WEBVTT 1 00:00:14.800 --> 00:00:15.800 It's so insane. 2 00:00:31.879 --> 00:00:44.840 Bunker bunco unco funcer. 3 00:00:57.719 --> 00:00:59.840 All right, what's up everybody. We have our good buddy 4 00:01:00.159 --> 00:01:02.719 David Patrick Carey from church Atternal Logos. He's joining us 5 00:01:02.719 --> 00:01:06.719 today to cover a topic that I first saw maybe 6 00:01:06.920 --> 00:01:08.640 a year and a half ago. Two years ago, I 7 00:01:08.719 --> 00:01:11.560 was listening to a link that somebody sent me from 8 00:01:11.560 --> 00:01:13.400 a weird Lutheran. 9 00:01:13.000 --> 00:01:15.920 Guy, and if you remember, the Lutheran guy was talking 10 00:01:16.000 --> 00:01:18.519 like this, and he was talking about how he had 11 00:01:18.599 --> 00:01:22.079 just engaged in deconstructing his faith journey and through this 12 00:01:22.200 --> 00:01:25.760 deconstruction process he learned a lot about the oppression that 13 00:01:25.840 --> 00:01:27.200 he found in Christianity. 14 00:01:27.640 --> 00:01:30.599 Since that time, this has become a trend where we're 15 00:01:30.640 --> 00:01:33.719 noticing all over mainly TikTok. I mean, it's kind of 16 00:01:33.719 --> 00:01:36.000 spilling out into other areas. And one of the key 17 00:01:36.200 --> 00:01:39.159 characters that has helped promote this, we'll talk about Dan 18 00:01:39.239 --> 00:01:42.640 McClellan as one of these characters. Or is that his name, Dan? Yeah, 19 00:01:42.680 --> 00:01:47.239 Dan McLellan Yeah. And Codell just sent me his Instagram. 20 00:01:47.280 --> 00:01:49.480 As you can see, it's basically all him and a 21 00:01:49.480 --> 00:01:52.719 bunch of Marvel soy gears. So this is going to 22 00:01:52.760 --> 00:01:54.519 tell you, right, this is going to tell you right 23 00:01:54.560 --> 00:01:57.079 away like the sort of personalities that we're dealing with, 24 00:01:57.799 --> 00:02:00.680 but also one of the big YouTubers, if you know, 25 00:02:01.040 --> 00:02:03.519 Rhett from reht and link is one of the big 26 00:02:03.560 --> 00:02:07.239 YouTubers and now TikTokers who's promoted this trend of quote 27 00:02:07.280 --> 00:02:10.520 deconstructing my Christianity. So today we're going to cover that, 28 00:02:10.560 --> 00:02:13.000 and this is an introductory stream. We're going to actually 29 00:02:13.080 --> 00:02:16.560 deal with the more in depth theological challenges in the 30 00:02:16.599 --> 00:02:19.800 second stream, which will be over on Cotel's channel. I've 31 00:02:19.800 --> 00:02:24.599 got him linked in the show description and in the title, 32 00:02:24.680 --> 00:02:27.000 so be sure and follow David Patrick Harry over at 33 00:02:27.000 --> 00:02:30.080 his channel, and we'll do that part two probably next week. 34 00:02:30.240 --> 00:02:33.280 But today we're going to introduce the topic. And again 35 00:02:33.319 --> 00:02:36.039 it seems to right now be sort of confined to 36 00:02:36.520 --> 00:02:40.479 the evangelical world, is apparently spilling over into Mormonism with 37 00:02:40.599 --> 00:02:44.520 this McClellan guy. It's a lot of emergent church, non 38 00:02:44.520 --> 00:02:49.080 denominational people doing this, and so what's what's your initial 39 00:02:49.159 --> 00:02:51.800 assessment of this? When did you first hear about deconstructing 40 00:02:51.840 --> 00:02:54.520 my Christianity and what's your initial assessment? 41 00:02:54.599 --> 00:02:56.840 David, So I had heard. 42 00:02:56.719 --> 00:02:58.960 About it, like you probably about a year ago, but 43 00:02:59.000 --> 00:03:02.520 I'd have dove down the rabbit hole at TikTok deconstructing 44 00:03:02.520 --> 00:03:06.840 my Christianity until this stream we start talking about this topic, 45 00:03:07.400 --> 00:03:11.120 shout out to ac and once I dove down that 46 00:03:11.199 --> 00:03:13.840 rabbit hole, I it's kind of surprised by how many 47 00:03:13.919 --> 00:03:16.560 views they get. I mean, there are multiple videos that 48 00:03:16.599 --> 00:03:20.319 have millions of views on TikTok where they really bring 49 00:03:20.400 --> 00:03:24.400 the most basic criticisms of Christianity and act as if 50 00:03:24.439 --> 00:03:29.000 they have uncovered these hidden, hidden jewels and secrets that 51 00:03:29.039 --> 00:03:30.039 nobody's heard about. 