| Abstract [eng] |
This dissertation examines direct and indirect communication in Christian apologetics in a contemporary context. In order to present an apologia for apologetics in today's secularized Western world, the problems of the ethicality of Christian proselytism and the specific forms of communication it employs, such as humour, are addressed. It also responds to the famous Danish philosopher and theologian Søren Kierkegaard's assertion that it is impossible to communicate religious content directly and his critique of conventional apologetics. It is argued that Kierkegaard, contrary to what some of his interpreters would claim, is not an anti-rationalist but instead attempts to draw the proper boundaries of reason and logical persuasion. Moreover, despite his hostility to conventional apologetics, he can be considered an apologist, but using a specific method - indirect communication. Finally, the examples of various Christian apologists show that Kierkegaard's critique of direct communication and the apologetics of such a method is not entirely justified. This problem is addressed mainly in the light of the ideas of William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga and, in particular, reformed epistemology. According to these philosophers, although arguments and proofs are not strictly necessary for Christianity (as Kierkegaard would have it), they are nevertheless present and can be helpful if their place is understood correctly. |
