On the Transparency of Christian Apologetics

The following is a post to the Christian Apologetics Alliance's Google+ Community by Caleb Dickson, who is well worth a follow.

Apologetics is defined as:

1. Systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine)
2. A branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

Of course there are reasons why opposition to Christianity has intensified, especially in recent decades. A flurry of new scientific observations, hypotheses, theories and the resulting philosophical implications that fly in the face of elementary Christian belief have raised more questions than ever in Christian history. These questions have forced Christians to rally support for their beliefs and provide answers for the growing number of inadequately answered questions and, as a result, growing number of atheists.

But to what end? How far are Christians willing to assert and defend themselves in the face of denial? It seems that too many of us all begin this argument with the presupposition that we are already absolutely and objectively right before a conclusion can even be met. But is this an intelligent assumption for those concerned about the social, political, scientific or overall intellectual legitimacy of their position? Or in any discussion for that matter? Are we willing to leave valid points unchecked simply to save our own arguments?

In the interest of intellectual honesty there must be a criteria purposefully defined and agreed upon for the religious themselves to admit that they have failed to win the debate. Otherwise, what's the point? It seems this would otherwise serve to encourage people to blindly oppose everything the counter-argument has to say without accountability.

With the burden of proof resting on the claimant the Christian criteria for disproof seems primarily important. Because the atheist argument isn't an assertion (a rejection of all religious assertion) criteria for disproof doesn't seem to apply there. Yet we atheists too should set our cards on the table. I have my understandings which are continually being revised and expanded based on new information. I will gladly explain them if asked.
I suggest we at least make an attempt to agree on this criteria before the discussion can resume.

1. What fundamental claims of Christianity do you personally think must be proven in order to claim success in proving your religion true, specifically to the atheist? Things that, unaccounted for, should result in failure.
2. By what standards, with what types of evidence and to what degree must your claims be proven?

I thought this was a very well-stated piece...that, of course, got Caleb kicked out of the community. If any on my apologetic readers have responses, please leave them in the comments and I'll make sure Caleb finds them.