52 00:03:30.599 --> 00:03:32.080 You know. Theodicy is a big. 53 00:03:31.919 --> 00:03:35.360 One, trying to explain the existence of evil and if 54 00:03:35.400 --> 00:03:39.120 God's omni present, omni perfect, well then how come people die? 55 00:03:39.840 --> 00:03:43.400 And they mock Christianity by saying, if God. 56 00:03:43.240 --> 00:03:45.520 Why bad thing? And then they go on to talk. 57 00:03:45.360 --> 00:03:48.800 About why it's a good argument, and it's like, no, no, 58 00:03:48.840 --> 00:03:49.159 it's not. 59 00:03:49.960 --> 00:03:51.759 But it's kind of a. 60 00:03:53.639 --> 00:04:00.360 Pseudo intellectual social media trend where these criticisms are credibly 61 00:04:00.400 --> 00:04:03.639 superficient and dealt with. I mean, for at this point, 62 00:04:03.680 --> 00:04:06.919 you know, in two thousand years, and I was kind 63 00:04:06.919 --> 00:04:09.719 of surprised to see how it is very very popular 64 00:04:09.840 --> 00:04:12.560 right now, especially like you said on TikTok amongst the 65 00:04:12.560 --> 00:04:17.800 gen Z. So you know, they try to utilize deconstructionism. 66 00:04:17.240 --> 00:04:20.639 And they really don't even know what it is. I mean, I. 67 00:04:20.639 --> 00:04:23.759 Would say maybe the McLellan guy is familiar because he 68 00:04:23.879 --> 00:04:27.639 is academically trained. He has a PhD, master's degrees and 69 00:04:27.680 --> 00:04:32.439 biblical studies and stuff like that. But you know, deconstructionism 70 00:04:32.800 --> 00:04:39.040 as a general philosophical methodology begins with Derrida and his grammatology. 71 00:04:39.199 --> 00:04:44.199 And when we talk about postmodern you know, Jordan Peterson's postmodernism, 72 00:04:44.319 --> 00:04:47.399 it has to do with the linguistic turn in philosophy 73 00:04:47.439 --> 00:04:50.240 in which they do away with the authority of the 74 00:04:50.279 --> 00:04:55.040 author itself and therefore you move into infinite interpretations. And 75 00:04:55.120 --> 00:04:58.800 so it's ironic that they're using deconstructionism to highlight how 76 00:04:58.879 --> 00:05:03.759 biblical readings scripture are inaccurate. Meanwhile, their own methodology has 77 00:05:03.800 --> 00:05:07.639 been criticized throughout scholarship is being relativistic and really is 78 00:05:08.120 --> 00:05:12.639 it's deconstructing, but it never constructs anything. It's just constant criticism, 79 00:05:13.120 --> 00:05:17.120 and they themselves are guilty of relativism and subjective interpretations 80 00:05:17.120 --> 00:05:19.959 of reading. So's the what's the ultimate conclusion? 81 00:05:19.959 --> 00:05:21.639 And point of Yeah, this is a great point, and 82 00:05:21.680 --> 00:05:25.680 this is a very common presubsisitional critique that I've done 83 00:05:25.680 --> 00:05:28.879 over the years. I got this from Bonsen. When you 84 00:05:28.959 --> 00:05:31.720 encounter somebody who is a deconstructionist, of course, they always 85 00:05:31.720 --> 00:05:35.519 assume that they read dairy Da and they derive Deida's 86 00:05:35.600 --> 00:05:38.079 meanings from his text. But wait a minute, I thought, 87 00:05:38.120 --> 00:05:40.560 I can't know authorial intent, and I thought, I have 88 00:05:40.639 --> 00:05:43.639 to deconstruct all of my narratives, my grand narratives. So 89 00:05:43.680 --> 00:05:48.759 it's a very contradictory philosophical nonsense position from the outset. 