This Dark Age

A manual for life in the modern world.

By Daniel Schwindt

NOTICE:
This Dark Age is now available in paperback on Amazon. The print version is MUCH cleaner than this online version, which is largely unedited and has fallen by the wayside as the project has grown. If you’ve appreciated my writing, please consider leaving a review on the relevant paperback volumes. The print edition also includes new sections (Military History, War Psychology, Dogmatic Theology).

Volume 1 | Volume 2 | Volume 3| Volume 4 | Volume 5 | Volume 6

Avoidance of apologetics

Another thing we might as well get out of the way concerns what we would call the “persuasive” approach, wherein the writer writes in order to convince the reader that his position is rational, defensible, and valid. In popular Christianity this is called ‘apologetics’—which has as its goals the defense the faith and the ‘winning’ of converts. It should be obvious already that I am making no effort in this work to be ‘scholarly’ in what I write here, but I would like to go further, so that it is plainly understood, and say that I’m not even trying to be particularly convincing, especially from the point of view of Christian apologetics. To be truthful, I will admit that ‘the defense of the faith’ was once a soul-sucking concern of mine—I made serious efforts to demonstrate to others the truth of what I saw—but I have matured (a little) since then, and these days I want no part of it.

I have no wish to convince anyone who does not wish to be convinced. I merely offer this collected data, with the understanding that my readers will take or leave it as is appropriate to each. If anyone becomes persuaded by anything written here, it is not a ‘success’ chalked up on my side of the scoreboard, and it may be just as likely that the person I persuaded was merely fickle or credulous, in which case little good has been done for either of us. If I digress into argumentation, it should be taken as nothing more than that: a digression.

The “apologetic” attitude automatically impoverishes dialogue, especially the kind of dialogue we are trying to have here. Some things can only be stated with approximate clarity, but never demonstrated with certainty, and in these cases it is always up to the individual to do the inner work required to integrate the data, or else, through discernment, to ignore what I’ve said as incomprehensible or incorrect. Often, and contrary to the assumptions of egalitarian education, there is no explanation capable of making the idea comprehensible to all—there are only intimations which can lead those capable of travelling. Why this is, and what that means for doctrinal exposition, I will explain later. For now, please know that my position is that when it comes to doctrine, ‘apologetics’ is an utter waste of time. It profanes the sacred and confuses the student by drastically over-emphasizing the importance of rationalist argumentation.

Share This