.• You cannot prove that aliens don’t exist. Therefore,

aliens must exist.

ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE

• Assuming falsity from silence• Your opponent doesn’t answer your questions so you

assume that you are right and he is wrong

• Example• John: Do you know your password?• Bob: Of course I do.• John: What is it?• Bob: I’m not telling you.• John: Obviously you don’t know your password.

• We fall into this frequently in criminal trials. When a defendant pleads the fifth, what do we assume?

REFUTING A FALLACY

1. Identify the fallacya) Giving the name shows knowledge of the error

2. Give a similar, preposterous example of this fallacy

a) Avoid illicit analogyb) Many of the examples I gave were ridiculous

3. Take the fallacy to a further, condemning conclusion

a) Show it leads to a non sequitur

4. Offer an opposing argument that is sound

LOVE IS A FALLACY