90 00:05:48.800 --> 00:05:51.439 But I'll briefly read a little bit here just to 91 00:05:51.439 --> 00:05:54.879 give an introduction to the topic. Faith deconstruction is an 92 00:05:54.959 --> 00:06:01.040 evangelical movement within particularly American evangelicalism, and it's closely related 93 00:06:01.040 --> 00:06:03.480 to what's called the ex evangelical movement. And this is 94 00:06:03.480 --> 00:06:07.839 a very adjacent to Reddit's, you know, the soy atheist 95 00:06:08.079 --> 00:06:10.759 sphere of Reddit. Of course, it can have a range 96 00:06:10.800 --> 00:06:13.680 of meanings. Alyssa Childers, So here we have it's beginning 97 00:06:13.720 --> 00:06:17.160 with a woman defines deconstruction as a process so systematically 98 00:06:17.360 --> 00:06:19.839 dissecting and rejecting the beliefs that you grew up with. 99 00:06:19.959 --> 00:06:24.079 Now people are finding this to be some like groundbreaking thing. 100 00:06:24.199 --> 00:06:26.680 But it's like, I mean, pretty much everybody who becomes 101 00:06:26.680 --> 00:06:28.839 a teenager at some point, I know I did. I'm 102 00:06:28.839 --> 00:06:31.600 sure like everybody questions their belief. Why is this some 103 00:06:31.800 --> 00:06:37.680 like new phenomenon first question about Christianity. It's like I realized, 104 00:06:37.720 --> 00:06:40.279 this is a system of oppression, as if no one 105 00:06:40.319 --> 00:06:43.160 ever questioned their faith when they become you know, seventeen 106 00:06:43.199 --> 00:06:45.560 year olds or whatever. Right from the outset. It's kind 107 00:06:45.600 --> 00:06:47.680 of silly. And like you said in my notes, I 108 00:06:47.720 --> 00:06:50.399 put this is a sued movement. This is like it's 109 00:06:50.439 --> 00:06:53.079 a bunch of SuDS. It goes on to say that 110 00:06:54.000 --> 00:06:56.639 Tyler Huckaby, who wrote for Relevant magazine, and you have 111 00:06:56.639 --> 00:06:59.040 to keep in mind a lot of these emergent church movements, 112 00:06:59.079 --> 00:07:03.040 a lot of these non denominational strip mall churches there, 113 00:07:03.160 --> 00:07:05.360 a lot of these are tied to NGO's, are tied 114 00:07:05.399 --> 00:07:09.240 to foundations that fund them to push these kinds of ideas, 115 00:07:09.600 --> 00:07:11.839 particularly all who was one of the founders of or 116 00:07:11.959 --> 00:07:13.560 early on if I remember, he's one of the early 117 00:07:13.839 --> 00:07:16.560 emergent church people, and this was an idea to kind 118 00:07:16.560 --> 00:07:21.079 of pick and choose from everything from Catholicism to evangelicalism 119 00:07:21.160 --> 00:07:25.399 to classical Reformation theology to kind of create your own 120 00:07:25.439 --> 00:07:29.360 evangelical church movement called the emergent Church back in the 121 00:07:29.439 --> 00:07:31.480 two thousands, and this kind of was a big It 122 00:07:31.519 --> 00:07:34.000 played a role in a lot of the megachurches that 123 00:07:34.079 --> 00:07:37.240 popped off during that time period. But it goes on 124 00:07:37.279 --> 00:07:40.439 to say that John, it's a process of re examining 125 00:07:40.480 --> 00:07:43.959 your faith. John stone Street, Timothy Paget note that it 126 00:07:44.040 --> 00:07:48.079 is both used descriptively, covering everybody from Kevin Max to 127 00:07:48.199 --> 00:07:53.480 Derek Webb to Rob Bell or the prescriptive recommendation that 128 00:07:53.560 --> 00:07:58.360 you question. The term, as David noted, derives loosely from 129 00:07:58.439 --> 00:08:02.040 Jacques Garry does philosophical consts the deconstruction, and the idea 130 00:08:02.160 --> 00:08:08.600 is that eventually you uh learn to erode the structures 131 00:08:08.600 --> 00:08:12.439 that you were raised with because you figure out, oh, well, 132 00:08:12.480 --> 00:08:17.360 I don't know Saint Paul's intention. I don't know the 133 00:08:17.439 --> 00:08:20.519 you know, the basis for uh, you know why the 134 00:08:20.639 --> 00:08:24.319 church fathers made this? This this the Bible? Like, so 135 00:08:24.360 --> 00:08:26.240 I don't know, So why do I believe in you this? 136 00:08:26.319 --> 00:08:28.160 It's just because I was raised with it. 137 00:08:28.560 --> 00:08:31.399 But I wrote down in regard to some of the 138 00:08:31.399 --> 00:08:35.360 philosophical roots of