Recently I watched Catholic convert Brandon Vogt interview his boss, Robert Barron, on the Catholic scandals. Brandon and I have had several exchanges over the years. He runs away very soon once I enter the discussion. As I recall, he used to jump into the combox on posts by Justin Taylor. Try to redirect readers to Catholicism. It was boilerplate Catholic arguments. When I engaged him, he'd bottom out quickly and discontinue further discussion.
He comes across as a sweet, trusting, well-meaning, willfully deluded sucker. I have problems with people who give reasons for their position, but then ignore reasons against their position. That involves a willful refusal to take arguments to their logical conclusion when they don't like the direction of the argument. They start out sounding logical until the logic turns against them, then they turn off their minds. They stop thinking.
I don't object to his "poaching" on Protestant blogs. That's fair game. I do object to people who think just enough to think themselves into a position but not enough to think themselves out of a position.
I'm not saying that about everyone. Most folks aren't intellectuals. I'm not saying we have an obligation to be intellectually consistent about everything. Life is short. We have to prioritize. Most issues aren't all-important. It's okay to make snap judgments about many things. But this is different. But he should be smarter than that, and he's a Catholic apologist, so there's a higher standard for him.
Brandon seems like a nice guy. Ironically, good-natured people are easily duped and manipulated by evil people. You know the Hollywood cliche about how FBI profilers have to get inside the mind of the serial killer. I don't know how true that is. But because good people don't think like evil people, they are unsuspecting. Presumably, Brandon would never do the things that some priests and bishops are guilty of doing. People like Brandon project their good will onto other people. They just can't relate to how conniving the sharks are. They see the surface. The smiles. The effusiveness. So they're blinded-sided by evil people.
'Brandon and I have had several exchanged over the years. He runs away very soon after I enter the discussion.'
ReplyDeleteHa ha. You're probably too modest to understand why. And you won't get me massaging your ego, Hays :)
'I have problems with people who give reasons for their position, but then ignore reasons against their position...'
As you allude to, it's the cultic mindset in action.
BV is nice but naive, when he has an obligation not to be, but to be much more. If he doesn’t wish to change, he shouldn’t be in Catholic outreach or ministry or similar.
ReplyDeleteHey, Steve! I'm a bit taken aback by the personal slander in this post, first because I honestly don't even know who you are, and second because I think you're better than that. These accusations are condescending and inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteYou say we've had several exchanges and that I "run away very soon" when you enter the discussion. But honestly, I can't recall *any* discussions we've ever shared, and I'm certainly not afraid of you or any arguments you put forward. I'd be happy to discuss any of them with you.
That said, I'm a busy father a six, with a demanding full-time job, a working farm, and several websites and side projects I manage. I hope you can see how responding to combox critics isn't at the top of my priority list. And why implying someone is coward simply because they don't respond to your blog comments is unjustified.
Nevertheless, if you'd ever like to discuss any of your arguments via email, I'd be happy to, as time permits. Please email me at brandon@brandonvogt.com.
God bless you and your work for the Church!
PS. You might be interested to know that I run the largest website dedicated to Catholic/atheist dialogue, and I've written a bestselling book ("Why I Am Catholic") that engages several Protestant and atheist arguments. Suggesting I "ignore reasons against [my] position" is just demonstrably false and says more about your motivations than mine.
Hey Brandon!
DeleteI am fairly certain you had discussions with Steve at TGC blog back when it had a comments section, but perhaps I'm misinterpreting the available evidence. Some parts of those conversations are posted on or alluded to at Triablogue. For example:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/08/does-sola-scriptura-mean-sole-authority.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/09/devins-rose-tinted-glasses.html
The Internet Archive has records of the original TGC blog posts, but not (as far as I can tell) of the comments sections. It does, however, record the number of comments on the referenced TGC posts, and they were fairly high, suggesting a good deal of debate.
Hi Brandon,
DeleteSince you're willing to discuss arguments with Steve, then why not make the discussion public? That would be more beneficial to people on both sides. A private discussion will only be beneficial to those in private.
A private discussion would be worth conducting if you expect to have your mind changed or to change Steve's mind. However, given you're a prominent Catholic working for Bishop Barron and Steve a prominent Calvinist apologist, both of you are unlikely to have your minds changed by one another. However, a public debate could change the minds of some people listening to both of you while you both present your reasons for your beliefs.
There's no difference in time or effort spent replying in public (weblog) vs. private (email).
The only major difference I can see is other commenters might weigh in if it's public. That might be distracting. However, you don't have to reply to other commenters. You can simply ignore other commenters and focus on a discussion with Steve.
Finally, you spoke of cowardice. I believe you when you say you are no coward. Hence I trust you don't fear a public discussion either, but in fact welcome opportunities to share the reasons for your Catholicism.