January 25, 2023

APOLOGIA: The Columns: A Defence of Mere Christianity — NEW BOOK!!!

 APOLOGIA: The Columns: A Defence of Mere Christianity — NEW BOOK!!!

By Hendrik van der Breggen


APOLOGIA: The Columns: A Defence of Mere Christianity is now available for purchase at Amazon.ca Amazon.com , Barnes & Noble, Regent College Bookstore, and Hull's Family Bookstores! 

In this collection of newspaper/blog columns (also titled APOLOGIA) a retired philosophy professor (a.k.a. Hendrik van der Breggen) presents important evidences and philosophical arguments related to the major truths of Christianity. The columns (chapters) are short, readable, and thoughtful—now complete with extensive explanatory notes and guides for further investigation. 


Review

Michael Zwaagstra, Think Again – A serious defence of the Christian faith, The Carillon, March 1, 2023.

 

Interviews

Jordan Ross, Philosopher’s book compiles decade of newspaper columns, The Carillon, March 4, 2023 (article).

Drew Eldridge, A Defence of Mere Christianity - Interview with Dr. Hendrik van der Breggen, Christian Voices, May 5, 2023 (YouTube, audio, 51 minutes).

  

Endorsements

“This collection of newspaper columns by Hendrik van der Breggen is unlike most other books you will read. The sheer number of hot button issues addressed, alone, makes the book a unique resource for people in need of thoughtful, yet concise, help when faced with the multitude of cultural questions currently swirling around.

Not everyone is able to boil complex issues down to their essential elements and provide thoughtful assessment and direction all in two or three pages. Doing that requires deep understanding of the issues being addressed. Hendrik van der Breggen brings a life-time of teaching philosophy and apologetics to this task and it shows.

These columns include intriguing questions, interactive dialogues, and even humorous anecdotes as issue after issue is concisely dissected and explained. In the process, readers will encounter a fresh and well-reasoned defense of the central teachings Christians have always believed along with a number of the philosophical foundations upon which they rest.

For those wanting to raise the level of precision and care in their thinking, this book is packed full of concise definitions, often followed by fuller descriptions, of important terms and concepts such as philosophy, apologetics, epistemology, logic, metaphysics, scientism, truth and the various theories of it, many logical fallacies, and others. The author has also provided assistance for those looking to dig deeper by drawing upon a large number of well-respected sources which are included under the ‘further reading’ sections. This book will be an invaluable resource for many.” 

  • Paul Chamberlain, PhD, Professor of Ethics and Leadership, Director of Institute for Christian Apologetics, Trinity Western University, author of Why People Don’t Believe: Confronting Seven Challenges to Christian Faith (Baker Books, 2011) 

 

“For anyone looking for a comprehensive, yet easy-to-read defense of the Christian faith, I highly recommend this book. Dr. Hendrik van der Breggen has helpfully compiled some of his best newspaper columns from over the years and he also added supporting references and explanatory notes. The end product is a book that is weighty in substance, sharp in argumentation, and winsome in tone. This book is a model of what Christian apologetics should look like.” 

  • Michael Zwaagstra, MEd, MA, high school teacher, city councillor, newspaper columnist, author of A Sage on the Stage: Common Sense Reflections on Teaching and Learning (John Catt Educational, 2020) 

 

“I had the pleasure of reading many of these columns in their original form: as op-ed pieces in a local newspaper. And it is a great privilege to read them again, expanded, noted, and gathered together in one place. Dr. van der Breggen is the rare scholar who strives to express complex ideas simply, and to lead readers to reflect on often unintended, and always unhappy, but logically inevitable conclusions of popular positions in religious and moral debate today. This is an accessible, broad, and lively book. It deserves a readership as large as it is!” 

