Drawing out some implications: Why Other Christians Should Care and Why they are a Cult.

I've been telling my students this term that good philosophy involves considering a claim or set of claims (whether the premise of an argument or a conclusion) and carefully drawing out implications that might not otherwise be obvious to a casual observing, by connecting it/them to other propositions. It is sometimes the case that what a person argues for, or what they take for granted, by itself seems harmless or germane. What makes philosophy so interesting is that one can, on the basis of valid rules of inference, sometimes show that something surprising or unexpected follows from an otherwise seemingly innocuous claim or set of claims.

I've been thinking lately about the Gangadeanians ramping up their public appearances and how they occupy instructor and headmaster positions among many of the valley schools (both secondary and post-secondary). If I'm right that they believe such implausible things which they ultimately use to harm people and divide believers, how is it that they seem to be gaining momentum at least by some measures? And why aren't there more people speaking out against them in public? I should note that I've spoken to persons who are actually afraid to speak out against them in public which is troubling in its own right. Setting those persons aside, one explanation is that they have gotten better with how they present things and what it is that they set forth. That is to say, they tend to avoid talking about some of the natural corrollaries of their views which I think many people, in particular, Christians would take serious offense to--and more importantly I think Christians would think to be false and heretical. It takes a bit of work to connect the dots though and so I want to do a bit of that in this article.

In his book Philosophical Foundation, Gangadean writes,

If one knows what is clear one should be able to show what is clear and be able to overcome commonly held objections to what is clear...To show what is clear requires giving a sound argument (valid inference and true premises) (4). 

First, a quibble. Why does he say that you have to be able to overcome commonly held objections to what is clear, if you are to count as knowing what is clear. That feels awfully arbitrary. What counts as a "common" objection? My best guess is that it's the popularity of the objections otherwise, I have no clue what he could mean. But then why musn't a person care about unpopular objections? Does popularity entail correctness? Unpopularity incorrectness? This is bizarre. I don't get why the popularity of an objection should matter to whether you count has knowing. What is more, an objection may be popular relative to one group, but not another just as the popularity of an objection can shift depending on the time period.

Setting that quibble aside, what Gangadean is saying is this: if you aren't able to give a sound argument for something or are unable to overcome commonly held objections to it, then you don't count as knowing it. Now ask yourself, how many claims can you, by way of argument, prove in this sense? Remember to show that something is clear, is to show that you couldn't possibly be wrong about it---that it's impossible that the thing believed is false. I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find many things which you believe (and take yourself to know) to fall into this category.

Now it turns out that the Gangadeanians take themselves to know all kinds of things and so they take themselves to be able to prove as many claims (and to overcome commonly held objections to them). Here's a list of just some.

• That God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

• That Good for a man = spiritual life = to know basic things about God, man, good and evil. 

• That we are body soul unities (i.e., substance dualism is true). 

• That Matter couldn't possibly be eternal. 

• That the bible in its entirety is the word of God (or special revelation) and has been faithfully transmitted and preserved by God. 

• That we are not in a Matrix like scenario (that there is a mind-independent- external world i.e., external world skepticism is false). 

• That no other religion is the way to God (i.e., Jesus is the only way to God/salvation). 

• That Calvinism (TULIP) is true. 

• That postmillenialism is true. 

• That compatibilism (or soft determinism) concerning free will and moral responsibility is true. 

• That the Westminster Confession of Faith and the longer and shorter catechisms = the most faithful respresentation to date of Christianity. 

• That Christians ought not to use any instruments or sing anything, but Psalms in corporate worship services. 

• That the church ought to baptize infants belonging to parents of believers. 

• That women are to remain silent during worship services because men have a special duty to instruct their wives and daughters at home. 

• That young earth Creationism is true.

This is just a sample of the things they take themselves to know, which means that they can produce a series of sound arguments which have as their conclusions each of these things and that they can overcome "commonly held objections." Some of these concern interpretations of what the bible says--and yes, they think they can prove that their interpretations are not possibly incorrect. Now the thing to note about this list is that some of these are commonly held beliefs among Christians and some (the bulk of them) are hotly contested among Christians. As to this latter group, I suspect that many Christians will find it incredible that the Gangadeanians claim to be able to show that the opposite of them is impossible---that the Gangadeanians claim that they couldn't possibly be wrong concerning the truth of Calvinism for instance seems just wild.

Let's set those claims aside. Let's focus on the mere claim that God exists and that the bible is the word of God. Remember, according to Gangadean, if you aren't able to prove that the opposite of these claims is impossible, and aren't able to overcome commonly held objections to them, you don't count as knowing those things. This by itself, means that the vast majority of Christians who believes these things count as failing to know them. That's because by all accounts, most Christians don't come to believe that God exists or that the bible is the word of God by way of philosophical arguments, let alone being able to "show" or demonstrate such an argument.

But it's even worse than that. Even if a Christian believes that God (as conceived by classical theism) exists on the basis of a philosophical argument and is able to rehearse such an argument, that won't cut it either. It must be a sound argument. It must be an argument that definitively shows that it's impossible for God (as conceived) to not exist. Now Christian philosophy has a rich history. There are lots of theistic arguments produced and refined by Christian philosophers over the years. Do these count as proofs according to Gangadean? Nope. That's why he wrote his book. That's why he started a church that sets itself apart from others. As he sees things, none of the classical or contemporary arguments are sound and he and Anderson spend time in their works showing why the most common theistic arguments simply fail to show that it's impossible for God not to exist (or that it's clear that God exists). That's the main premise of Owen Anderson's book, the Clarity of God's existence! On the other hand, Gangadean claims that he's got The proof of God's existence and all the items on the above list and more!