deconstructionism is that it kind of is 139 00:08:35.399 --> 00:08:41.120 a blending of really three important thinkers. One is Assur's linguistics, which, 140 00:08:41.159 --> 00:08:43.799 for those who aren't familiar, his whole the whole claim 141 00:08:43.840 --> 00:08:46.320 to fame there is that he's arguing symbols don't have 142 00:08:46.440 --> 00:08:49.080 meaning and of themselves, and that meaning is derived between 143 00:08:49.120 --> 00:08:55.039 the space between symbols. So therefore they're all uh sort 144 00:08:55.080 --> 00:08:58.080 of relational in the concept of meaning, and so they 145 00:08:58.879 --> 00:09:01.440 dare it up. Builds upon some Sour's linguistics, and then 146 00:09:01.559 --> 00:09:05.600 adds Martin Heideger's phenomenology, which is essentially a critique of 147 00:09:05.600 --> 00:09:09.519 Western metaphysics and his focus on the fluid nature of being, 148 00:09:10.399 --> 00:09:14.200 which influenced Dardo's approach to questioning traditional philosophical concepts. So 149 00:09:14.200 --> 00:09:17.240 you can see this fluidity and the idea of categories 150 00:09:17.279 --> 00:09:19.919 and being mixed with meaning is now in the in 151 00:09:20.039 --> 00:09:23.080 between space, it's not within symbols itself. And then of 152 00:09:23.080 --> 00:09:27.240 course Nietzsche's critique of truth, which he is skeptical about 153 00:09:27.279 --> 00:09:30.279 the existence of objective truth itself, which again is ironic 154 00:09:30.320 --> 00:09:33.159 because the people presenting this as if they're presenting an 155 00:09:33.159 --> 00:09:37.360 objective form of truth undermining Christian faith and so so 156 00:09:37.519 --> 00:09:42.240 sore Heidiger and Nietzsche are really the core inspirations for 157 00:09:42.279 --> 00:09:47.159 Dereduck sort of combining this into a deconstructionist philosophy that 158 00:09:47.279 --> 00:09:50.720 is really in opposition to at that time structuralism and 159 00:09:50.799 --> 00:09:54.639 building linguistic structures and understanding cultural phenomenon and all this 160 00:09:54.720 --> 00:09:58.440 different stuff and then underneath it, and then we'll probably 161 00:09:58.480 --> 00:10:01.840 discuss those more in part two, because they use a 162 00:10:01.840 --> 00:10:04.720 lot of vaki and cognitive science of religion, and it's 163 00:10:04.759 --> 00:10:08.600 because deconstructionism, because it was kind of a linguistic movement. 164 00:10:08.919 --> 00:10:12.279 The way they rooted themselves in science is through psychoanalysis 165 00:10:12.759 --> 00:10:17.919 and so lacan Freud. These are then inspirations for emphasizing 166 00:10:17.960 --> 00:10:21.639 the unconscious and sort of evolutionary understandings of why religion 167 00:10:21.720 --> 00:10:25.279 exists and why people are religious. And when we watch 168 00:10:25.360 --> 00:10:28.000 some of the more tiktoks probably in part two, we'll 169 00:10:28.039 --> 00:10:31.080 see that they always moved to a sort of evolutionary 170 00:10:31.159 --> 00:10:34.000 understanding of why people believe certain things or why the 171 00:10:34.039 --> 00:10:35.200 Bible says this or that. 172 00:10:36.000 --> 00:10:40.320 Yeah, it's often closely associated with postmodernism in a lot 173 00:10:40.320 --> 00:10:45.840 of ways, because postmodernism was all about deconstructing your grand narratives, 174 00:10:45.919 --> 00:10:48.399 and so there are no grand narratives. Even the Enlightenment 175 00:10:48.519 --> 00:10:51.679 was a grand narrative, the universalism of the Enlightenment, the 176 00:10:51.679 --> 00:10:54.559 age of Reason that had to be deconstructed as a 177 00:10:54.600 --> 00:10:59.919 mythology that was promoted and proposed by certain power structures. 178 00:11:00.039 --> 00:11:02.879 You can see how this is adjacent to Marxism. There 179 00:11:02.919 --> 00:11:08.240 is a very clear demarcation though between postmodernism and Marxism, 180 00:11:08.279 --> 00:11:10.559 and so this is an area where Jordan Peterson typically 181 00:11:10.600 --> 00:11:13.480 kind of gets things wrong, even though there is some overlap. 