Hey Randal! Thanks for the video. Around the halfway point, you say that "Cameron is hurting his brand by hosting people that lack credibility on these issues." I find this a bit perplexing. By your own admission, you haven't watched these interviews. Do you know who I've interviewed? Do you know their backgrounds? I'm curious, in what way do the people that I've interviewed *lack credibility on these issues*? The folks I'm interviewing are eyewitnesses. Now, you might respond by saying that these folks are only offering anecdotes and aren't trained philosophers. But not only is this false, some of the guests I've interviewed on this topic do have philosophical training, it sets the bar for credibility at an unreasonable level, and even potentially undermines the case for Christianity. How do we know that Jesus rose from the dead, for example? Well, we have testimony from people close to the event (similar to what we have from exorcists). Are the New Testament writers reporting these things as trained philosophers? Well, no. Trained historians? Well, no. Does that mean the New Testament documents lack credibility? Should apologists stop referencing the New Testament because it damages their credibility? After all, the New Testament records all sorts of supernatural events which are, again, relayed to us by non-experts. Moreover, I doubt you'd have the same concern if I interviewed an eyewitness to a miracle healing, for example, which really only differs from other supernatural phenomena like exorcisms in that they lack sociological stigma. In short, I think there's a double standard here that ought to be addressed.
Cameron, thank you for watching the video from Randal. Do you not agree that although miracle healings, Jesus’ resurrection, and demonic possession all rely on eyewitness testimony, that the degree of eyewitness support for these three issues are very different in strength?
Thanks for the feedback, Cameron. I qualified my commentary by saying it was dependent on what I am hearing from others. Of course, this is purely anecdotal so take it for what it's worth (which may not be much). But the folks I'm hearing from are mostly incredulous. And it's worthwhile pointing out that this has an impact on the brand, whether fair or not.
@@Randal_Rauser I must say I tend to agree strongly with your position. Exorcisms seem absurd to me. However, in your recent video about Gavin Ortland's evasiveness in responding to your critique, you rightfully pointed out that he didn't make the time to watch your video until he was reminded repeatedly. In the interest of consistency, it seems to me that you probably should spend the time to watch the videos with the exorcists, so you can directly respond to them? Like I said, I am on your side in this, ultimately I agree that these claims lack credibility, but it makes it difficult to consider you credible when you haven't watched their videos either.
@@Randal_Rauser I also would like to note that I have not seen those videos in their entirely either, as I have little interest in devoting that much time to what seems to me to be nonsense from the clips I've seen from them, and I absolutely agree with your assessment that it harms Cameron's brand. I'm afraid to admit my opinion of Cameron changed greatly when I saw how often he was hosting exorcists, and I really felt my respect and trust in his credibility disappear. So I absolutely can attest to that portion of your critique
@@Randal_RauserConcerns about brand impact seem pragmatic in nature. I think we both want to see CC flourish. But, pragmatically speaking, the brand is exploding in popularity and impact as a direct result of covering these topics. I mean, here we are talking about it on your channel :) Another consideration worth mentioning is that I basically don’t care about the stigma. I care about truth and evidence way more than I care about how 12 people on Twitter view my credibility.
The exorcists being interviewed follow strict guidelines of practice. They work with teams of people and coordinate with mental health experts. Additionally, they have all observed the utmost confidentiality for their patients.
There is zero scientific or medical evidence that exorcisms benefit the patient beyond placebo, and there is plenty of evidence that exorcisms can do great harm and even cause the death of those being subjected to them. At the very least, it runs the risk of the patient delaying or not even seeking the actual medical care they so desperately need. Sure, there are controls put in place by the Catholic Church to (hopefully) avoid the worst excesses, but we're talking about often fragile and unstable people here and they should not be subjected to anything that has no chance of working and is potentially traumatizing, even under controlled circumstances. It's still medical malpractice. The normalizing and popularizing of exorcisms by the Catholic Church is going to lead to many more do-it-yourself and local (non-Catholic) church efforts that will necessarily do more harm than good. How many patients who believe they are possessed are going to stop if they're turned away from the Catholic Church as unfit or not needing an exorcism? Again, these are not well people and they are not thinking rationally. Their delusions, however real to them, should not be entertained.
When it comes to if Cameron is hurting his "Capturing Christianity" brand, i don't think that matters it's his to do as he pleases. The more important question is does it hurt the "Catholic" or "Christian" brand overall?
