| Sumario: | This essay explores the apologetic value of arguments for faith that are built upon premises accepted by the skeptic--the kind of argument originally denoted by the term ad hominem. I illustrate the apologetic efficacy of ad hominem argument by working with the premise of 'factuality.' The skeptic supposes that facts may lead to scientific inferences but not to metaphysical ones compatible with religious faith. But, by examining the meaning of factual knowledge more closely, I undertake to show that it necessarily leads to conclusions about moral truth and freewill that lie outside the limits presupposed by skeptics. I conclude by considering how this argument type enables apologists to circumvent what Eric Voegelin has called modernity's "prohibition of questions," its tendency to rule out arguments for faith on procedural grounds.
|
|---|