182 00:11:13.679 --> 00:11:18.360 So because many of the postmodernists did like elements of Marxism. Postmodernism, though, 183 00:11:18.639 --> 00:11:22.480 was utilized by the CIA actually to fight against Soviet 184 00:11:22.519 --> 00:11:25.840 realism and cosmism. So it's actually the CIA that went 185 00:11:25.879 --> 00:11:28.960 and met with Dairy Daw and various deconstruction is to 186 00:11:29.039 --> 00:11:32.960 try to try to incorporate and utilize this form of liberalism. 187 00:11:33.240 --> 00:11:35.559 And it's a form of liberalism because it's it's radical 188 00:11:35.600 --> 00:11:39.919 in its deconstructing process, right, so that for example, there's 189 00:11:39.960 --> 00:11:44.519 no objective meanings, that there's no you know, universal narratives, 190 00:11:44.519 --> 00:11:48.240 then sovietism cosmism is not true. And so it's part 191 00:11:48.279 --> 00:11:52.440 of the arsenal of the Western liberal project, even though 192 00:11:52.559 --> 00:11:55.679 it's a deconstruction even of Western liberalism. So people get 193 00:11:55.720 --> 00:11:59.399 confused over this and they don't understand sort of these differences. 194 00:11:59.440 --> 00:12:02.440 But I'm glad you mentioned semiotics. I had quite a 195 00:12:02.480 --> 00:12:05.960 few classes that dealt with semiotics and in underground in 196 00:12:05.960 --> 00:12:08.759 grad school, So this is an area I know decently. 197 00:12:08.799 --> 00:12:08.960 Well. 198 00:12:09.000 --> 00:12:11.159 I'm not an expert in it, but you can begin 199 00:12:11.200 --> 00:12:13.879 to see why semiotics, which is philosophy of signs and symbols, 200 00:12:13.879 --> 00:12:16.639 comes to play a key role because if we get 201 00:12:16.679 --> 00:12:19.440 really deep into deconstructing symbols, and like you said, there's 202 00:12:19.480 --> 00:12:23.960 that linguistic turn in philosophy begins with Vico and by 203 00:12:23.960 --> 00:12:26.279 the time it gets to modern philosophy, you've got you know, 204 00:12:26.399 --> 00:12:29.559 Vickenstein and guys like this are basically saying that really 205 00:12:29.600 --> 00:12:32.919 words are just language games. They're not really conveying meaning. 206 00:12:32.960 --> 00:12:36.320 It's an illusion if we think we're deriving the author's meaning, 207 00:12:36.799 --> 00:12:40.000 and so it's a breaking down of first books and literature. 208 00:12:40.440 --> 00:12:42.440 You could see the same thing mirrored, for example, in 209 00:12:42.480 --> 00:12:45.960 the higher critical studies of breaking down the Bible in 210 00:12:46.080 --> 00:12:49.960 the higher the German higher criticism schools after Luther the 211 00:12:50.000 --> 00:12:53.080 same thing's going on in philosophy. If I can't know 212 00:12:53.120 --> 00:12:56.759 the Bible, if the Bible's deconstructed, you know, generation or 213 00:12:56.759 --> 00:12:59.519 two after Luther, then it seems to follow, Well, wait 214 00:12:59.519 --> 00:13:02.039 a minute, I don't really know anybody book, do I. 215 00:13:02.039 --> 00:13:04.399 I can't. There's no book that I can actually derive, 216 00:13:04.639 --> 00:13:08.440 So I'm just importing all of my personal presubsisitions and 217 00:13:08.480 --> 00:13:12.240 meanings into the book. So that's kind of the setting 218 00:13:12.320 --> 00:13:15.840 for this. But as David pointed out, most of the 219 00:13:15.840 --> 00:13:18.120 people I think involved in this don't really they don't 220 00:13:18.159 --> 00:13:20.080 know anything about all that they don't. 221 00:13:20.600 --> 00:13:23.519 And academically, it's in the nineteen sixties and seventies it 222 00:13:23.600 --> 00:13:28.200 kind of grows prominence as a methodology within the academy, 223 00:13:28.200 --> 00:13:32.919 but it's really relegated towards literary studies and like cultural criticism. 