  • Rev’d Tim Perry, PhD, Professor of Theology, Providence Theological Seminary, editor of The Theology of Benedict XVI: A Protestant Appreciation (Lexham Press, 2019) 

 

“Hendrik van der Breggen’s APOLOGIA: The Columns: A Defence of Mere Christianity provides readers with a comprehensive case for what C. S. Lewis famously termed ‘mere Christianity.’ Like Lewis, Hendrik has a gift for making philosophical arguments accessible, without sacrificing rigor. Those new to exploring the credentials of Christianity cannot do better than this book and those of us familiar with Christian apologetics will appreciate the wealth of suggestions provided for further study. This is a book that deserves a wide readership both within and outside Christian faith.” 

  • Robert A. Larmer, PhD, Professor of Philosophy, Philosophy Department Chair, University of New Brunswick, author of The Legitimacy of Miracle (Lexington Books, 2014) 

 

“Ideas have consequences. What is believed matters. Thus asserts Hendrik van der Breggen in APOLOGIA: The Columns: A Defence of Mere Christianity. With highly relevant, poignant stories, fastidious attention to detail, and copious (yet not overwhelming) references, including immeasurably helpful ‘for further study’ sections at the end of each chapter, van der Breggen effectively engages (with enviable wisdom and transparent conviction) the most important evidences and philosophical arguments related to the major truths of Christianity. APOLOGIA: The Columns provides expert guidance for both the uninitiated and seasoned individuals alike concerning critical thinking, logical principles of discourse, and so-called ‘mere Christianity.’ Would that every author provided as sure footing as Hendrik van der Breggen does in this text!” 

  • Dustin Burlet, PhD, Instructor of Bible, Millar College of the Bible, author of Judgment and Salvation: A Rhetorical-Critical Reading of Noah's Flood in Genesis (Pickwick Publications, 2022) 

 

“This book is the distillation of decades of careful Christian thinking on a wide range of important topics, from skepticism to tolerance to ethics. Dr. van der Breggen models the passion for truth and posture of humble confidence he recommends to his readers. No question or line of argument is off-limits. Whatever their views, readers will find themselves challenged to think, and think again.” 

  • Kevin N. Flatt, PhD, Professor of History, Associate Dean of Humanities, Redeemer University, author of After Evangelicalism: The Sixties and the United Church of Canada (McGill-Queen's University Press, 2014) 


7 comments:

Gary said...

50 evangelical apologists were asked this question: "Do you perceive the presence of Jesus within you?" None responded! Have skeptics found the Achilles Heel of evangelical apologetics?

https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2023/02/19/50-evangelical-apologists-were-asked-do-you-perceive-the-inner-presence-of-jesus-none-responded/

Hendrik van der Breggen said...

Thanks for the comment, Gary. I wasn’t aware of your survey, but I do know that the survey question you mention shouldn’t be a problem for evangelical apologetics, let alone its so-called “Achilles Heel.” Here are some of my reasons for thinking this.

First, not responding to a question in a survey is not the same as an answer of no (nor yes). It’s simply not a response. I suspect many scholar-apologists are too busy with students and life in general to answer an unknown blogger’s email survey that appears out-of-the-blue in their inbox.

Second, it seems to me that to, as you say, “perceive the presence of Jesus within you” is not the goal of evangelical Christian apologetics. Rather, the goal is to have people come to believe that Jesus is Lord (God come to earth as a human being), that Jesus resurrected (physically), and to follow Him. So even if the non-response were taken as a “no,” that wouldn’t be a problem for evangelical Christian apologetics, at least not its goal.

Third, if you think (as you do on your blog post) that an apologist’s having a subjective perception of the presence of Jesus within him/herself somehow precludes the possibility for an apologist to be reasonably objective or non-biased in discerning the truth of Christianity in the first place (and thus the apologetic project can’t get off the ground at the get-go), I think you are mistaken. Perhaps this comment from page 193 of my book (in the chapter “The virtues of a critical thinker”) may provide some insight here:

