Wednesday, May 9, 2018

Pagtugon sa Sumasalungat na Katuwiran ng Kausap sa Apologetics, Part 1 || John Pesebre (May 8, 2018)


So far po natapos na natin ang first H ng 4H apologetics which is yung Hear. The next H sa 4H apologetics is Help. This is where you will counter the argument and do your apologetics. Bear in mind na nakapag build ka na kahit papano ng environment sa Hear o yung first H with your virtuous or godly response sa argument ng kausap mo.

After you have given time and conversation to know the argument ng kausap mo and have also reflected on the serious impact of the allegation sa Christianity, it is time to share naman ang refutation mo. Tandaan mo rin lang na sa first H o Hear you were able to explain sa kaniya your previous knowledge ng argument niya at naging honest ka sa valid na argument ng kausap mo. Sa pangalawang H you will begin your refutation and apologetics.

First, you have to answer to yourself the question, “What is your counter-argument?” What this means is ano ang kokontrahin mo sa claim at support ng argument? Isa lang ba? O pareho? Kapag nasabi mo na ‘yon, you then have to provide your apologetics or supporting na paliwanag sa counterargument mo and I will walk your through that sa next episode. For the meantime let’s deal with the question muna  na “What is your counterargument?”

For example, let’s look again dito sa statement ng isang college student na kinunan natin ng argument sa first H. Sabi niya,
Nahihirapan akong ireconcile yung idea na ang Diyos ay mapagmahal subalit majority ng giyera sa kasaysayan natin ay sinimulan ng mga Christians. Bakit ganon? Di ba dapat ang Christians pa ang promotor ng katahimikan, bakit ang Kristiyanismo pa ang nagpasimula ng majority ng mga giyera sa kasaysayan?
From this we were able to at least suppose that the argument is this: “Christianity is a bloodthirsty religion because she started majority of the wars of history.”

Again the first question sa second H na itatanong mo sa sarili mo is “What is your counterargument?” A counterargument’s form is like an argument: it has a claim and a support. Kaso nga lang it is meant to refute yung maling characterization ng Christianity ng kausap mo. Sa apologetics, nasa context ka palagi ng conflict of views kaya it is quite proper lang to express sa kausap mo ang iyong counterargument. This is how you begin to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5). Ang mga apologetics encounter natin would most likely put us in a situation kung saan ang kausap natin would set themselves up against the true knowledge of God. So bilang isang mananampalataya, it is your duty to refute.

What you are doing here is what we call negative apologetics. Negative apologetics simply means refutation. Apollos did this in Acts 18:28 “For he vigorously refuted his Jewish opponents in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah.” Such forceful tone like “vigorously refuted” can also be felt in Paul in 2 Corinthians 10:5 "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” May dalawa po tayong episodes nung Feb 20 at 22 patungkol sa negative apologetics. Maari niyo siyang ma access sa FB page natin na Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo. Balik tayo sa pinag uusapan natin sa refutation sa kausap.

Dito sa stage na ito, all you have to do is to refute lang muna yung statement ng kausap mo. Sasabihin mo lang na may problema ka sa sinasabi ng kausap mo. Sa issue ng ating case study nung college students, you can state your refutation this way: “Christianity is NOT A bloodthirsty religion because she DID NOT start majority of the wars of history.”

Ganon lang. It gives yung kausap mo ng doubt sa kaniyang position kasi you have presented a competing argument. Naalala niyo siguro yung idea natin sa past episode na dalawa as dubitare or the number two. Dito you are perfectly justified to give doubt din sa kausap mo dahil sa wrong na idea niya about Christianity. Kung hindi man maging successful ang apologetics encounter na ito in terms of production of new belief sa kaniya, at least you have stood your ground sa objection niya. Ang maganda pa nga dito, is within this second H o Help you will provide a defense pa sa counterargument to put pressure pa sa wrong na idea niya ng Christanity.

Banggitin ko lang, at sana wag po nating kakalimutan ito na there are instances na hindi mo ire-refute pareho ang claim at support. Sa case kasi ng counterargument na nilagay ko sa taas, dalawa ang na negate mo: yung claim at yung support: hindi totoo na bloodthirsty religion ang Christianity (refuting the claim) at hindi rin totoo na majority ng mga gyera sa mundo ay sinimulan ng mga Christians (refuting the support).

There are instances kasi that you will just refute either the claim or the support kasi maaari kang mag agree either sa support o sa claim. For example, sa isang kausap ko ang sabi niya, “Jesus is a homosexual because he had 12 male apostles” (of course suggesting na mahilig daw ang Panginoon sa mga lalaki kaya hindi siya pumili ng babaeng apostol). Sa refutation ko sa kaniya, ang nirefute ko lang ay ang claim niya. Sabi ko, “Jesus was not a homosexual because he had 12 male apostles.” Agree ako sa support niya na 12 ang male apostles ni Christ pero ang hindi ako agree ay yung claim nya na homosexual si Kristo. You can also find yourself refuting naman yung support, but affirming the claim, for example, “God is a vengeful God because God committed genocide with the Canaanites.” While I agree that God is a vengeful God, hindi ako nag agree that what He did with the Canaanites was genocide.

So ganiyan lang po ang pagtugon sa first question ng second H.
In much the same way na nag-communicate ka ng godly mind sa first H ganito din ang ginagawa mo dito kasi you are showing sa kausap mo na you are a person who can think critically ng mga bagay -- hindi ka pushover. You are communicating sa kausap mo na may intellectual courage ka na harapin ang isang objection with what you know.

So by way of summary, sa episode na ito, natutunan mo how to refute yung argument ng kausap mo by stating a counterargument. You can either refute the claim or the support or both depende sa sitwasyon.

Wala pa tayo dun sa defense mo ng counterargument mo dahil sa susunod pong episode ‘yan ang gagawin natin -- tatalakayin natin ang second question sa second H: “What is your defense to your counterargument?”

No comments:

Post a Comment

Sagot sa Probability na Bersyon ng Problem of Evil, Part 2 | John Ricafrente Pesebre

This is now part 2 of our our response to the probability version of the problem of evil na nagsasabi: Nagpapatunay daw po ang ating mga kar...