224 00:13:32.960 --> 00:13:35.679 But once we get into the later nineteen seventies and 225 00:13:35.759 --> 00:13:40.000 especially the nineteen eighties, we see deconstructionism now turning towards 226 00:13:40.080 --> 00:13:46.919 biblical scholarship, more philosophical analysis. And really it's the nineteen 227 00:13:46.960 --> 00:13:49.639 eighties that it became a very dominant. This is why 228 00:13:49.679 --> 00:13:52.559 even today within the humanities, you know, Michelle Fuco is 229 00:13:52.639 --> 00:13:56.720 the most cited scholar in the world, and of course 230 00:13:56.759 --> 00:14:00.519 he died from activities at bathroomme hous Is in the 231 00:14:00.559 --> 00:14:04.120 Bay Area. But I just wanted to point out that 232 00:14:04.519 --> 00:14:07.480 this isn't a new phenomenon. Even though these TikTokers are 233 00:14:07.480 --> 00:14:10.960 acting like they just discovered the sun or something. This 234 00:14:11.039 --> 00:14:14.200 is kind of old hat stuff and they really don't 235 00:14:14.200 --> 00:14:17.480 even know what they're engaging in, especially with their verritical 236 00:14:17.480 --> 00:14:21.320 claims about what scripture says or what It's funny because 237 00:14:21.320 --> 00:14:26.399 even the Dan McClellan glag, he will argue for what 238 00:14:26.480 --> 00:14:28.759 he believes the intent of the author is, even though 239 00:14:28.799 --> 00:14:32.399 his own deconstructionist movement rejects, like you said, a thorial 240 00:14:32.399 --> 00:14:37.080 intent within textual scripture itself. 241 00:14:38.320 --> 00:14:41.600 Yeah, I want to make one little sort of a 242 00:14:41.759 --> 00:14:45.679 caveat here, which is that if you're into presuppositional argumentation 243 00:14:45.840 --> 00:14:49.879 and logic, believe it or not, there's actually an interesting 244 00:14:50.240 --> 00:14:54.200 role for postmodern people. I don't mean to say obviously 245 00:14:54.240 --> 00:14:57.960 that I accept or I want to promote postmodernism, much 246 00:14:58.039 --> 00:15:00.840 like David Hume is very useful to to show the 247 00:15:00.919 --> 00:15:05.919 logical consistency of you know, skepticism and atheism and empiricism 248 00:15:06.039 --> 00:15:09.279 or radical empiricism in the very same way. We can 249 00:15:09.360 --> 00:15:14.960 actually take the some of the critiques that postmodernists have 250 00:15:15.600 --> 00:15:18.240 and they're very useful, and they're they're very adjacent to 251 00:15:18.879 --> 00:15:22.720 transcendental argumentation. Just the critiques though, So be very be 252 00:15:22.799 --> 00:15:24.799 very clear with what I'm saying here. I'm not saying 253 00:15:24.840 --> 00:15:29.000 that I want to adopt postmodern philosophy. There is no answer. 254 00:15:29.039 --> 00:15:32.039 I mean, the whole point is everything is destroyed and 255 00:15:32.080 --> 00:15:35.399 deconstructive because there are no grand narratives. So now, obviously, 256 00:15:35.440 --> 00:15:38.279 if we believe in Christianity, that's our grand narrative. But 257 00:15:39.080 --> 00:15:42.279 the postmodernists have a very good insight when it comes 258 00:15:42.320 --> 00:15:48.840 to deconstructing language from an atheist empiricist perspective. So any 259 00:15:48.919 --> 00:15:53.120 time you're talking to say, you know, enormy Reddit level 260 00:15:53.159 --> 00:15:56.960 atheist who doesn't know this stuff, kind of the Dawkins Dinnet, 261 00:15:57.399 --> 00:16:01.120 you know, Hitchins sphere, those kinds of people, they will 262 00:16:01.120 --> 00:16:04.879 not have any significant answer to postmodern critiques of their 263 00:16:05.039 --> 00:16:08.519 Enlightenment assumptions. So that's why they're very useful to us 264 00:16:08.559 --> 00:16:11.399 if you're very careful. So exactly as somebody said in 265 00:16:11.440 --> 00:16:15.360 the chat there more says you can deconstruct you deconstructionism, absolutely, 266 00:16:15.399 --> 00:16:18.960 but they have very valid critiques of the presuppositions of 267 00:16:19.000 --> 00:16:21.879 the Enlightenment. In other words, I could