representative’s faith in a public forum. The occasion may arise as a result of a clash of religious options that a particular group wishes to resolve or as a result of a new philosophical insight that seems at odds with an earlier religious consensus. In recent times, the occasion has often been the result of a new scientific theory or a sociological change that calls into question the prevailing religious view. And postmodern critics, who sense the failure of various modern nontheistic worldviews, have fostered a reexamination of religion as a part of a more comprehensive worldview.
Whatever the case, the rational advocate or defender of the faith is called an “apologist.” Apologetics is the field of study that examines the methods employed by the apologist. The following historical and modern examples illustrate apologetic methods that have been used.
In the New Testament, the book of Hebrews is an early example of an apology that addresses the problem of choosing between religious options. It seems to be addressed to persons being forced to choose between Christianity and Judaism although the first Christians understood themselves to be both Jews and Christians. The writer maintains that the essential truth of Judaism has found its fulfillment in Christianity; so the best way to be a true Jew is to choose Christianity and depart from Judaism.
When they encountered the thought world of Greek philosophy, early Christian theologians learned to use Greek concepts in order to interpret the faith for an audience familiar with Greek terminology. The practice of appropriating philosophical language in defense of the faith reached a climax in the works of Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274). Using Aristotelian logic to advocate an ultimate cause of all existing things, he then identified God as this ultimate cause and used the imagery of the Christian religion to give definition to the God thus identified.
The ascendancy of the theory of evolution in the nineteenth century provides a prime example of a scientific theory that caused a crisis of faith. The discovery of a developmental potential within nature itself made the hypothesis of God as the source of nature’s apparent organization seem unnecessary. The first response of a number of Christians was to question the credibility of science in ways that often undermined their own credibility. Some theologians embraced the theory of evolution creatively. Teilhard de Chardin celebrated the developing structure of nature and saw the love of God as the dynamic source that makes evolution possible. Others devised similar views of God as guiding evolution.
The emergence of psychology as a field of scientific study exemplifies another crisis for faith. Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) devised an explanation of religion as a human invention that addresses deep psychological needs for security. Paul Tillich, on the other hand, building on Freudian insights, discovered in psychology the existential need to be committed to an ultimate concern. He argued that the courage of faith was necessary to make an authentic (and thus salvific) commitment to the only “true” ultimate, which is God.
Another great theologian of the twentieth century, Karl Barth avoided apologetics altogether. He regarded faith as pre-rational in the sense that one could not reason to a position of faith. Rather one must be moved to such a position by the power of the Word of God through the medium of Scripture or preaching. Therefore, any effort of human logic or argumentation was of no value in promoting authentic faith. Generally Barth’s approach seems dogmatic and arrogant, for the modern world citizen experiences too many competing worldviews and sociological shifts to embrace any one option precritically.
Sociological changes also give rise to apologetic reflection. Changing male and female roles in modern society are one example of this phenomenon. The organizational structures of many religions are decidedly paternalistic, The feminist movement reflects a sensitivity to social structures that limit women to secondary roles and incomplete fulfillment of potential. Feminists urge a reformation of such structures in order to provide equality for women; and if such reform is not possible, they often advocate rejection of traditional religion in favor of alternative religions. The apologist seeks to emphasize a liberating heritage within religious structures as a basis for advocating new opportunities for women or runs the risk of alienating increasing numbers of women.
Advocates of a postmodern view indicate that modern worldviews that looked to science and technology to solve all human problems have become bankrupt because science and technology have generated as many problems as they have solved and have given rise to some particularly threatening realities such as nuclear weapons and ecological disasters. In this milieu there is a call for a more comprehensive worldview. One element of the emerging new worldview is the desire to recognize a transcendent or spiritual dimension to reality. This desire has prompted a renewed interest in religious dialogue and a new chapter in the history of apologetics.
F. WILLIAM RATLIFF
Bibliography
Diogenes Allen, Christian Belief in a Postmodern World.
Avery Dulles, A History of Apologetics.
Jerry H. Gill, Faith in Dialogue.
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity.
D. Elton Trueblood, A Place to Stand.
Cross-Reference: Culture, Epistemology, Feminist Theology, Hermeneutics, Philosophical Theology, Postmodern Theology.
APOSTASY (See HERESY.)
ATHEISM
The term “atheism” is as slippery to define as it is fraught with emotion. Doubtless, these two facts are intimately entwined. In part the problem in defining atheism rises from its relativity—as a negative term—to the denial of varying positive religious frameworks in which God or the gods are differently understood. This makes atheism dependent on historical setting and community belief. In part, the problem of definition also rises from emotions stirred against a perceived challenge to deeply felt community beliefs: “Atheist” has often been used as a term of abuse.
Xenophanes of Colophon (c. 570–500 B.C.E.) was widely reviled as an atheist for poking fun at the anthropomorphic foibles of the Olympian deities accepted by the orthodox in his day. It did not alter his classification as an atheist that he affirmed a single, motionless, nonanthropomorphic god, cited approvingly by Aristotle two centuries later. Anaxagoras of Clazomenae (c. 500–428 B.C.E.) was prosecuted and condemned to exile for atheism because he denied the divinity of the heavenly bodies and, instead, insisted that the sun and moon were glowing stones, the sun even larger than the Peloponnesus. Socrates (470–399 B.C.E.), too, was condemned and was executed as an impious atheist despite his acknowledgment of personal spiritual guidance from a divine agent.
Other examples of the protean character of atheism abound. Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), though the “God-intoxicated philosopher,” was excommunicated as a Jewish heretic by his synagogue (1656) and was denounced by Moses Mendelssohn for his “atheism.” Paul Tillich, though a Christian theologian, was considered an atheist by some for his rejection of any belief in God as “a being over against other beings,” but he was not so considered by others, because of his affirmations of the “God beyond the god of theism.”
Recognizing the inescapable dependence of the term on historical setting and circumstances and avoiding any abusive overtones, our definition will be explicitly relative to what might be called “minimal Jewish and Christian theism.” Atheism in this sense is defined as rejection of belief in the existence of a cosmic reality—whether literally infinite or merely vast beyond human conception—of whom religiously important personal attributes like knowledge, purpose, action, goodness, or love can be at least analogically or symbolically affirmed. This rejection can be of two sorts: first, rejection as disbelief, in
