Should apologetics take into account deeper convictions behind rational arguments?

Question

Lately I came across What are Christian responses to the atheistic argument that God is an unnecessary and overly complicated extra step? and posted an answer to it. Although I wrote my post in response to the question, it was a bit out of place as it didn't exactly answer the question. So I rewrote things (quite) a bit and now post my own question.

I think we can say that nowadays the main challenge for apologetics is justifying faith in the face of atheism. In fact, there are two challenges. One is justifying faith for ourselves. The other is justifying faith for others.

The goal of justifying faith for ourselves is to protect our own faith. We can't avoid being confronted with arguments against God's existence. But we want to keep our faith plausible. So for each of those arguments, we must find a satisfying counterargument. Finding satisfying counterarguments may be hard, but we only need to satisfy our own intellect.

The goal of justifying faith for others is to help them overcome their objections and accept faith. Then it often won't do to just take certain arguments against God's existence and counter those. One must engage in dialogue, listen carefully, try sincerely to understand their objections, and try to see where those objections come from, what's behind them, and what's driving them. Only then one can address their objections in a helpful way.

Allow me to explain. I think many atheists would claim their view is based on objective facts and rational arguments. Now facts in themselves may be objective, but how we search for them and how we filter, interpret, and explain them is very subjective, as that depends on certain deeper convictions in ourselves. In the same way, our rational arguments also depend on our deeper convictions. This counts for atheists and believers alike.

We all live with such deeper convictions. They feel so familiar though that we're hardly aware of them until perhaps confronted with incompatible convictions. We have many deeper convictions based on character, culture, upbringing, experiences, or whatever. These convictions also determine how we look at God. For some people, a deeper conviction might be a strong longing for autonomy. They would be less inclined to submit to some god dictating to them what (not) to do. Other people may long for security. They would be more inclined to hope for some god protecting them.

With that in mind, I'd not be surprised if large parts of atheism are rooted in (perhaps valid) resentment against church and religion and religious upbringing. Some atheist arguments could just be rational expressions of the underlying resentment. Or perhaps more precisely, some atheist arguments may serve to rationally dissociate oneself from the underlying resentment. The strongest way to dissociate oneself from resentment against religion is by denying God himself.

Now if we'd only bothered countering rational atheist arguments, then we'd satisfied our own intellects but failed to see what's behind those arguments. Once we see the deeper convictions driving atheism, however, it becomes clear that it doesn't help so much to carry a debate by scientific or philosophical arguments, unless you first check your own deeper convictions as well as the convictions of your atheist opponents.

So here's the question: should apologetics focus on rational arguments only, or should it take into account deeper convictions behind rational arguments as well?

After @SuperFlash's answer down below, I realized I need to make my question more specific. My question is not whether apologetics should find a rational argument for or against any possible personal conviction or experience or feeling. It's more whether apologetics should take into account the role of deeper convictions in general. So let's make my question more specific:

1. Should apologetics acknowledge the plain possibility that there might be deeper convictions driving rational arguments? Regardless of what specific convictions may look like?
2. If so, should apologetics also incorporate reasoning how deeper convictions in general may drive rational arguments about God? Or perhaps more accurate how rational arguments may serve to justify deeper convictions with relation to God?
3. And again if so, should apologetics also identify certain universal deeper convictions? Like longing for autonomy or security?

Answer 1

Apologetics should definitely focus on rational arguments because at its core, it's about showing that faith makes sense logically. If you can present clear, reasoned answers to tough questions, it opens up a real conversation about whether belief is reasonable. It’s about making sure that what you believe holds up when put to the test, and by doing that, you can actually reach people who are questioning or skeptical.

Bringing in personal convictions too much, though, can distract from the objective issues at hand. It risks making the discussion feel more about personal experience or feelings rather than the actual truth claims of the faith, which might not be as persuasive to someone approaching the topic from a purely intellectual standpoint.

Answer 2

Many Faceted Diamond of Apologetics
To accurately answer this important question we do well to recognize, first, that Apologetics is a many-faceted endeavor, and is not limited to "rational arguments".

• Rational arguments - intellectual exercises
• Historical arguments - In fact some scholars avered that the historicity of Jesus forever removed the discussion out of the philosophy department!
• Scientific arguments - "Finite universe," "goldilocks universe," "intelligent design," "irreducible complexity," "origin of life," are all evidences that have brought modern scientists to the point of reconsidering their hesitancy to acknowledge God. [See RETURN TO THE GOD HYPOTHESIS, Steven Meyer]
• Charismatic arguments - Factual and confirmed supernatural experiences in the name of Jesus.
• Ethical arguments - The solution to the dilemma of explaining the existence of a thing called "good." (And other abstract concepts not inherent in chemicals)
• Anthropological arguments - Seeking the purpose for man in the universe.
• Charitable arguments - the providential, supernatural benevolence of God which leads to repentance.

Epistemology
Not all of these arguments appeal to every one equally. It all depends on a person's epistemology, or method of learning. Some people are more visual, some verbal, some experimental, etc.

And it should be kept in mind that people have various starting points, and therefore differing needs, that Apologetics serves to help: (a) Apologetics removes obstacles to faith (helping atheists); (b) Apologetics confirms the latent faith of others (open minded seekers); (c) Apologetics removes the doubts of wondering believers (doubting theists).

Preliminary Questions
But many Christian apologists recognize the import of this posted question presented here: Make sure one starts any discussion by examining the presumptions (biases, prejudices, up-bring, indoctrination) of the inquiring (or adversarial) Atheist. The subject of the sincerely held "convictions" of the atheist must be broached first.

• Some atheism advocacy is the result of a "bad experience" in life (a child was killed).
• Some atheism is firmly staunched in the mind because of a misunderstanding of the concept of the person and nature of God. ["I don't believe in that God either" is a good response, often]
• Some atheism is just the result of peer pressure in academia (university indoctrination) without any application of critical thinking.
• Some atheism is advocated just because of its alleged association with "proven scientific facts."
• And most of all, it must acknowledged that some atheists are so, just because of their nature's inbred hatred for religion---and God Himself that would restrict their morals and folkways. [Note: Huxley admitted that he did not want to believe so nothing would stand in his way of venting his lust!]

Convictions
Whichever the case, it is legitimate to say that for many, the convictions of the atheist are simply a philosophical atheism of the gaps in an attempt to bridge their presumptive worldview (of autonomy and independence) with the real world around them! There is a chasm that must be confronted and dealt with. Atheism is their "default mechanism". Philosophical faith (non-empirical, by the way) is their answer to this dilemma...an atheistic faith.

But whether dealing with "open minded" atheists (simply led astray by lack of knowledge), or confronting adamant atheists, it is protocol for any apologists to seek or ask for the underlying convictions behind their belief (convictions). The presumptions of the atheist must be exposed (admitted) before meaningful dialogue can occur.

One apologist of note has advocated the Socratic method of dialogue, which utilizes the asking of question in order for the inquirer to personally discover the reasonings behind his position! [William Lane Craig] The atheist's own answers reveal the tenuous nature of his position (beliefs), when they are taken to their logical conclusion.

A true, effective apologist would indeed consider the deep convictions (preconceived assumptions) of, not just an atheist, but any adversary seeking truth in an honest way.