Picking on the Gangadeanians?

There are many philosophers and even theologians with whom I disagree. There are lots of questionable ideas out there. A former friend of mine, and current Gangadeanian, once complained to me about keeping this blog while not having a similar blog about others with whom I disagree. Besides the fact that this is analogous to asking a person why they ever specialize in any particular field (my time and energy is limited, just like yours), he wasn't appreciating how, from my vantage point, the Gangadeanians are particularly worrisome.

It's not simply the fact that Gangadean makes outlandish claims qua philosopher/theologian though it's certainly a concern. For example, he thinks he's solved the Gettier problem (or answered all Gettier style counterexamples to the JTB account of knowledge) within a few paragraphs while somehow, epistemologists over the last 40 or so years have collectively failed (nevermind, that he only considers Gettier's original cases and ignores the more difficult ones). Relatedly, he thinks he's proven the one correct theory of knowledge. He even thinks he's answered the external world skeptic, head on! He claims to have proven that substance dualism is true (and thus all other theories of mind/consciouness are false) in a quick argument. He's claims to have proven that matter can't possibly be eternal and ultimately that the God of Christian theism (as a personal spiritual being with attributes like justice, mercy, intelligence, free will and the like) exists to the extent that any and all atheists/agnostics are simply denying reason (and "without excuse") for not believing that God exists. What is more, he's proven that Christianity (and in particular, his reformed brand) is the one true belief system, so that any non-Christian is being irrational. He thinks he's proven that compatibilism about free will and moral responsibility is true and that libertarian theories are clearly false. He claims to have solved the problem(s) of evil for theism (again a problem that Christian philosophers have grappled with for centuries). He's even gone so far as to claim that he's proven that the bible is the inspired word of God, by way of deductive inferences! Even the ten commandments can be deduced by reason alone and so that he's proven that the correct first-order theory in ethics is a kind of Christian natural law/teleological account--i.e., the ongoing debates within both metaethics and normative ethics are essentially a fool's errand, because he can prove his theory of right, good and value in an watertight fashion so that believing anything contrary would be the result of denying reason. He even claims to have the one true method or system by which many of the philosophical disagreements and theological disputes that make up professional philosophy and theology, respectively, can be solved (rational presuppositionalism). If we would all just think of the less basic in light of the more basic, we would all come to agree on many of the former. All of this and much more simply by starting with "affirming" the laws of thought as true and ontological. A thing is what it is. A thing is what is it is and not the opposite. A thing is either X or ~X---there's no in between. These trivialities + reasoning from the armchair, he maintains, can give you absolute certainty about various metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, and religious claims. All of us, the countless professional philosophers living today and throughout all of history, and the vast majority of theologians both living and dead, have all somehow missed it despite all of the time and effort put into figuring it all out. We all missed it despite it being so clear.  We missed how to think critically--so that we merely have the appearance of doing so, but we've ultimately failed to have integrity, to think consistently about our basic assumptions, in short, we've (the VAST majority of philosophers and theologians, academics, as well as, humanity at large) neglected, avoided, resisted and denied reason. Anybody (at least the "regenerated" of us) could have figured it all out. But we didn't. Fortunately, Gangadean alone, somehow, got it. This young student of philosophy in Arizona, he somehow managed to get the truth that all of us have been missing and continue to miss, and then dedicated the rest of his life to developing it. The method, the arguments, the truth. He is in effect, the most reasonable (non-divine) person, to have ever lived. I find all of this simply incredible. I just can't imagine what is going on in the mind of a person that believes this about themselves and about all others. Of course, I don't leave it at my incredulity--I give you arguments. This blog, to date, has 112 published posts, many of which are dedicated to showing where his arguments go wrong. But my worries aren't just about how wild Gangadean and Anderson's views are, since again, I've encountered lots of incredible claims (though not quite to this extent) in my time as a philosopher. Let me explain.

Most of the other philosophers/theologians with whom I disagree, are not in the business of proselytizing in the manner that the Gangadeanians are. They aren't on college campuses trying to add members to their church by approaching undergraduates with little to no prior background in philosophy with specious reasoning. They aren't claiming that anybody that disagrees with them about "basic things" is denying reason itself. Gangadeanians believe that it's their God-given calling to teach Gangadean's philosophy and theology (the principle of clarity and related doctrines) at schools, which to them is tantamount to taking the gospel message (as they see it) to the world or to "make disciples of all nations." More importantly, neither is it the case that the other philosophers/theologians with whom I disagree are doing the sort of harm that Gangadean's church has a history of causing. Lot's of families have been divided, and friendships severed over the years, because of Gangadean's teachings and the practices of his church. If you believe that anyone that disagrees with you about the so called "basic things" are being irrational, and desire not to seek the truth, which is tantamount to being a fundamentally immoral person (because sin, according to Gangadean is rooted in not seeking what is clear), then this is going to incline you to treat such persons in certain ways. Over the several years that I've kept this blog, I have received emails from a number of persons who have a family member(s) or friend(s) that attends Gangdean's church and all of them have reported some amount of damage that has occurred to the relationship as a result. It's a pattern. Relatedly, some of these persons are concerned over the well-being of the younger children (with whom they are also related) that attend the church in virtue of the parents being Gangadeanians. Not only am I concerned about such cases, but I'm also concerned about the fate of some of the current Gangadeanians, that will, like me, come to question the worldview--their's is a difficult and painful road ahead. To be convinced that the basic things are "clear to reason" and that they need to be only to find that things aren't. That's part of why I single out the Gangadeanians and perhaps also why I may seem indignant at times. They aren't just throwing around bad ideas. They aren't just being dishonest, intellectually. They are hurting people.