An apologist is “a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc.”  Usually, the term is used in a religious or philosophical context.  Wikipedia adds:  Apologists are authors, writers, editors of scientific logs or academic journals, and leaders known for taking on the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that are either placed under popular scrutinies or viewed under persecutory examinations. The term comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογία), meaning a speaking in defense.  Apologists have been around for a long time.  The Apostle Paul was essentially a Christian apologist. Mormon apologists can be found at places like FARMS and FAIRWiki.

Why Are Apologists Reviled?

Let me illustrate with a simple joke:

• Q:  How many apologists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
• A:  Since there is light, we know that the number of apologists involved was sufficient to complete the operation of lightbulb-screwing-in to connect the lightbulb to a power source which could then create the light.  Or if there were no apologists involved in the lightbulb-screwing-in, somehow or other it got screwed in.  Look, a butterfly!
• IOW:  We don’t know how, but we know there is light.

From Wikipedia:  Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or “whitewashing” their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term often has a pejorative meaning.

Here are some common criticisms of apologists:

1. They are not objective; they approach a problem backwards, beginning with the conclusion (like reverse engineering).  IOW, their methods are not exploratory (e.g. scientific method), but are in fact merely confirming a belief already held (hmmm, sound a lot like the detractors’ arguments).  In their defense:  The detractors are generally equally biased.
2. They are defensive.  This is true in the same sense that a defense attorney is defensive.  When an idea is attacked or criticized, an apologist comes forward to answer that criticism.  So, apologists are defensive in the way an NBA team is defensive of their basket when the opposing team has the ball.  In their defense:  An offensive attack calls for a defensive response.
3. They require “mental gymnastics.” The most prevalent criticism of apologists is that their arguments are more complex and sometimes less convincing than the criticism they are refuting.  The simple fact is that this is a necessary byproduct of a defensive posture.  You are not arguing “for” something, asserting its validity; you are responding to a criticism, which means, you review its merits on the basis of all facets of the criticism.  In their defense:  Apologists don’t have the home court advantage.
4. They degenerate into bickering. When someone leaves a flaming bag of poop on your doorstep, and you respond by leaving a bigger flaming bag of poop on their doorstep, be prepared to wash your hands afterward.  And if someone leaves a flaming bag of poop on your doorstep, ignoring it might narrow the number of visitors to only the really diligent.  In their defense:  The detractors started it!
5. They are irrelevant; faith cannot be proven or disproven as it is not based on logic, but rather subjective personal spiritual experience.  So, deigning to refute the critics of faith using the tools of logic is not likely to be very convincing to those who rely on faith.  Nor is a faith-based argument likely to convince a staunch logician.  In their defense:  You can’t beat a football team with baseball skills.  Also, even if the arguments are ultimately irrelevant, someone has to respond.  Perhaps apologists and critics are like Rock-em Sock-em robots; they just engage each other in the circle of debate, but it’s really just a game.
   

Maybe apologists are like Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men (paraphrased):

Every morning I eat breakfast 400 yards from evangelical ministers, the disaffected, and anti-Mormons trained to destroy testimonies.  We live in a world that has religious beliefs, and those religious beliefs have to be guarded by men (and women) with facts and theories. Who’s gonna do it? You? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for the disaffected, and you curse the apologists. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know — that apologetics, while requiring mental gymnastics, probably saves testimonies; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves eternal lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on FAIRWiki — you need me on FAIRWiki.  We use words like “historical evidence,” “account,” and “source.” We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a person who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very religious freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said “thank you” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get on the internet and stand the post. Either way, I don’t give a $@?!# what you think you’re entitled to!

So, what do you think?  Are apologists performing a necessary service by defending the faith?  Or do you think they miss the point?  If so, what alternative do you suggest?  And where are these “places we don’t talk about at parties”?  Discuss.

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

“We may never know the full story since the bishop does not wish to comment and the school is citing privacy to keep things quiet. Regardless, the entire episode may have some stereotypical ramifications on the national level. But at least it has been resolved in a manner that seems more reasonable for every party involved to minimize the damage. “

From the Deseret News:

“Brigham Young University baseball star Kent Walton, who had been dismissed from school after his ecclesiastical endorsement was withdrawn by his bishop, is enrolled at BYU again and has returned to the Cougars’ baseball team, coach Vance Law told the Deseret Morning News Thursday night. “

Thoughts?

[Updated -- More on the story here.]

Apparently BYU (and the LDS church) have expelled BYU’s best baseball player for (allegedly) not attending church enough. Some questions for discussion….

• What do we NOT know about the story that the church is not able to tell us? (we should always remember that possibility)
• What do you think about this statement, “They said he didn’t participate in the ward enough, hadn’t been to church enough and hadn’t gone in and asked for a calling,”
• What do you think about this statement, “All the stake president would say was, ‘I hope you don’t hurt your son by making a big issue out of this.’ “
• What exactly does this mean?: “Documents viewed by The Tribune show the issue has pitted university officials and the athletic department – who back Walton, by almost every account – against the very church that runs it.”
• Is it possible that the church and/or BYU are trying to make an example out of him?
• Do non-members at BYU (let’s say Catholics or Evangelicals) who have signed their ecclesiastical endorsements have to attend church weekly, and hold callings in the church?

I worked as a tutor (American Heritage) to BYU athletes for 2 years while I lived there. I can tell you one thing — few of the BYU athletes I tutored lived up to the BYU Honor Code. I knew players who lived with their girlfriends. I knew many, many players who were sexually active. I knew many, many players who partied hard. And I knew many, many, many players who didn’t go to church at all….anywhere.

So this one does befuddle me a bit. What is behind this specific case? Why him? Why now?

Any thoughts?