I ran across an interesting way of describing the difference between apologists and critics. I'm rephrasing it (i.e. eating the book and making it my own...) to bring out my take on it.
A Mormon apologist wrote an article entitled 'What critics don't understand' ... The article implies that critics cannot understand the position of believers. That the "spirit" is the true test of knowledge. But is this a valid epistemological undertaking or belief?
The apologist or believer relies upon their testimony for "truth." Despite what the facts may say to the contrary.
And so the critics do understand this. And many critics were once in the same position, but let reason trump testimony. Critics understand that testimony is subjective, emotional, and lacking in reason. What the apologists and believers do not understand is that they are lacking reason, understanding and objectivity.