Ancient vs Modern Apologetics - Essay Example

ANCIENT VS MODERN APOLOGETICS Module & ID: Word Count Religion is often seen as one social branch that plays a critical role in fighting negative vices that tend to face every society. With each religion focused primarily on advancing its beliefs and practices to others, there is a tendency for challenges arising from the texts preached. Often, religions clash with each trying to portray the others as invalid whilst fronting itself as the best. As a result, each side crafts methods to defend self with explanations on the supposed weaknesses. Apologetics is an ancient Greek derivative where it means ‘speaking in defense’, and is used mainly in the religious context. Recently, there has been an argument as to how impactful the modern apologetics is in comparison to the ancient one. The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast the modern apologetics with the ancient one. Unlike the modern apologetics whose laxity in defending own religion is evident, the ancient apologetics had an amazing impetus for own beliefs. In the ancient times, it was not uncommon to find apologetics from different religions suffering even bodily harm for defending their faiths. For instance, it was reported that the Roman Empire had a tendency for fabricating outrageous charges against Christians in a bid to stop any form of apologetic1.Interestingly, the Roman rulers claimed to be Christians themselves yet anyone who dared interpret the scriptures in a different way from the rulers’ view suffered adversely. However, there is more tolerance on challenging religions in the modern era, there is not as much tenacity in the modern apologetics as was the case in the ancient times. Laxity in defending faith is not in one particular religion, but almost every other as evidenced by the amount of defense fronted. Worth noting here is that the paper is not, implying apologetics do not exist in the 21st century. Rather, there is no sign of abrasiveness, commitment and zeal as was the case in the ancient times. While many scholars in this era have tackled some of the hardest topics in different religions, there is a lack of passion1. Whereas the ancient apologetics had some high levels of intolerance toward others, their passion was evident. Thus, it could be concluded that laxity in the modern apologetics across all religions is evident, but the same cannot be said of the ancient times. With many people in the past relying mainly on their spiritual leaders for counsel, the ancient apologetics had more success compared to the modern one. It was reported that because the ancient people regarded their spiritual leaders highly, the apologetics found it somewhat easier to both defend and propagate their religions. Conversely, the modern times are somewhat complicated because apologists are not always highly regarded. In fact, in some religions apologetics are not always embraced as a necessity despite their important role. For instance, it was claimed that many Christians seldom focus on the work done by some of their most popular apologists2. Instead, there is a tendency to focus on the bible as the only place to derive ideas. Notwithstanding these weaknesses, the modern apologists have an opportunity to tackle every subject from different perspectives, unlike in the past. The ancient apologists had a harder time in understanding and explaining various topics such as the existence of God. The use of natural philosophy by the ancient apologists had its fair share of weaknesses because the being in subject was, and still is, a spiritual one. In the argument, the ancient apologetics employed the natural reason in arguing and justifying their belief concerning God’s existence. Subsequently, atheists seemed to overpower the apologetics of whatever religions because the formers’ argument seemed credible1. However, this is no longer the case with the modern apologists because they have somewhat evolved in terms of arguments. Instead of relying solely on natural philosophy to explain God’s existence, some apologetics have resorted to other tactics. For instance, it was noted that Christian apologists have embraced several methods in any explanation. The Christian apologetics use rationale, exegesis and even philosophy in defending their positions. Consequently, this has solidified the faith mainly because it is not easy for critics to challenge the faith3. Similarly, other religions such as the Islam and scientology have embraced other tactics in the defense of the respective religions. Therefore, the ancient unlike the modern apologetics, lacked this variety thus colliding with the others whose arguments were clearly rational. Education was not as advanced in the ancient times as is the case today and this inevitably made all the difference. The lack of education in the ancient apologetics is often blamed for the persecutions many martyrs suffered. In addition, the arguments apologists across the board made were somewhat insignificant unlike today. Even though people had some form of education, it was not sufficient to equip respective apologists for the task. Today, the modern apologists go to various learning institutions where better skills are acquired hence enabling them for the task. It is not uncommon to find Islam, Christians and other religious apologetics in different higher learning institutions. For that reason, it is accurate to state that the modern apologetics is more credible than the ancient’s because of the diversity of skills is. The emergence of other religions has made it somehow hard for the modern apologetics to convince as many multitudes as was the scenario in the past. While the modern era apologists have their weaknesses, their task is becoming rather complex by day. There are more religious groups today than was the case in the ancient times. As a result, it means that each side is involved in defending own religion, and little or no time trying to understand the other. With each side bent on ensuring their reasoning is portrayed as the best, the impact of the modern apologists has somehow been invisible. Modern apologetics scrutinizes the other religions in a bid to locate weaknesses to use in discrediting the sides. Quite opposite to the ancient times when intolerance led, in some cases, to the burning and banning of other religions’ texts, the modern apologetics takes a different approach4. It has dawned on the modern apologists that the best way to defeat the other faiths, thus solidify own religion, is by creating doubts in the others’ beliefs. When this happens, the doubting side is then easily swayed into abandoning the faith. Even though scrutiny of other religions was happening in the past, there