use, say, some of 268 00:16:21.879 --> 00:16:25.440 the postmodern critiques against somebody like James Lindsay, right, Doctor 269 00:16:25.480 --> 00:16:28.559 James Lindsay would not be able to I'm not saying 270 00:16:28.600 --> 00:16:32.799 that the postmodernists are correct in their answers, but their 271 00:16:32.879 --> 00:16:37.639 critiques can be valid critiques of Enlightenment assumptions. And that 272 00:16:37.679 --> 00:16:40.039 will I don't want to yap too long, but that 273 00:16:40.039 --> 00:16:46.559 will get into the very interesting questions that are raised 274 00:16:46.600 --> 00:16:49.360 when we get into linguistic philosophy. And so for those 275 00:16:49.399 --> 00:16:51.440 of you that one last point here. For those of 276 00:16:51.440 --> 00:16:53.639 you that have seen me, for example, in a lot 277 00:16:53.639 --> 00:16:55.919 of debates with atheists, you'll see me at times bringing 278 00:16:56.080 --> 00:16:59.879 up linguistic issues. That's because I had enough of a 279 00:17:00.200 --> 00:17:04.880 uh instruction in semiotics in my classes to know that 280 00:17:05.200 --> 00:17:09.000 most atheists aren't aware of how nuanced and complex languages 281 00:17:09.680 --> 00:17:12.759 and how nuanced and complex the philosophy of signs and 282 00:17:12.799 --> 00:17:15.880 symbols is. And so if you know that stuff, that 283 00:17:16.039 --> 00:17:18.880 could be it could be very powerful AMMO against sort 284 00:17:18.920 --> 00:17:20.720 of the normy atheists. 285 00:17:20.400 --> 00:17:23.160 Right, And I just wanted to rebut your point is 286 00:17:23.160 --> 00:17:29.960 that that's exactly why you're you're utilizing deconstructionism or postmodernism. 287 00:17:30.119 --> 00:17:34.160 Is the scholastic approach, and I don't mean sclasticism, I 288 00:17:34.200 --> 00:17:37.119 mean like academic approach, is that you're these are tools. 289 00:17:37.240 --> 00:17:41.240 We're not supporting postmodernism or deconstructionism. But as you said, 290 00:17:41.240 --> 00:17:43.720 when it when really all this stuff is coming out 291 00:17:43.720 --> 00:17:47.680 of post enlightenment and really post contient critiques of rationalism, 292 00:17:48.240 --> 00:17:51.160 you can utilize these things as AMMO from a theistic 293 00:17:51.359 --> 00:17:55.960 orthodox perspective and undermine people that are your perceived intellectual rivals. 294 00:17:56.000 --> 00:17:59.079 And that's what that's why this stuff is useful for us, 295 00:17:59.119 --> 00:18:03.599 even though we would ject again postmodernism or deconstructionism as 296 00:18:03.640 --> 00:18:07.519 an ultimate methodology or endpoint for philosophy. 297 00:18:07.880 --> 00:18:10.960 Yeah, and there's some actually some really good philosophical books 298 00:18:11.880 --> 00:18:15.559 from this school. Roland Bart actually has some really I mean, 299 00:18:15.599 --> 00:18:19.119 he was a skittles person. I'm not backing him up, 300 00:18:19.440 --> 00:18:23.440 but he actually has some interesting semiotic essays that that 301 00:18:23.559 --> 00:18:26.960 I think an undergrad we had to read elements of semiology. 302 00:18:27.359 --> 00:18:29.400 I've read a lot of umberto Echo over the years. 303 00:18:29.640 --> 00:18:32.960 He's actually not just a famous author and kind of 304 00:18:32.960 --> 00:18:38.119 weirdo anti Catholic, but he left Catholicism and Tomism actually 305 00:18:39.039 --> 00:18:42.279 because of postmodernism and his atheism and became like a 306 00:18:42.319 --> 00:18:46.960 committed super duper like hardcore you know, postmodernist and his 307 00:18:47.119 --> 00:18:51.799 but his, his novels are actually really interesting critiques of 308 00:18:51.839 --> 00:18:55.359 a lot of say, Roman Catholic metaphysical assumptions and things 309 00:18:55.400 --> 00:18:58.880 that we would agree with without accepting the end result. 