Comments:

• 

  Jordan

  April 29, 2011

  Virtually all apologists are aware of the way emotions can creep into an argument. We are aware of how not to use emotion in an argument. But I never hear an apologist discussing the proper role of emotion in an argument. I think there must be one. After all, we are not only rational beings but also emotional beings. To reduce human arguments to the exchange of rational propositions, or to only mention emotion with a vague reference to "heart factors" seems weak. How might we articulate a Christian philosophy of emotion?

  Thoughts?
• 

  Brian Auten

  April 29, 2011

  Jordan,
  I am also very interested in that subject. One interview that I think hit on the subject pretty well was one with Joe Carter here. He talks about the proper use of rhetoric.

  I also think that someone like Ravi Zacharias is a good one to watch and learn, as he combines strong stories with good logic – he appeals to emotions, but not in a fallacious way. He pulls on the common longings we all have for meaning, purpose, and redemption.
• 

  Jordan

  April 30, 2011

  Thanks Brian, I'll check that out. Yes, Ravi comes to mind for me as well.

  One area I'm particularly interested in is the relationship between narratives and apologetics. Narratives have an emotional component to them that doesn't seem fallacious, but lends meaning to them.