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.
The apparent "underhandedness" of this approach definitely leaves a bad taste. And a different angle probably would have been more appropriate (e.g. not mocking athiesm/etc.).
ReplyDeleteOn the flip-side however, there is something to be said about using more than logic and reason to present an idea (or argument) to a very diverse audience of people. A lot of the deep discussion that I was recently (or tried to be) a part of with a couple of *very* intelligent people would have resulted in a lot of blank stares in a typical church congregation.
So while I can't approve of the content of the method that was used (especially not having heard it myself), I would definitely approve of the method.
Just sayin'. ;-)
QED,
ReplyDeleteI look forward to reading your next post where you talk about what Jeff Kennedy had to say.
I've had a discussion on my blog with some atheists from AC, and I would enjoy it if you joined us. I've been talking with photosynthesis about Stephen Hawking, and I remember that you seemed to know a fair amount about the Hartle-Hawking Model. Feel free to disagree with anything I've said. I think the atheists know that Christians disagree about many things, so that won't disillusion them. And I don't mind having what I say challenged.
Thank you Anette for the kind invitation. I would love to join the conversation. Where can I find the discussion of Stephen Hawking?
ReplyDeleteQED,
ReplyDeleteI apologize, but I didn't see your response until after my conversation with Photosynthesis was over. We discussed Stephen Hawking in the comments of my blog post called, "Does our sinful nature come from God?"
But I might do a blog post on this subject later because I never got a chance to reply to Photosynthesis's final point about fine-tuning. I'll let you know if I do. I would like to get your thoughts.
QED,
ReplyDeleteI just did the blog post I planned on the subject of the Big Bang and fine-tuning. I would welcome your thoughts if you have time to read it.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the initial critique of my approach to the subject of faith and reason. I would be more than happy to engage you at a more technical level, here in this forum or elsewhere. As far as your initial impressions of the talk, specifically the sketch at the beginning, I am wondering why in your brief analysis you would turn to this tactic yourself. "Hackneyed ol' value packs" does not sound like a substantive rejoinder. Though I will admit that the purpose of the sketch was to illicit an emotional response (using hyperbole), I would also say that this approach to elocution is perfectly acceptable when the desired outcome IS an emotional, rather than a rational response. However, I quickly moved away from this pejorative introduction into substantive and rigorous philosophical arguments for God. It becomes a logical fallacy when the appeal to emotion is actually substituted for rigorous argumentation. This of course was not the purpose of sketch.
You are right about one thing though. The material was greatly thinned out for the audience (and the time frame). Though some still viewed it as a technical talk, this was as simple as I could make it for some who simply are not read up on these issues.
I welcome your further critiques and am looking forward to engaging them.
Blessings,
Jeff