Why I DESPISE Apologetics | Casually Debunked 

Apologists: “We mortal beings can never understand God” the same apologists: “Here’s what God meant when he said this”.

The goal is not truth. The goal is to make troublesome cognitive dissonance go away

“Apologists hide behind a veneer of civility” Well said!!

Carl Sagan: "There are too many gods to answer clearly!" Apologist: "Ahaa! But have you considered that there are too many gods to answer clearly?" Kill me now.

Sagan: **Says something completely coherent and easily understandable.** Cameron: Whoa, you're going all over the place! Craig: I agree with Sagan, but he's still stupid for some reason!

Sagan makes a simple point Apologist 1 is confused and baffled by it Apologist 2 repeats point and adds a silly twist to it Apologist 1 is enlightened What the hell is this facade these people are putting up?!

When asked if they believe in god: Carl Sagan: gives a good explanation for why that's a complicated question. Jordan Peterson: "What do you mean 'do'? What do you mean 'you'? What do you mean 'believe'? And what do you mean 'god'?"

So, here's the transcript if Cameron and Bill were honest and genuinely interested in avoiding long-windedness. Cameron: "So, let's get to the clip here." [play clip of Carl Sagan] Cameron: "OK Dr Craig, what is your response?" WLC: "Dr Sagan makes an excellent point. Clarifying definitions is vital if we are to avoid misunderstanding." Cameron: "Well said. Without clarifying definitions, we risk just talking past one another." Cameron: "Let's now take a look at the next clip ..."

Apologetics is the most elongated way of not admitting you may be mistaken or misinformed. It’s reserved for the people who really think they have it all figured out. Too many get lost in the what ifs instead of being concerned with the what is/isnt. At some point you need to realize, if something exists, I don’t need 5 pages of argument of conditional definitions & nouns describing it existing.

This really hits the nail on the head nicely. It’s why I feel like engaging apologists in public debate may no longer be constructive for non-believers. They don’t respect our perspective and they won’t concede anything. You will likely find yourself playing by their rules by wasting time addressing every nonsensical argument they throw at you while they tell you how you’ve misunderstood what they said. It’s like confronting a narcissist and it’s exhausting.

This was a great sample of hair-splitting apologetic pettiness. Also, it was interesting to see that Craig actually has a mic but just sits halfway across the room from it.

even when i was in primary school, i sat thinking "what a load of rubbish", I mimed to the hymns and when being in prayers I'd just be thinking of something else.

Craig has this uncanny similarity to the "Hide the pain Harold" meme.

If there is an omnipotent omniscient god then it does not want me to believe in it. If it did, I would.

William Lane Craig is a dishonest interlocutor. He has (many times) misrepresented other's statements by twisting words, re-defining meanings, and outright lying about what others have said. He's a scoundrel, really. One who is completely incapable of accepting error in any argument.

Apologetics is never about "saving soles" or providing proof for an argument. It's about making the gullible feel less silly about archaic ridiculous beliefs; period.

"Once an honest creationist is presented with the facts, they will very quickly be faced with a life-altering choice: whether to remain honest or remain creationist. Because it will no longer be possible to be both. They either start conceding things they did not want to admit, or they're going to have to start lying about it. And that's what apologetics is. An apologist is someone who has already come to that fork and taken the wrong turn." -- Aron Ra

Craig's analogy of a chair is perfectly illustrative of Sagan's point and he doesn't seem to realize it. If someone asked me if I like to sit in chairs, my next question is. "What kind of chair?" Not all chairs are made equal. For example, if I come to dinner and you pull up a bean bag to the table, we may not be friends anymore.

Low Bar Bill's apprentice is quickly approaching the lofty stature of his master.

If gods were real we wouldn’t need apologetics

Poisoning the well 101: “this is cringe” before letting the audience hear what he says

The reason I really dislike apologetics is that it almost always leads to intellectual dishonesty... For the simple reason that they are not seeking truth at all, that goes counter to their job. Their job is to assume a proposition to be true and try to defend it by any means necessary. If they grant you a point, if they acknowledge that there are problems with their assumed proposition, they are pretty much explicitly failing at their one job, they have to disagree even if it is in the most sneaky fallacious way. It is rationalization made into a profession.

