JP Moreland's Top Five

I agree that this list contains some of the best apologetic books available. But I honestly feel that most Christian apologetic books do not deal with the toughest arguments that skeptics and non-Christians bring against the Christian faith. It is very hard to grasp to full force of the skeptic's arguments unless one reads directly from their sources. If you can deal with their arguments as presented in their sources, then you are truly ready to defend the Christian faith. And besides, if a Christian ever finds himself or herself engaged in a serious debate with a non-Christian, it is likely that they have gathered their arguments directly from the skeptic's sources, rather than hearing these arguments as they are presented in Christian apologetic literature. And as we know (and this applies to both sides of the debate), it is usually the case that neither side will fully present the views of their opponent in a way that truly does justice to their arguments. Two books that present the arguments of the non-Christian skeptics are Edward T. Babinski's "Leaving the Fold," and Robert Price's "The Reason-Driven Life."

Gabe,

Agreed man. Absolutely. Interesting enough, Chesterton actually claimed he became orthodox by reading the skeptics and not the apologists.

One thing I would add is that people need to be instructed well at a worldview level. Most church folk just get bowled over by skeptical stuff because they have never been asked to think. This is sad. The metaphor of apologetics as inoculation is helpful (Dempski and Richards use this in Unapologetic Apologetics) - give someone a good dose of Daniel Dennett but in a environment where teaching can take place and we can help people see the skeptics own view at a macro level.

I have spent much time online reading and interacting with folks (Secular Web/Internet Infidels) and in relationships over the year. Some training is helpful, but not as much as wrestling with people and ideas live and with persons. Hanging out with atheists in the Czech Republic showed this to me several years back.

Thanks for the great comment.

Reid,

Thanks for the response. That is a very interesting fact about Chesterson. And if you have spent any considerable amount of time debating and interacting with individuals on Secular Web/Internet Infidels, then I think its safe to say that you have been well exposed to the common objections to the Christian faith! But it seems that many Christian apologists, especially when engaged in public debates with the skeptics, tend to shy away from certian difficult topics. For example, William Lane Craig once avoided an atheist's question concerning whether or not he believed in the inerrancy of scripture. Perhaps it was due to the fact that Craig did not wish to get side-tracked on a different topic, or could it be that Craig thought he would be fighting a losing battle? Or maybe Craig does not believe in inerrancy (and I believe this was the case). And when Norman Geisler debated Farrell Till concerning the resurrection, Geisler avoided the issue of inerrancy by stating, "The bible doesn't have to be inerrant for the resurrection to be true." It just seems like there is a growing attitude among apologists that implicitly says, "It doesn't matter if we lose a debate concerning inerrancy or the flood of Noah, as long as we win the debate concerning the resurrection." I don't know if you have ever gotten this same impression. Thanks for reading.

Gabe, I know Geisler believes in Inerrancy as I studied with them a bit at Southern Evangelical Seminary. I did 4 classes there before transferring. I think that they most likely do this to stay focused on the debate - if you loose focus in that arena you can get sidetracked.

I have actually had some very secular people engage here on the blog as well. I enjoy that and always want to be charitable yet with firm conviction.

One began here - http://www.powerofchange.org/blog/2007/05/living_or_dying_in_the_gray_zo.html
and continued in several additional e-mail exchanges.

I've found the best apologetic to be in studying the history of the church and the development of doctrine. The more I study, the more I see the importance of the shift that took place in the Reformation. Communicating the nature of the shift I've found difficult, to be sure. Alister McGrath, who has also written books on apologetics, has been an important influence on me here. This is just my humble opinion of course.

Also, not so keen on the ID stuff. I don't think it should be part of our apologetic. I understand that it is here to combat the reductionism and naturalism that is linked to modern day atheism, but the more I think and read about ID the more I dislike the ideas. I suppose I should clarify in saying that I'm referring to the biological ID and not the anthropic principle of physics which is sometimes included as ID. Interestingly, the first criticism of Paley's natural theology came from the church and not Darwin. Anyways, this is also my humble opinion.

Ben, good points. You cannot have a good apologetic without a good view of doctrine. I hear you on ID - I find some of it useful in deconstruction, but of course it isn't the end all to science/faith integration. It is a discussion today - and may be helpful with some. I know that some are simply theistic evolutionists and think this is the easiest path. I find that one personally difficult to swallow. To me it is not an essential - but can be used to attack essentials. So we need to have Darwin/Bible - creation, God as creator, discussions.

Thanks