was not as much freedom as is the case today. Civilization has helped in almost making modern apologists irrelevant because of the methods employed in the arguments. As note earlier, the ancient times were characterized by arguments that often culminated to violence because of intolerance. However, with people becoming more civilized, the modern apologetic tends to be viewed by many as not impactful. Some modern apologists who contest that because of the human development, apologetic has only taken a new form, not dwindled2, vehemently oppose this perception. In other words, because of civilization, apologetic has evolved meaning there is a possibility of impact being felt but from a totally different perspective from the past. Because of the advancement of technology, the modern apologists have an ample room for fronting their defense of respective religious positions. It has become a norm for people from various countries to subscribe to a religion away from their residential countries. With the internet, particularly the social media, becoming available to almost every country around the globe, the spreading of various religions has been rampant. Apologists have, consequently, found it somewhat easier to front their arguments because the platform is readily available2. This is unlike in the past when apologetic could only happen at a designated place target only one area. The arguments can be shared or contested with the other religions’ apologists courtesy of the internet. It was unheard of in the past for apologists to share a stage, but that has since changed catalyzed by both the invention and civilization. The internet is filled with journals where apologetics takes place with little intolerance. It is very common to find journals where various faiths are not only defended, but also challenged. In the course of apologetics, criticism of the other religion is inevitable, and this is pretty common5. Yet, this has not been viewed negatively by the affected religions, mainly because the apologists embrace professionalism. The modern apologists are more focused and have a better understanding in comparison to the ones in the ancient era. The passion in the ancient apologists was enormous, but lacked clarity and competence because of the intolerance coupled with poor or no research skills. Because of the tolerance exhibited by each side whenever criticized, the modern apologists have been able to tackle the issues raised by various critics. In contrast, the ancient apologists avoided, resented and hurt anyone who dared ask hard questions about their respective religions. As a result, the ancient apologetic lacked the credibility needed, and instead indoctrination became the norm. Even though it was earlier mentioned that modern apologists lack passion, it should be interpreted to mean they unconcerned. Rather, it meant that in comparison to the ancient ones, the latter tended to have tremendous zeal in tackling various topics. Today, the apologists tackle all topics, but not with the same zeal as the ones in the past2. It is argued that the passion is not seen mainly because the modern scholars have preferred research to simply arguing out of emotions and doctrines. In other words, the modern apologists do not simply want to argue about their religions with presenting facts or arguments that validate their stand. In the past, this was not the case, and as stated, conviction and arguments were based mainly on natural reasoning. In regard to the impact, the modern apologetic is more lasting and credible, but the scenario was different in the past. It is undisputable that the ancient apologetics were passionate and indeed committed, but lacked some very vital components: knowledge and skills. Because of high levels of intolerance and intimidations, the ancient apologists had a seemingly greater impact. However, this impact was not long lasting because there lacked an in-depth analysis of the topics besides coercing people into accepting religions without reservations6. The story is different in the modern times where the apologists might not exhibit similar passion, but have a greater and a lasting impact. Even though modern apologetics is more advanced, civilized and concretely informed, it has failed in stopping divisions within one religion. In the past, it was rare to find a religion divided, but these cases are rampant currently. For instance, Christianity is often characterized by many branches, which challenge the authenticity of the other side. Protestants, Catholics and Pentecostals all profess their Christian faiths, but have varied stands in various areas. For instance, some branches of Christianity do not the loss of salvation. The Calvinism and Arminianism is a good example of a division of apologetics within the same religion3. Even though these two sides agree on the existence of God and the creation theory, there are differences, which tend to set them apart when it comes to living and the after-life. Similarly, the Islam apologetic is often confronted by the interpretation and the subsequent application of some of its texts. In the countries where Islam is predominant, the application of its religions’ rules such as sharia law is included in the constitution. Yet in some countries, this is interpreted differently, and the culprits of certain crimes are seldom subjected to the recommendations or the supposed laws in the Q’uran. Additionally, the issue of Jihad is another that tends to divide the Muslim apologetic with some arguing on the understanding7. Mormonism is yet another religion where their apologetics have different views on a number of issues. Essentially, modern era apologetics has not adequately addressed the issue of the divisions in their respective religions. It is not just differences that modern and ancient apologetics have; there are similarities too one of which is the core foundation. Regardless of the methods employed in the defense of the religion, each religion focuses primarily on ensuring that their deity is as per the religious book or materials viewed as the all-truth6. Even though the modern Christian apologetics might use a different approach from the one used by their fellow apologists in the past, the foundation remains intact. That is to say, the deity ancient apologists defended with the methods they applied remain the same being defended by the modern ones. Similarly, the Islam has maintained that Allah is God, and Mohammed is his prophet7. Thus, no matter the methods in the defense of this assertion, none deviates from this supposed truth. It is the same with all other religions, notwithstanding the variance in the methodology of apologetics. Just like was the case in the ancient, there is