The worst part is that they're smug about missing the point every single time. And I don't know if it's just stupidity or willful ignorance.

that close up of Bill never gets less funny.

Why does William Lane Craig have that bizarre smile permanently etched on his face

Cameron wearing a shirt with images of Loki on it, who is best known as being a trickster god, is just so perfect

It's moments like these that make me honest believe Cameron is either dense or dishonest.

Well said sir. The single purpose of apologetics is to reassure the masses, or at least those who might bother investigating the truth claims of their religion.

When asked "Do you believe in God?" my instant response is "Which god?" Some of the looks I've seen on the faces of those asking the question at this point are really quite informative.

In both of your videos on this I have been amazed at how badly they have misunderstood Carl’s very clearly stated point. As you suggested, it’s almost like they are doing it on purpose.

the disingenuous, cognitively disonant, dunning-kruger dynamic duo.

That was a major question that I first asked right when I deconverted. What is even a god. A question very few people don't even ask.

It's so funny how Cameron puts apologetics and philsophy next to each other, as if those fields are more than tangentiallly related.

Apologetics 101 Atheist: *Succinctly expresses a good point about a need to further clarify a broad definition* Apologist: “What point are they even trying to make?” 😂😅

Craig just repeated what Carl said, and then Camerson said "good point." And then Camerson stated that words need to be properly defined... which was Carl Sagan's whole point! Apologists are so nasty and disingenuous. Look at their whole mocking tone.

Yes, apologists are disgusting. Obfuscating is their primary tool. Craig is about as irrational as a "philosopher" could possibly be. He's a joke.

Apologists are grifters and liars, and the very existence of apologetics and apologists shows that their Bible is not perfect. It's about retention, not recruitment. It's disgusting and it needs to stop.

If god had chosen to express himself clearly when writing and/or "inspiring" the writing of the frickin' bible, there would be no need for apologists. Indeed, they'd be viewed as heretics for daring to "explain" the words of a god whose words shouldn't need explaining.

To be fair, who really says "Dr. Carl Sagan"? He's just too cool for school!

This is an extremely well put-together video. Succinct with a clear demonstration of your point. You should be proud!

Thanks! I learned a lot from this one, I will definitely pay attention to how arguments are presented. 👍

It's funny how it's "cringe" when scientists talk about philiosphy, but somehow it isn't when apologist talk about science

Thank you rationality rules. I needed this today lol

Nicely done. There really doesn't even need to be much else said on the matter. You've summed up the vapid nature of apologetics in a nutshell.

I recall a debate that never happened between William Lane Craig and Richard Dawkins. Richard didn't show up for the debate or didn't agree to the debate. But William Lane Craig decided to have the debate anyway and he mockingly set up an empty chair. I remember finding that so hilarious because I would have loved to see Richard Dawkins have a debate with god, also with an empty chair. It seems like the only entities that need humans to speak for on their behalf are gods.

Having watched most of your more recent videos, I think that this is your best one (yet). The contradiction between what they say and how they behave while saying it, is something I haven't realized before. Maybe its got something to do with the fact that honest "thinkers" try to ignore this white noise when evaluating arguments. However, you are not only presenting a convincing argument why Apologetics should be despised, but also provide a good first heuristic on how to spot it.

I am always reminded that WLC said that his belief is founded on faith and not on apologetics

As always, my good ape, you’ve brought a smile to my face with your eloquence and direct message. I appreciate you.

Yes. You are spot on. It is pathetic the arrogance one can develop from fairy tales backed up purely by evidence contrary to its truth.

Sagan uses argument to get somewhere; the apologists to stun, undermine, confuse.

