Among the myriad sermons I have listened to as of late, this one by Jeff Kennedy was one of the more sophisticated. And while I appreciated the ambition of delivering a more technical sermon in a venue not generally geared toward such things, I nevertheless felt that many of the arguments were merely recycled rudiments of the same ol' hackneyed "value packs" typically thrown at a congregation to assuage any concerns or fears about the status of religious faith. Of course, given the nature of the venue, it is forgivable that such a cursory analysis of the controversy between religion and science be given. The more pressing question is whether the arguments presented are sound, even if presented cursorily. Before I get to this matter, however, I'd like to make a few observations about the set up for this sermon.
Psychological Prepping of the Audience
Being fairly impressed with Jeff himself, the most irritating part of the whole thing actually came just prior to Jeff's talk. The online audio begins with what appears to be a skit acted out in front of the congregation, meant to parody the target position of atheism. While this may seem harmless, it actually has far reaching psychological consequences.
From a logical standpoint, the use of such a skit is nothing but an Appeal to Ridicule, a logical fallacy, which mocks and opponent's argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight the counter-intuitive aspects of that arguments making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense (wickipedia).
Rather than think critically, then, the audience is psychologically primed for agreeing with the speaker's obviously more sophisticated view. To make matters worse, Jeff is already "preaching to the choir", so to speak, which means that glib remarks concerning the opposing position largely go unnoticed and simplified arguments are taken as impregnable. The whole point seems, not to actually address the issue at hand, but rather to hand wave the "solution" just enough so that those who already accept the conclusion of Jeff's message can return, reassured, to the comfort of their "faith bubble" with the certitude that the issue has been settled.
But despite starting off with a fallacy, effectively solidifying the bias of the audience, Jeff did present a decent summary of some of the major arguments within the Christian arsenal. That said, however, I'd like to analyze the overall success of Jeff's presentation. I'll take on this challenge in my next post.
