APOLOGETICS
FR. MATTHEW ZIMMER
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/do
cuments/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
questions
1. 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 fallacy
a) Giving the name shows knowledge of the error
2. Give a similar, preposterous example of this fallacy
a) Avoid illicit analogy
b) 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