“In the pursuit of knowledge of truth and the communication of knowledge of truth, critical thinkers should also distinguish between psychological objectivity and rational objectivity. Psychological objectivity involves a lack of subjective involvement, a lack of commitment, a detachment from reality. Such objectivity, if possible, seems appropriate only when there is no investigation or no interest, and thus should not be a part of an education that encourages students to make a subjective commitment to seek and embrace whatever is true, excellent, praiseworthy, and good. Rational objectivity, on the other hand, acknowledges our subjective involvement as appropriate—we are, after all, subjective beings—and it calls us to exercise those epistemological virtues by which we discern objective truth (regarding what is real). How? By calling us to honesty, by calling us to take into account positive evidence and negative evidence, by calling us to reason carefully, by calling us to acknowledge and limit the intrusions of personal and cultural bias (as much as humanly possible), and by calling us to respect the true and good insights arising from our communities of investigation (i.e., the various academic and scientific disciplines).”

(As I note in my book, this important distinction between psychological objectivity and rational objectivity is from J. P. Moreland, “Four Degrees of Postmodernism,” in Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics, edited by Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, 17-34 [Nashville: B&H Academic, 2012]. See especially pages 26–28.)

Can personal and cultural biases be overcome or at least acknowledged and managed so they don’t distort our perception of reality? Can one achieve a reasonable degree of rational objectivity? I think so.

Therefore, the survey question you mention shouldn’t be a problem for evangelical Christian apologetics, let alone its so-called “Achilles Heel.”

I hope my answer is helpful.

Cheers.

P.S. In my book I have a couple sections on critical thinking tools (truth, logic, and language) and philosophy of knowledge (skepticisms, interpretation, modest foundationalism). You might find these to be of interest.

Gary said...

Thank you so much for your response.

We all have biases and prejudices. I acknowledge that I have biases. I am biased against supernatural claims. I am biased against supernatural claims not because I know as a fact that the supernatural does not exist. This would be foolish. I am biased against supernatural claims for the same reason that I am biased against claims about unicorns. I see no good evidence that unicorns currently exist in our universe nor do I see any good evidence that the supernatural currently operates in our universe. I am willing to change me mind on both issues, but it is going to take very strong evidence to do so.

However, imagine that the topic of a debate is "What happened to Jimmy Hoffa". If I admit that I believe that the ghost of Jimmy Hoffa lives within me, whispering to me in a still, small voice that he is alive, how objective can I be about evidence indicating that he is dead? I just don't think it is possible to be objective about the whereabouts of a dead body if one believes that the ghost of that dead body lives within them, speaking to them through an inaudible form of communication that the dead body has been resurrected to heaven. What do you think?

Hendrik van der Breggen said...

Thank you, Gary, for your reply.

Let me first say that I appreciate that we can discuss the topic civilly. That’s a good thing. Thanks for that.

About unicorns and the supernatural. I, too, see no good evidence for unicorns. But I do see good evidence for the supernatural. In fact, I think there’s a powerful cumulative case that can be made and which I do make in my book. I also deal with a lot of objections. I won’t rehash the arguments here. If you go to the Amazon webpage you can see the table of contents to get an idea of what’s in my book. I don’t intend this as a sales pitch for my book, but that’s why I wrote the book—so I won’t have to rehash the arguments. (I’m getting old… and tired.)

About the ghost of Jimmy Hoffa. What if the “ghost” I’m hearing tells me to look for evidence, examine pros and cons, think as carefully and hard as possible, strive to be objective, and be willing to submit to truth? That’s the “ghost” (spirit) I’ve been hearing over the past 40 or so years (I’m now nearly 70; I became a follower of Jesus at age 30). That “ghost” has guided me to and through my studies in philosophy, much of which had to do with the study of logic/ argument and dealing with objections to Jesus’ resurrection.

Thanks again for the discussion, Gary. Best regards.

Gary said...

I too appreciate the polite tone of our conversation.

The point of my initial comment is that I believe that evangelical apologists should be honest and up front that they believe that the ghost (spirit) of the resurrected Jesus lives inside of them; a ghost who gives them life guidance; a ghost who provides them with comfort and security; a ghost who tells them how to examine evidence, even if that ghost encourages them to be objective and a seeker of truth. You may not believe that this spirit or ghost influences your objectivity regarding the historical evidence for the Resurrection, but I assure you most non-Christians are not going to believe you. But if you are going to debate us on the Resurrection, shouldn't we be aware of this potential bias?