Good video as usual. Cameron is chasing clickbait imo (I don't mean this pejoratively, it's an unfortunate incentive of RU-vid). The claims being made are wild, with little to no pushback and/or justification from the guests. Another troubling thing is that is quite a few of the guests claims contradict each other. This is quite a big issue in my view, because it undermines the whole endeavour (with regard to this topic). I'm a skeptic, but I can handle rational discussion of unusual phenomena. But I'm worried that guests are consistently going beyond what the evidence has shown, or not acknowledging how wild the claims being made are without sufficient justification.
I am not at all surprised that a conservative evangelical turned conservative Catholic would end up making content like this. I might be an atheist, but I have listened to the conservative Catholic radio network, Relevant Radio, a lot over the years, and demons, exorcisms, apparitions, and miraculous events are all par for the course as content on their shows. His core base -- conservative Catholics -- loves this type of stuff, so it makes sense for him to tap into that demand. It wouldn't be the first time he's gone looking for a new audience. Before he transitioned to Catholicism, he complained about the lack of financial support he was getting, essentially saying that if he didn't find a new source of income soon, he'd be forced to give up the channel. Given that admission, the skeptic community was definitely suspicious about his subsequent switch to Catholicism and he certainly benefited from the publicity of the change, being overwhelmed with welcoming and even triumphant messages from Catholic viewers. I couldn't tell you whether the two events were connected, but perhaps his financial struggles did have some influence on that decision (he's only human, after all) and the more recent change in focus. He certainly wouldn't be the first content creator to chase eyeballs by changing the balance of their content to better suit a more receptive audience, and he won't be the last. In the political sphere we've seen previously left-leaning content creators like Dave Rubin and Tim Pool chasing the conservative dollars over recent years, and there's every reason to be cynical about their shift to the right (as opposed to being a genuine conversion to MAGA). Finally, while I grew up a Christian, I was always skeptical of supernatural claims of apparitions, miracle healings, guardian angels, demonic possession, exorcisms, witchcraft, etc. I remember having a lengthy conversation about how credulous conservative American Christians seemed to be compared to British Christians, with my Methodist chaplain at university. He was in full agreement with me. I don't think it's entirely a coincidence that I left the faith not long after moving to the USA for work because I didn't get just how credulous millions of American Christians are until I witnessed it up close, leaving me with all kinds of questions. Why can't Harry Potter just be a fantasy book instead of a dangerous gateway to witchcraft? Why can't a Ouija board be a silly game instead of a portal through which demons can possess you? Why can't falling off a ladder without injury be a stroke of luck rather than a guardian angel (after failing to prevent the fall in the first place) softening your landing? Why can't the lurid claims of ritual child sex abuse and sacrifices be the result of coaching by credulous adults as opposed to the commands of Satan himself? After 30 years, I still don't get it. I mean, I understand the impulse to assign agency to everything, good and evil, and since you can't assign evil to God, you have to come up with a different agent which the Bible readily provides. But it seems so obvious to me that natural explanations are so much more likely in every case. I recently had a length debate with a Catholic about the Miracle of Calanda -- supposedly the most documented miracle of a regrown limb in history (over 400 years ago). It was investigated by the church and at least some of that documentation exists today. However, when you read the story of what happened, you realize two things. One, there's still a more plausible natural explanation -- i.e. the recipient of the miracle leg was faking his amputation to earn more money begging and had to think quickly when his mom entered his bedroom to see two legs poking out from under the covers, and two, even if it's real, it begs the question as to why there's 50 million amputees in the world today and zero people with regrown limbs. Do the miracles stop happening in times and places where there's undeniable proof of amputation available? Does having a full medical record of your amputation disqualify you from the healing power of God?
It looks like 3 years ago he posted his first video like this and it blew up, but ever sense he hasn't seen any numbers close to that for these videos. Until the last month they might have gotten slightly more views than his average video, but it's hard to say. In the last month he has made 7 new videos about it. Way more than he normally does. I'm guessing that he's trying to tap into what it is that got him such high views in the first video. It may have been that it was just something new his audience hadn't seen on his channel (or many other apologetics channels) before that caught people's curiosity. It might be a better idea then to focus on making videos with a similar "new" or "untapped" topic that might peak people's curiosity instead of making similar videos if it's increased consistent viewership he is looking for in his channel.
I used to listen to Art Bell. Like Randal, I found him entertaining and an easy listen, even though there was never any serious attempt to push back the claims of his guests. I even wrote a short story (as yet unpublished) about a character called Sy Ring (art-sci, bell-ring, geddit?!) who was invited to Area 51 to conduct the first public interview an alien gray who had been there since Roswell. If only pseudoscience and conspiracy theories were still treated mostly as entertainment and not the cause for civil war, the nation would be a lot better for it.
