Why do apologists only invoke the underdetermination of scientific theories...

[NarathzulArantheal]

...as long as it suits them? For a while now it has been becoming more and more apparent to me how selective religious apologists, especially Christian apologists, are invoking underdetermination.

For instance apologists will gladly invoke underdetermination with knowledge claims that they don't like, yet never do that with knowledge claims they do like. They'll say things like "Well you can't know if a god really talked to a person because to you both god talking to her and it all simply being in her head would both look identical". Yet they'd never go to that believer and say "Well you can't really know if a god really talked to you because both your mind imagining it and a god really talking to you would look identical". I find this hypocritical and biased.

Basically it's Christians once again picking any argument that just has the right conclusion and applying it selectively. If it still isn't clear what underdetermination is, see:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-underdetermination/

 

[Lynn]

Because it's the only way their position has a chance of being believable.

When someone has a belief system based entirely on compelling argument, venturing into "facts" will be extremely problematic.

 

[OpenMike]

Whereas atheists are always forthcoming and completely rational in their presentation of "the facts". Funny how the thousands of proofs of the Bible are dismissed to the point of insanity, but yet you still believe in your completely biased super-heroes of the atheistic faith

 

[Johnny]

Religion does that to people, I'm afraid

 

[CalleyD]

apologists help brain-dead Atheists understand what they're reading