Christianity Today de juillet 08 parle d'un retour de l'apologétique. Dans "God is not Dead Yet" Wililam Lane Craig reformule les arguments classiques de la théologie naturelle.
La question de tout apologète est de savoir quels sont les arguments à utiliser dans un climat post-moderne. Le raisonnement étant mis à l'index lorsqu'il s'agit de prouver sa foi, est-ce raisonnable d'argumenter l'existence de Dieu?
Craig affirme que "l'idée de vitre dans une culture post-moderne est du mythe. En fait, la culture post-moderne est une impossibilité. Ce serait absolument invivable." Car ni en science, ni en technologie on ne dit: "à chacun sa vérité".
L'extrait en question...
However all this may be, some might think that the resurgence of natural theology in our time is merely so much labor lost. For don't we live in a postmodern culture in which appeals to such apologetic arguments are no longer effective? Rational arguments for the truth of theism are no longer supposed to work. Some Christians therefore advise that we should simply share our narrative and invite people to participate in it.
This sort of thinking is guilty of a disastrous misdiagnosis of contemporary culture. The idea that we live in a postmodern culture is a myth. In fact, a postmodern culture is an impossibility; it would be utterly unlivable. People are not relativistic when it comes to matters of science, engineering, and technology; rather, they are relativistic and pluralistic in matters of religion and ethics. But, of course, that's not postmodernism; that's modernism! That's just old-line verificationism, which held that anything you can't prove with your five senses is a matter of personal taste. We live in a culture that remains deeply modernist.
Otherwise, how do we make sense of the popularity of the New Atheism? Dawkins and his ilk are indelibly modernist and even scientistic in their approach. On the postmodernist reading of contemporary culture, their books should have fallen like water on a stone. Instead, people lap them up eagerly, convinced that religious belief is folly.
Seen in this light, tailoring our gospel to a postmodern culture is self-defeating. By laying aside our best apologetic weapons of logic and evidence, we ensure modernism's triumph over us. If the church adopts this course of action, the consequences in the next generation will be catastrophic. Christianity will be reduced to but another voice in a cacophony of competing voices, each sharing its own narrative and none commending itself as the objective truth about reality. Meanwhile, scientific naturalism will continue to shape our culture's view of how the world really is.