The Apologist’s Dilemma

Chapter 7 considers how, in an intellectual setting that calls for humility, the religious apologist faces a dilemma about the rational force of her arguments. She will typically think that they render her own beliefs rational, even in the face of disagreement. Should the apologist think that those who disagree with her—even after hearing her arguments—are rational in denying her beliefs, or in suspending judgment about them? Both affirmative and negative answers to these questions come with potential costs—thus, the dilemma. One path subjects the apologist to charges of arrogance, suggesting she has “knockdown arguments” for her views. The second path threatens to make the apologist’s enterprise incoherent, undermining the very beliefs for which she argues. The chapter aims to show that the apologist cannot sensibly isolate her views about religious disagreement and apologetic strategy from her views about other issues in epistemology and the philosophy of religion.