Pulling these things together, we get the following corollary. According to the Gangadeanians, the vast majority of Christians fail to know that God exists. It's only those that know Gangadean's purported proof for God's existence, agree that it is sound, and are able to produce it (while overcoming commonly held objections) that count as knowing that God exists. On a very liberal estimate I would say that's about 200 or so people in the world. To be sure, they grant that people believe that God exists, but belief is not knowledge. The same is true of the proposition that the bible is the inspired word of God. The vast majority of people either don't know of Gangadean's proof or find it unsound--in that case, according to the Gangadeanians, the vast majority of Christians don't count as knowing that the bible is the word of God. The same is true of anything on the above list and more! In some cases, since some of the things enumerated above are contentious, you might think that that is a good thing. But if you read between the lines a bit, you should find such a view problematic for any Christian not in agreement with the Gangadeanians. That you don't know that the bible is the word of God (because you aren't able to rehearse Gangadean's argument for that claim) entails that you don't know that Jesus died for your sins! In other words, if we take Gangadean's express standard of knowledge, there is utter and widespread ignorance among Christians. Of course, by their lights, the ignorance also affects non-Christians equally.

Anderson finds it offensive that I have referred to his church as a cult. But is it really in line with orthodoxy, that the vast majority of Christians (save the 200 or so that may have bought into and are able to rehearse Gangadean's arguments) don't know that Christianity is true, that God exists, that Jesus died for their sins and that the bible is the inspired word of God? Hardly. What is more, it is Gangadean's view that failing to know what is "clear" is spiritual death. So, if by his lights, most Christians don't know that God exists, and that is among the clearest of things to be known, most Christians are in a kind of spiritual death. Further, Gangadean claims that spiritual death is inherent in not seeking to know--that's because Gangadean thinks his arguments are so obvious, so attainable, that anybody that was seeking to know, would know and agree. The root of sin for Gangadean is not seeking to know what is clear to reason. In fact, the only reason that anybody failed to come up with his proofs, or fails to agree that they are sound is if they are in some important sense failing to seek to know the truth, with integrity. So not only is there widespread ignorance of the core tenets of the Christian faith within the church, there's widespread spiritual death and widespread failure to seek the truth.

Now I should add something here. If you ask a Gangadeanian whether they believe other Christians (those that are unaware or unable to rehearse their proof for God's existence for example or those that know it, but disagree that it is sound) are "saved" or among the chosen ones, they will answer in the affirmative. I'm not sure this makes a lot of sense and might actually be an inconsistency in their worldview since they equate knowledge of God with spiritual life, not mere true belief. What was commonly said within the inner circle was that such Christians would be saved by the "skin of their teeth" (as one that barely escapes the fire by the mercy of God: see 1 Corinthians 3:15).

The sociological harm is this. They keep teaching, at least the views that entail all of these implications as "historic Christianity" a clever moniker intended to convey something like "the proper set of doctrines that represent the gospel." They teach this in several charter schools across the valley to unsuspecting middle school and high school students. They teach it across several community college campuses (in religious studies and philosophy courses) and even at Arizona State University-West. They also take it upon themselves to preach to their friends and family members who are often fellow Christians. When people don't respond to their arguments, or find them unsound, they consider them as neglecting, avoiding, resisting or denying reason. [Quote: "There is no rational justification for failure to know what is clear. One has to neglect, avoid, resist, deny reason in order to fail to see what is clear (Gangadean 4)."] Or if one of their own starts to question the soundness of their arguments, they disassociate from them as having no basis for a true friendship.

Perhaps now my readers (in particular the Christian ones) can better appreciate why I think their definition or theory of knowledge (in conjunction with the need for clarity-knowledge) is largely where they go wrong. If either we accept that knowledge doesn't require being able to demonstrate or produce Gangadean's proof (or any perfectly airtight proof), then it's possible that lots of people know that God is. And is it that surprising if God, according to Christian theism, can make his existence known in a multitude of ways and not limited to a single proof? Alternatively, if we allow that knowledge of the Gangadeanian isn't valuable to the faith, then we aren't forced to bite this huge caliber of a bullet that the Gangadeanian's are committed to biting--maybe (though unlikely) they've got the right theory of knowledge, but it turns out that knowledge that such knowledge is so hard to come by for the rest of us, that it isn't even worth worrying about. Either way is bad for the Gangadeanian worldview. Either knowledge doesn't require clarity or it does, but there's nothing valuable about that kind of knowledge to begin with. They can pick their poison.

The public talks, the books, the lectures they give in their classrooms (both secondary and post-secondary) and the like are ultimately on their view a way to bring people into the truth---which is to buy into Gangadean's arguments. So despite their best efforts to soften their approach, to be more crafty in their rhetoric, make no mistake---they believe that the vast majority of Christians are severely mistaken and ignorant---they might have gotten to a lucky true belief, but they don't have knowledge of the core elements of their faith.