I’m often conflicted about the whole apologetics thing.
As long as people have honest questions about belief, then it remains a logically legitimate enterprise, but it can be taken too far easily.
For me, I’m interested in taking away needless barriers to faith. Increasingly for me, it’s been exciting to see just how complimentary an evolutionary understanding of nature is with Christianity. And as long as there are a) Christians who see evolution as a threat to faith and b) people for whom evolution has been a key point on their departure from faith, I think it’s hugely valuable to show and explore just how harmonious they are.
It occurs to me that believers and unbelievers both participate in the apologetic endeavour. At their worst, both belief and unbelief ‘need’ a ‘defense’ for why they are justified in being what they are. Insert any usual topic (evolution, abortion, morality, cosmogenesis, abiogenesis, sexual ethics, religious violence, etc.): the believer defends belief, and the unbeliever defends unbelief.
The believer (often) needs to feel justified in their belief – “Belief in God is reasonable and logical!” (or the psychological translation: “I’m a totally reasonable and logical person for maintaining my faith!”)
The unbeliever (often) needs to feel justified in their unbelief – “Belief in God is silly and superstitious!” (or the psychological translation: “I totally made the right decision in giving up my faith!”)
I’m aware of this need to feel justified, so I try (as best I can) to be genuinely open-minded.
I genuinely think various theistic arguments (like the First Cause argument) work. And that’s really cool for me, because I’m a Christian! But I also think it’s important to recognise that (as Rob Bell has said) ‘What you look for, you will find.’
I hope believers can evaluate their beliefs and challenge them. I think faith is of the good kind when it is open to being challenged. Believers that recoil from questions and insulate themselves from challenges to their belief have a kind of faith that I can’t help but see as (perhaps ironically) ‘faith in faith’ – and not faith in the God of all Truth. My experience is that my beliefs get sharper the more I expose them to criticism. I’ve changed my views about several things – and long may that continue. I’ve also maintained and deepened a lot of my beliefs as well – and long may that continue.
I also hope unbelievers can be sceptical of even their own scepticism. If belief is sharpened by criticism, then this should be true for unbelief as well? However, for me, this should logically lead atheists to become more and more agnostic – or even ‘fall’ from unbelief altogether? Or at least go from being a Richard Dawkins style atheist to a Michael Ruse type one…
At any rate, I’ll probably always ‘do’ (with varying degrees of passion) the apologetics thing, but I’m feeling less and less like it’s something that I need to do for my own justification, but rather something that I simply enjoy doing and find worthwhile. That’s all for now :)