Anderson Youtube Convo Update

The saga on Youtube continues. But a philosophical discussion it has yet to become. Anderson writes,

By way of contrast, we needn't be involved in using insults or dishonesty. "Sloppy" and "lazy" are unnecessary insults. "Cult" is used because he is being dishonest about events behind anonymity. "Cult" has a specific meaning and does not apply to historic Christianity. So it doesn't follow that if he is right about our views being false then we are a cult. That would just mean that historic Christianity (as summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith) is false. It is an insulting term being used dishonestly and shuts down conversation. Much of what needs to be addressed is private and cannot be replied to on a public blog To say we won't engage with him because we don't have an answer, as opposed to because of his own behavior, is a perfect example of the dishonesty. 

I hope you can see why your involving yourself with a source exhibiting such behavior is much more problematic than simply saying you think we are incorrect. You can come up with objections yourself without citing that kind of source. I'm not interested in having a proxy discussion with him through you. His private conduct toward me and others, and continued use of insults, is the reason I don't interact with him in public spaces.  

If you want to address the question of "what is eternal?" in good faith can we agree not to engage in that kind of behavior?

Calling Gangadeanian arguments/reasoning sloppy or lazy, hardly strikes me as insulting in the first place--its a colorful way of conveying the idea that the arguments are unsophisticated, imprecise, and bad. If you really think these words count as insults then you've lead a sheltered life. It's also a bit rich for the Gangadeanians, given the way they have treated me and others, to expect that I would in turn be so careful of what adjectives I use to spare their feelings. In the end, if they want to hide behind the fact that I've used words like, "sloppy" and "lazy," as a way of rationalizing why they are not dealing with my philosophical objections, that's on them. At least, Anderson's list of what counts as an insult seems to have narrowed from his initial one.

Further, Anderson claims that I'm not only being insulting in using the term "cult" (I believe I've done this only once) to refer to his church, but also dishonest. On the contrary, I maintain that I'm being sincere. All I mean when I apply that label to Gangadean/Anderson's church is that it has many of the bad-making features of paradigmatic cults and I know many others that agree. How do you decide when something is a cult? You start with paradigms (e.g., Scientology) and then when you see a family resemblance (to a significant degree), you apply the label. I'm sure members that belong to what most of us would refer to as a cults, would likewise find the term insulting, but the label is no less apt (let alone, dishonest) just because of that fact. Of course, Anderson may ultimately disagree with my evaluations, but to call me dishonest in my usage of the term seems to be insinuating that I'm attempting to mislead my readers with malintent. That couldn't be further from the truth. I genuinely believe Westminster Fellowship is a religious cult--maybe I'll add a post in the near future detailing why.

The portions of Anderson's most recent comment, which I put in bold, are interesting. To the first: Anderson again alleges that I'm being dishonest in suggesting the possibility that Anderson and other Gangadeanians actually don't have answers to my challenges, and that's the reason they won't engage. I may have said something of this nature in some of my posts. But again I'm not being dishonest. It's a hypothesis which is supported by several pieces of evidence.

First, it stems from my personal interactions with Gangadean, Anderson and some others, as well as, the interactions of others that I know. Even before I made this blog public, I encountered the very sort of evasion techniques that I suspect are being employed now in the Youtube exchange. It was very frequently, "I've got the answer to your challenge, but (for some reason) I won't just come out and tell you what it is. First, we have to get the basic things in place. But trust me, I've got the answers..." (One possible exception can be seen here. Unfortunately, Anderson in attempting to answer me directly, when Gangadean refused, presented me a terrible argument, and the exchange is not entirely free from evasive manuevers). If you really have the answers, why not just state them, and see if your opponent finds them plausible? You might be pleasantly surprised that they do and then you can move on! But if you find that there's disagreement, you can easily work backwards to show how your "answer" follows from more basic commitments. In turn you can then shift to talk about those more basic issues. It's not hard. In contrast, when you merely dangle the promise of an answer, without ever stating what that answer is, it looks suspect. It looks like you're buying yourself more time. To date there are 19 comments between Spencer and Anderson, but not a single one provides us with Anderson's "answer" to the original objection. There's a list of related issues, a bunch of counter-questions, a few promises that Anderson has got an answer, and then a disproportionate number of comments about me as the source of the original objection, my personal/moral character, and even Spencer's affiliation with me. That, too is suggestive. But there's more. Gangadeanians have a history of "ending discussions" with people with whom they disagree on grounds that they "deny reason." And this "diagnosis" frequently emerges in the process of "getting the more basic things in place." What this means is that it's frequently the case that the Gangadeanians fail to present the purported response (which they swear they have) to the challenges.

Finally, I've presented my objections and they seem to me (and a number of other philosophers with whom I've spoken) correct such that in some cases there seems no way that Gangadean can address them while remaining consistent to his other commitments. Relatedly, Gangadean and Anderson are claiming to have proven all kinds of substantive views which virtually no living philosopher would say can even in principle be proven. So, what I'm contending is that when we consider all of these facts together, the most plausible explanation is that the Gangadeanians are simply finding ways of evading difficult objections. That's why he and his people refuse to answer my challenges head on and hide behind this noise about slander and insults. In fact, I suspect this is in part, how Gangadean has managed to influence his followers for so long despite having really bad arguments. Basically, find some way to avoid addressing the difficult issues, and disqualify from conversations, those who continue to press you on them. Again, Anderson might disagree with me here, (and he could easily settle the matter by just answering an objection directly), but then it would be more appropriate to say he believes that I'm wrong as opposed to accusing me of being dishonest. I'm not trying to pull a fast one on anybody.

Finally, Anderson also made mention of my "private conduct towards him and others" as yet another reason why he refuses to interact with me in public. I assure you there's no scandalous story about why we no longer speak, at least on my end. I won't post the details on this blog because I don't want to stoop to that level, but if you want to know more about what happened between Anderson and me, just shoot me an email--I'm happy to share. Fortunately, I've still got the email where Anderson told me exactly why he didn't want to interact with me any longer so there will be less room for him to manipulate the narrative.

As for my "private conduct towards others," I have no idea what he's talking about. Since he's accusing me of personal misconduct with other Gangadeanians, I hope he can offer some sort of evidence that I misbehaved, otherwise he's the one being dishonest. All of my interactions with other Gangadeanians stopped either because Gangadean directed most of the congregation not to speak with me or in the case of my "close friends," they decided that we had no basis for a friendship in virtue of the fact that I maintain this blog and I (allegedly) deny what is clear to reason--there's no more to the story.