Apologetics is inherently dishonest because it works backward, from a belief that already exists to supposed evidence and arguments in support of that belief. And apologists are sometimes pretty candid about that, like Sean McDowell's ad a couple of years ago for his course which equips Christians to deal with objections to their beliefs. What the course WASN'T about was examining whether those beliefs are warranted. So apologists will give people supposed reasons to continue believing what they do EVEN IF WRONG.

Twice now I've gotten a Bible app ad before watching your videos. Lol

Hilarious breakdown of two apologists nodding in agreement with each other as they say contradictory statements about Sagan 😆

If religions were just: "This is what we know; this is what we believe; this is what we hope. Now it's up to you," they would be more honest. Unfortunately, they are afraid to let people make up their own minds because they know at their core that all faiths and religions are illogical and make no sense and that admitting that would mean admitting they themselves were no more special than anyone else, which their own pride will not allow them to do.

One of the many futilities of engaging with apologetics is the range from dis-ingenuousness, deliberate misunderstanding and outright lying that these folks are prepared to employ, simply to win an argument. And actually, in Dr Craig's case, even that - winning the argument - can't over-write 'the witness of the holy spirit on my heart'. Craig's entire career as a theologian (he's not a philosopher), is a pretty twisted exercise in 'poisoning the well'. He merely ridicules his supposed opponents, with convoluted arguments, but has no intention to engage in an exchange of views. Wherever, whenever the same stuff keeps coming back... he has never conceded a misunderstanding - even when presented to him in person (cf Sean Carroll) - because the argument, the discourse doesn't matter. God is in his heart and that's all there is to it. I applaud your patience, fellow ape Stephen. Long may it continue!

Jeezus, how petty of Cameron. A science communicator like Sagan was probably talking to a lay audience, and asked about god, generally. So he answered logically. There are probably better examples of Bertuzzi's dishonesty, but this is pathetic.

That chair analogy didn't set well with me.

If only Bill were a lawyer he could've taken the low bar exam.

It's actually great to see Steven growing and its strange to see. I look forward to how your views evolved and are refined in the future.

"They don't believe what I do, so what they say seems weird and I don't have to pay much attention."

I think everybody here knows about the World Values Survey. I'm in Sweden. I saw a presentation here. It was about religion and how they design these surveys. Not necessarily the World Values Survey. They quickly realized that asking, Do you believe in God? doesn't produce meaningless answers because people have different concept of God. (This may not be a problem in highly religious societies where everybody has the same religion and basic concept of God.) I'm not sure I get all the alternatives right. But one of the alternatives given is that God is something within each person. I think most people would say that's not a God. That's the point. People don't operate the way Christians think. Most people in Sweden don't believe in an afterlife, but also think it's nice to think there is. How many of the people who read horoscopes really believe in them? The devoted-type Christians take these things a lot more serious than the average person does. According to Reuters, 10% of the Icelanders believe in supernatural beings/creatures. 10% do not. The remaining 80% have no strong opinion on the question or simply do not want to rule out their existence. If you replace supernatural beings/creatures with God, you basically get Sweden. Few people believe in God and few people are atheists. This is not just Sweden. People just aren't that into God, whether they believe or not.

I notice they referred to apologists to define God. And then Bill spends some time defining chairs instead of God. The final insinuation, that God is as well defined as for mathematics saying 2+2=4, is massively disingenuous. Particularly as Cameron isn't the only party relevant in the discussion, so he doesn't even get to decide the definition, aside from specifying it being his preferred version. The misuse of language and implications about it are rampant I don't even limit this problem to apologists either. It is endemic to most of Christianity. Language is used vaguely, or even massively differently for almost every major claim. "God loves us" "God gave his only forgotten son to forgive our sins" "God answers prayers" "God conquered death" "Objective morality" "God is just" "free will" I'm tempted to add the trinity, but that would imply that it had a reasonable definition.

Well said. Apologists often laugh/sneer at an argument they disagree with (their mindset is “oh you poor little heathen, you’re so ignorant). Or they ramble about something irrelevant that gives a false impression that they are scientifically informed.

LBB is smiling because he's imagining getting this interview over so he can have his butterscotch pudding.

