Gender-Specific Apologetics?

Helen de Cruz, a philosopher whose specialization is in philosophy of Religion, Naturalized Epistemology, Cognitive Science and the intersection(s) thereof, has found, in a survey she conducted, the following interesting information:

Women rate the ontological argument and the pragmatic argument more favorably than men, men rate the cosmological argument more favorably than women, and there is an intriguing interaction between gender and religious belief for the argument from beauty and the argument from miracles.
~The Influence of gender and philosophical specialization on assessing natural theological arguments – Part 1

If this is the case, then perhaps an apologist could take such information into account as a dialectical tactic when offering arguments for the existence of God. For example, if the apologist’s interlocutor is a woman, then maybe the apologist would do better to bring up some version of the ontological argument, or a pragmatic argument for the existence of God, or a pragmatic argument for believing in the existence of God. By contrast, were the apologist’s interlocutor a man, perhaps the apologist would do better to advance the cosmological argument. Given a mixed crowd, perhaps an argument with an equal appeal to either sex should be used.

I also wonder what we would find if we surveyed results for arguments for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, or arguments for the infallibility of the Catholic Church – perhaps the findings would be informative for the apologist as well as the sociologist.

Advertisements

About tylerjourneaux

I am an aspiring Catholic theologian and philosopher, and I have a keen interest in apologetics. I am creating this blog both in order to practice and improve my writing and memory retention as I publish my thoughts, and in order to give evidence of my ability to understand and communicate thoughts on topics pertinent to Theology, Philosophy, philosophical theology, Catholic (Christian) Apologetics, philosophy of religion and textual criticism.
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Naturalism, Philosophy, Philosophy of Religion and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s