I once asked evangelical NT scholar Michael Licona if he perceives the presence of Jesus within him. He refused to answer. After I kept pushing him, he accused me of trying to force him into an "evangelical caricature". Yet, when I checked out his Facebook page, he gushed about the comfort and peace the presence of Christ within him gives him.

If I were debating you on the historicity of the Resurrection, after finding out that you believe the resurrected Jesus lives inside you, the next question I would ask is this: How convinced are you that the presence you perceive inside you is Jesus? If you say you are 100% certain, this would convince me even more than you are hopelessly biased in favor of the literal resurrection of Jesus due to your subjective perceptions of his ghost. Even if I could produce the very bones of Jesus, why would you change your mind if you can feel him living inside you?? In the view of most non-Christians, including many theists like Jews, this is just not rational thinking, my friend. How reliable are subjective perceptions? Isn't it highly probable that the being you perceive inside you is none other than...you? Your inner dialogue with youself?

Gary said...

I am a former evangelical. I have experienced the alleged “presence of the Jesus” within me. I now believe it is a delusion; a very comforting delusion, but still a delusion. And there is good evidence that it is a delusion: How many evangelicals do you know who have repeated their born again experience, “just to be sure”. The presence you feel within you, Hendrik, is not Jesus. It is YOU.

Hendrik van der Breggen said...

Hello again, Gary.

Yes, of course we should be aware of potential biases that might affect our arguments, whether it’s a pro-supernatural bias or anti-supernatural bias—or whatever. (BTW, I heard a similar objection to yours back in 1987.) Enter the importance of the distinction concerning psychological objectivity and rational objectivity, which I mentioned in my first reply to you (see above). You seem to be ignoring this distinction and its importance for our discussion.

You keep suggesting (insisting) that my (alleged) bias is probably fueling my judgment and so my arguments are therefore weakened or should be dismissed. Yet you do this without even examining the case I set out in my book! Surely you are here engaging in a fallacious ad hominem argument (i.e., attacking an alleged personal characteristic of the arguer instead of his/her arguments).

The case for Jesus’ resurrection from the dead stands or falls on the basis of relevant evidence, evidence that shouldn’t be dismissed because of an anti-supernatural bias nor be accepted because of a pro-supernatural bias. If the issue is “Did Jesus’ miraculous resurrection occur?” then the relevant evidences and arguments should be examined and biases put in check.

In other words, you should actually look at my arguments, not dismiss them because you presuppose at the get-go that I’m probably biased in some sort of way that undermines the cogency of my work. In fact, it very much seems that your presupposition about my bias—which occurs without examining ANY of my arguments—is itself a textbook definition of bias. I think I agree with Michael Licona about you attempting to squeeze him—and now me—into some sort of “caricature.”

To recap:

(1) You misuse/misinterpret the result of your “survey” (a serious mistake at the get-go).
(2) You fail to distinguish between psychological objectivity and rational objectivity and ignore its significance for our discussion.
(3) You engage in ongoing fallacious ad hominem argumentation.
(4) You don’t examine any of my arguments, yet are dismissive of them.
(5) All of the above show that you have a bias that’s impinging on clear and careful reasoning.

I am tired, Gary. I hereby close this conversation.

Cheers.

Note to APOLOGIA readers: Gary refers to me as his “friend.” For the sake of clarity, I wish to point out that, as far as I am aware, Gary and I have never met in person nor are we Facebook “friends.” Gary (a pseudonym?) is someone who took it upon himself to comment on my blog so he could criticize my work without reading it. Yes, I am friendly, courteous, and respectful in my responses to “Gary,” but I am not his friend. I understand friendship to be much deeper than being a mere internet acquaintance. I intend no disrespect to Gary in saying this, and I wish him all the best.