I despise it when someone claims to debunk something, but presents a rebuttal rather than a refutation.

"It's always kind of cringy..." Indeed Cameron, indeed it is.

They never called him Dr Sagan but it was always Dr Craig. It is their snide superiority that loses them respect.

If someone asked Craig, "Do you believe in science?" I bet he'd be fucking long-winded.

Hats off to highlighting such dishonest practices apologists often use. Thank you!

William Lane Craig asked me if I have a chair. I said "no" because I don't consider a backless chair anything other than a stool. He saw my stool and said "You clearly don't understand what you're talking about and haven't read the relevant literature. In 2009, Wigner published a paper in the New England Journal of Philosophy on how stools are really best understood as a subset of chairs. You haven't presented any information that refutes Wigners arguments." I then said "Well if you consider stools to be chairs then I guess I do have a chair." Cameron Bertuzzi overheard this and said to me with a snicker "That's a pretty long winded and confused way of saying 'I have a chair'."

This man has been on a tear. Thank you for all the content.

Hard disagree. I think that Cameron *thinks* he's disagreeing with Carl, but actually doesn't know what's going on. His nod and smile are vacuous, and he's got no idea what either Carl or Bill are actually saying. Bill, on the other hand, merely repeats Carl's point and agrees that Cameron's summary represents a bad point. He just doesn't go so far as to tell Cameron that he's being an idiot. One of these people is performing a relatively nuanced trick. The other one doesn't have a good enough grasp of the situation to do more than repeat things he thinks he understands. Like a child at an adults' party, trying to parrot their parents view on US imperialism, while merely thinking that the Empire was really mean to the cool Jedi, so empires must be bad.

I love the way you inserted little clips of the apologists making expressions! Pinecreek did the same but he added one of Cameron sipping through a straw 🤣😂

I LOATHE the way WLC speaks

Apologetics : The noble art of never letting the dog see the rabbit ! Keeping everything immersed in a cloud of mist by using clever long philosophical jargon, and hoping that no-one notices.

A deity or deities may exist but none have proven their existence to ME, to MY satisfaction. Mere words, whether written or spoken, will NEVER convince me of any god or anything supernatural. I find it puerile that people think they can argue a god into existence.

Cameron and Low Bar Bill remind me of two slimy used car salesmen.

In this video: man who believes a 600 year old dude build a giant boat to save two of every animal from a global flood and readily admits he is willing to just believe whatever he wishes were true denigrates one of the greatest minds in human history.

The goal of apologetics is not to convince atheists or people from other religions Is to confuse and shame the believers that have doubts into not leaving

Apologetics is simply religious sophistry dressed up as valid philosophy. Which is what sophists generally try to do: pretend that they are making actual philosophy. If you start from your conclusion and try to fit premises into it, you're definitely not doing philosophy. And that's the modus operandi of all apologists: they start from the conclusion that their religion is the One and True Religion, and from that build down the premises that justify it. It's all entirely based on special pleading and post-hoc rationalization.

Carl: describes multiple ideas about/definitions of god concepts Cameron: tries to show that there is only one true god concept and supports his argument with “cuz books.” Bill: condescendingly points out that, of course there are lots of god concepts/definitions, and you should just use good definitions- commandeering Carl’s statements, and restating them like Carl didn’t just say it. Meanwhile, Cameron and Bill sidestep nailing down their god definition. Apologetics; the art of speaking confidently about things you cannot know, and creatively avoiding refutable statements in favor of vague comments or misdirection.

The name is apt: apologists should apologize to the rest of us.

Cameron was wearing a Loki shirt during the whole discussion? Does he _want_ us to know he's trolling?

As a Christian Old Testament scholar, I cannot stand Christian apologetics. Christian apologetics is another form of pseudo-scholarship- just like young-earth creationism.

8:10 Indeed so if I were to walk up to you and ask if you would like to buy a chair, you would almost certainly want to know what chair I'm trying to sell you. If you just bought it and it turned out that the chair was actually a rotting corpse that I had fashioned into a crude stool I am certain you would have some apprehensions.

