I've been listening to a debate on YouTube this afternoon while I get some editorial work done. The topic? "Why does something rather than nothing exist?" The players? Alex J. O'Connor and Cameron Bertuzzi. At one point moderator Justin Brierley says: "This is complex stuff!" Well, that right there is the big lie. And I want to spell out what I mean by that.
The use of fundamentally unintelligible terms (such as "necessary being" or "existence as a perfection") obscures the essentially casuistic nature of the "arguments" in this branch of pseudo-intellectual theology. Kudos to CosmicSkeptic for being civil, and game, but I'd rather we would deplatform these kinds of religious prattle-peddlers, rather than helping to grow their audience by engaging them in "debate."
Unless... does the skeptical/skeptical audience grow at a larger rate than the supernatural audience does, when they come together to watch these kinds of aisle-crossing discussions? If so, perhaps that's a useful function. Who is more empowered by seeing their views laid out with clarity and cogency: skeptics or believers? Ah, but asking the question in those terms suggests to be a problem with the question... for really, it is not POSSIBLE to lay out an unintelligible argument with cogency or clarity.
A moderator can't be neutral or impartial to matters of fact, or he's just normalizing fallacious views; yet the moderator in this particular debate at no point holds Cameron Bertuzzi account for an explanation of terms like "divine simplicity." If we drill down on this vocabulary, we find that it doesn't have any stable correlative. Tolerance of this kind of linguistic slipperiness isn't neutral; it helps to normalize unintelligibility and the unproductive forms of rhetoric that displace more reliable, publicly accessible (in the Rawlsian sense) forms of reason.
Going back to the idea that this is "complex" stuff, consider how this post by the "Intellecutal Honesty Forum" describes Bertuzzi and some of his fellow travellers:
In several places online, Cameron Bertuzzi describes his project as that of "exposing you to the intellectual side of Christian belief." This is, simply, not the case. He's selling himself as a paid commentator, speaker, and online pundit, and attempting to enhance his brand by adorning it in the added-value of intellectualism, while simultaneously eschewing the egg-headed academicism that, at least in the United States, is so readily denigrated by audiences in thrall to right-wing media, conservative politics, and supernaturalist institutions.
I don't begrudge young Alex his professional interest in talking with Christians, or the income he enjoys in doing so. Setting aside the nature of his views or values, he's presenting a view which is investigable, which makes his activity inherently more honest and socially benign than that of social media theologians propagating terminological flim-flam.
The more comfortable people are with intelligible terms, the more susceptible they are parasitic meme-plexes like right-wing media, anti-intellectualism, and apocalyptic political theology. That the "meaning" of words is fluid, conditional, and collaborative has nothing to do with the willfully underdetermined meaning of theological pseudophilosophy.
The use of fundamentally unintelligible terms (such as "necessary being" or "existence as a perfection") obscures the essentially casuistic nature of the "arguments" in this branch of pseudo-intellectual theology. Kudos to CosmicSkeptic for being civil, and game, but I'd rather we would deplatform these kinds of religious prattle-peddlers, rather than helping to grow their audience by engaging them in "debate."
Unless... does the skeptical/skeptical audience grow at a larger rate than the supernatural audience does, when they come together to watch these kinds of aisle-crossing discussions? If so, perhaps that's a useful function. Who is more empowered by seeing their views laid out with clarity and cogency: skeptics or believers? Ah, but asking the question in those terms suggests to be a problem with the question... for really, it is not POSSIBLE to lay out an unintelligible argument with cogency or clarity.
A moderator can't be neutral or impartial to matters of fact, or he's just normalizing fallacious views; yet the moderator in this particular debate at no point holds Cameron Bertuzzi account for an explanation of terms like "divine simplicity." If we drill down on this vocabulary, we find that it doesn't have any stable correlative. Tolerance of this kind of linguistic slipperiness isn't neutral; it helps to normalize unintelligibility and the unproductive forms of rhetoric that displace more reliable, publicly accessible (in the Rawlsian sense) forms of reason.
Going back to the idea that this is "complex" stuff, consider how this post by the "Intellecutal Honesty Forum" describes Bertuzzi and some of his fellow travellers:
In this playlist, three Christian YouTubers (Cameron Bertuzzi ... Mike Winger ... Jon McCray) respond to the 'Atheist Voice' and his '20 Short Arguments Against God.' While Bertuzzi, Winger and McCray, are autodidacts that know quite well the current philosophical, theological and historical literature on these subjects, what makes this a great resource is the deceptive simplicity with which they are presented as for any one to understand the main points.The phrase "Deceptive simplicity" conceals much. Does their presentation of these topics seem simple on the surface, while referring to topics that are actually complex? What would "complex" here mean -- complicated in structure, convoluted in reasoning, resistant to analysis, or unstable in meaning? Is "complex" a coded term meant to be understood as "important" and, or, "impressive"? The seeming interconvertibility of "simplicity" and "complexity" strikes me as a red flag, signalling "meaninglessness." Or if not absent of meaning, then "insert the situationally useful meaning here."
In several places online, Cameron Bertuzzi describes his project as that of "exposing you to the intellectual side of Christian belief." This is, simply, not the case. He's selling himself as a paid commentator, speaker, and online pundit, and attempting to enhance his brand by adorning it in the added-value of intellectualism, while simultaneously eschewing the egg-headed academicism that, at least in the United States, is so readily denigrated by audiences in thrall to right-wing media, conservative politics, and supernaturalist institutions.
I don't begrudge young Alex his professional interest in talking with Christians, or the income he enjoys in doing so. Setting aside the nature of his views or values, he's presenting a view which is investigable, which makes his activity inherently more honest and socially benign than that of social media theologians propagating terminological flim-flam.
The more comfortable people are with intelligible terms, the more susceptible they are parasitic meme-plexes like right-wing media, anti-intellectualism, and apocalyptic political theology. That the "meaning" of words is fluid, conditional, and collaborative has nothing to do with the willfully underdetermined meaning of theological pseudophilosophy.