no common ground for the modern apologetics. While there is no violence or high level of intolerance in the modern era as was the case in the past, no one side wants to concede a weakness in their religions. Attempts by various individuals and institutions to unite religions have been futile as evidenced by Rene Descartes’ tactics. In response to the European War of Religion that happened between 1524 and 1624, Descartes, a French scientist-cum philosopher, sought to unite religions. Using scriptures that could be doubted in a bid to unite all religions, the Frenchman came up with what has to come to be known as the modern philosophy8. However, these attempts have not materialized since religions have remained apart with each apologetics concerned with blocking any effort to discredit their beliefs. In light of the above, it is clear that each side is adamant to remain in total defense of the religion they subscribe to. It has further been argued that because apologetics is all about defending own religion, there is a likelihood of merger of religions as this would nullify all the beliefs of the conceding religion8.In fact, religious apologists tend to resort to either silence or invocation God’s divinity whenever confronted with questions whose answers seem not addressed in their books. Others contest that one’s understanding of the religion is only possible only after undergoing certain religious rituals3. Therefore, it is evident that since apologetics deal with the defense of faiths, all apologists remain subscribed to own faith irrespective of evolution of time. Interestingly, notwithstanding the disagreements and differences in the beliefs, many apologists do employ similar tactics in the defense of their faiths. Rational argument is a common way of justifying own religions in many places. Another tactic common with all religions is discrediting the other through the natural reasoning. When one religion makes claims pertaining to nature, which seem paradoxical or illogical, there is a possibility of backlash from others6. While this does not always result in mass exodus of faithful forsaking a religion, it further casts doubts among the followers. Ironically, almost all religions grapple with this possibility because of the intricacies that often characterize many religions. To appear credible, apologists often attack, through theology, the others in opposite side especially when the scriptures are not self-explanatory. Each of the sides works tirelessly not just to defend the faith and discredit others, but also to prove the authenticity of their respective religions. In the ancient times, the attack was sometimes was physical unlike today where ideologies are employed. This is a practice on almost all religions, and it is not rare to find an apologist who defend their position without highlight the weaknesses of the seemingly competing side8. Thus, the ancient and modern apologists have this similarity of ideological attack on the other side, though in the past the physical attack was more common. Flawed interpretation of scriptures in respective religions is an issue common to the modern apologists as much as it was with the ancient ones. It has been argued that some apologists have failed to comprehend some scriptures thus misleading the believers and the would-be believers. This tendency is not evident in a particular religion, but not almost all since the religious books used by the various religions have lucid language. In some cases, the cases, parables and texts used tend to have multiple interpretations. Consequently, this creates a platform for individuals to derive own interpretations. When these interpretations contradict another scripture in the same book, confusion is inevitable thus easy to discredit a religion. Again, this is not a case of the modern apologetic; in fact, the scenario was far worse in the ancient times9. Poor or wrong classification of scriptures interpretations is not uncommon among the apologists irrespective of the religion involved9. Christian apologetics in the recent times have endured criticism for the tendency to classify patristic scriptures wrongly. Normally, three categories are used in the classifications of the interpretations: allegorical, typology and literal. Some of the interpretations earlier categorized as typology have been found to belong to the allegorical category. The case applies in some other religions where some scriptural interpretations have formed the basis of divisions. In all these, it is clear that error in both interpretations and categorizations is not an ancient apologetic’s issue, but one that the modern apologists face too In summary, modern apologetics vary from the ancient one in a number of ways including the framing of arguments. Embracing philosophy, research and scrutiny are some of the tactics the modern apologists prefer as opposed to intolerance. The ancient apologetics relied heavily on the own understanding and the beliefs pass on. Conversely, the modern apologetics incorporates the available history materials to draw a correlation. In terms of impact, the ancient apologetic erroneously seemed more impactful because there was little tolerance thus little criticism and rejection. However, the modern one is practiced on an environment where freedom of worship is a right to all. Besides, people who are not even religions have become open-minded meaning it is easier to front any argument. Education, civilization and technology coupled with tolerance have all helped in equipping of the modern apologists. Materials are available, social sites and journals to critique the information have revolutionized the apologetic. Bibliography Beilby, Jim. Alvin Plantinga And Christian Apologetics - By Keith A. Mascord. Religious Studies Review 34, no. 3 (2008): 174-175. Cameron, A. Book Review: New Dictionary Of Christian Apologetics. Journal of Christian Education 50, no. 2 (2007): 74-76. Coleman, S. An Anthropological Apologetics. South Atlantic Quarterly 109, no. 4 (2010): 791-810. Davison, Andrew. Imaginative Apologetics: Theology, Philosophy and the Catholic Tradition. London: SCM Press, 2011. March, Andrew F. Naturalizing Sharīʿa: Foundationalist Ambiguities In Modern Islamic Apologetics. Islamic Law and Society 22, no. 1-2 (2015): 45-81. Markos, Louis. Apologetics for the Twenty-First Century. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2010 Nussbaum, Martha. Religious Intolerance. Foreign Policy, no. 144 (2004): 44. Parsons, Stuart E. Ancient Apologetic Exegesis: Introducing and Recovering Theophiluss World. Eugene, Oregon : Pickwick Publications 2015. Price, Simon. Religious Mobility In The Roman Empire. Journal of Roman Studies 102 (2012): 1-19. Read More