Thank you

10:06 when Cameron was talking about 2 + 2 = 4, I don't think he realises that Bertrand Russel once published a 360-page proof that 1+1=2. Because in maths and science we prove stuff! And the reason why it took 360 pages is because they explicitly defined everything in the equation 1+1=2 Ps I was going to exclamation marks but didn't want to have them confused as factorial. Not that that would have changed the answer though...

Rationality Rules, Stephen, excellent points. Their basic dishonesty is sort of subtle. I think cameron just thinks of it as a utility to 'save' some and 'salve' others. But low bar bill seems all about the money. 👍💙💙💙🥰✌

It’s incredible to think anyone could criticise or demean the extraordinary mind of the brilliant Carl Sagan. 🍀🍀🍀

The smug arrogance of cameron is insufferable. I really cant stand him

Very well explained and your points are extremely valid...

I love how cam talks himself up as some sort or apologetics & philosophy guru. I mean, 10 years into it and he's throwing out trash like this. Learn quicker, buddy.

Reliance on logical fallacies, scientific illiteracy, science denial, and intellectually insulting sophistry is proof that the position is not based on reason & evidence, but only on politics.

I think these guys help lose more people than they win. They run Sagan down for going on, then they take at least twice as long to say the same thing. WLC set me free.

An excellent video, thank you

One of the biggest red flags for me growing up in a Christian household was how the bible and Christianity in general was absolutely filled with human arrogance. Ever since I realised how the whole thing seems to specifically be catering to human ego it became impossible for me to see it as anything other than the fantasies of man. To think that there was a god capable of creating an entire infinite universe only to place us as the single highest priority above all else, going so far as to create us in their image. You couldn't make it much more obvious that it was a belief rooted in our own self obsessed nature. The fact that some of those who defend such beliefs act the way they do is hardly surprising. You'd expect similar behaviour from a narcissist when presented with criticism. Their belief is so intertwined with their identity that it's impossible for them to percieve any criticism of faith as something other than an attack on themselves and their position in the hierarchy of the universe.

Having just watched and rewatched the original Carl Sagan video in question the issue is simply that Carl didn't answer the question and instead politely rambled for several minutes about how the question was essentially stupid. Here's the thing though, every objection that Carl brings up, the question asker already accounted for. Carl basically stated the objections anyway and pretended like they were enough to avoid the question. The question asker asks "What is your personal religion, or is there a God to you?" The question asker is already fully acknowledging that different people define God differently he even goes on to say "I guess I shouldn't say 'he' because we don't know what God is" and Carl says "The word God represents an enormous range of ideas, and you recognize that in the way you phrased the question." So I don't think it was at all necessary for Carl to make that clarification, as it was already evident in the question being asked. After a long and admittedly pointless statement about how the definition of God varies (pointless because the questioner already ensured that the varied definitions of God were present in the way he phrased his question, and admittedly because Carl pointed that fact out) the questioner asks more pointedly "I guess I'm asking you to define yours if you have one." To which Carl says "why would we use a word so ambiguous that means so many different things?" The obvious answer here is because you have full control in this moment as to how you want to define the word, what it means to you, etc. The questioner even point this out by saying "it gives you freedom to define it." And Carl merely says that "it gives you freedom to seem as if you agree with someone with whom you don't agree." But that's wrong, because if you define something and a person agrees with that definition, you don't seem to agree you do actually agree, at least in so far as that specific definition is concerned and that is the purpose of language. The question asker was not asking a broad or loaded question which Carl needed to unpack. The questioner asked a very precise question that Carl simply refused to answer.

great deconstruction.

This remembers me of the times, when Bill responded to Paulogia or Scott Cliffton. Condescending to hell and back, while doing nothing but character assasination and strawmanning, with an occasional relevant point. And usually that relevant point is still missing the core of the problem.

Well, Steve my friend, you are using as an example one of the two most intellectually dishonest sophists of the Christian apologetics' landscape... why don't you address people like... ummm... eeeh... oh wait...