310 00:18:58.880 --> 00:19:01.119 Because I mean he's a totally kind of wicked dude, 311 00:19:01.200 --> 00:19:04.119 kind of like Fuco Right was totally wicked. But I 312 00:19:04.119 --> 00:19:07.599 mean there are some really fascinating people. Uh and and 313 00:19:07.680 --> 00:19:10.759 I mean I had to read Charles Sanders purse uh 314 00:19:10.880 --> 00:19:14.440 and for for this domain as well as a you 315 00:19:14.480 --> 00:19:17.480 know sorcerer that you're talking about back in the. 316 00:19:17.519 --> 00:19:23.200 Day, kind of founders of pragmatism. 317 00:19:23.240 --> 00:19:25.599 So let me I'll read a little bit more of 318 00:19:25.640 --> 00:19:28.160 this and then we'll see what what you what you 319 00:19:28.200 --> 00:19:32.440 what sticks out to you. It's interesting that it's that 320 00:19:32.559 --> 00:19:36.200 is popping up in evangelicalism. I'm wondering why that is, 321 00:19:36.319 --> 00:19:39.759 because is it just that evangelicalism is late to the game, 322 00:19:40.000 --> 00:19:45.799 because you know, within mainline uh Protestantism or Catholicism, you 323 00:19:45.920 --> 00:19:50.200 had this deconstructing going on, maybe even after Luther with 324 00:19:50.279 --> 00:19:52.920 higher criticism. Uh, you know, why is this? I wonder 325 00:19:52.960 --> 00:19:56.799 why this is hitting Christianity right now? It says after 326 00:19:56.880 --> 00:19:59.240 preaching a sermon in which he equated deconstructions in with 327 00:19:59.319 --> 00:20:02.640 leaving the faith. Matt Chandler clarified that it doesn't mean 328 00:20:02.680 --> 00:20:08.319 necessarily doubting or theological wrestling through church hurt. John Cooper stated, 329 00:20:08.359 --> 00:20:09.720 I don't even know who these people are. These are 330 00:20:09.720 --> 00:20:12.559 like famous evangelicals. It is time that we declare war 331 00:20:12.640 --> 00:20:15.880 against this deconstruction movement. It is anti christian, it is 332 00:20:15.920 --> 00:20:19.119 a false religion. On the other hand, other evangelicals like 333 00:20:19.200 --> 00:20:23.039 Tyler Huckabee argue that it can result in deconversion out 334 00:20:23.039 --> 00:20:25.960 of Christianity and most often that it leads you into 335 00:20:26.000 --> 00:20:30.920 something somewhere in between, to a form of progressivist Christianity. 336 00:20:30.960 --> 00:20:33.799 So I think, from the vantage point of maybe the 337 00:20:33.880 --> 00:20:36.359 power elite, why this would be pushed so hard in 338 00:20:36.400 --> 00:20:40.079 these circles is maybe if they can't even necessarily get 339 00:20:40.079 --> 00:20:42.640 people to be full on atheists, it at least gets 340 00:20:42.680 --> 00:20:47.160 the evangelical world to be more progressive and more cocked. 341 00:20:47.359 --> 00:20:48.759 And this is something that you and I were talking 342 00:20:48.799 --> 00:20:52.240 about beforehand. There's an interesting pattern which we'll cover when 343 00:20:52.279 --> 00:20:54.200 we get to your channel. With a lot of the 344 00:20:54.240 --> 00:20:56.400 guys involved in this, what are some of the patterns? 345 00:20:56.400 --> 00:20:57.880 And I think with the women too, what some of 346 00:20:57.920 --> 00:20:58.920 the patterns you've noticed with the. 347 00:20:58.880 --> 00:21:02.359 People going through some of the tiktoks of some of 348 00:21:02.359 --> 00:21:07.440 the more prominent deconstructionists of Christianity, and like you showed 349 00:21:07.480 --> 00:21:12.440 on your phone, like Dan McClellan, his entire instagram if 350 00:21:12.480 --> 00:21:15.160 you look at and they're all deconstructing Christianity. But they 351 00:21:15.200 --> 00:21:19.640 begin by him holding up t shirts of X Men characters, Superman, 352 00:21:19.880 --> 00:21:25.039 Marvel superheroes. And then there's another a woman actually, and 353 00:21:25.359 --> 00:21:29.039 she has a TikTok called no Nonsense Spirituality. I mean, 354 00:21:29.200 --> 00:21:32.880 this woman is not an intellectual. Her videos, some of 355 00:21:32.960 --> 00:21:36.200 them have millions of views. And in her office where 356 00:21:36.240 --> 00:21:37.960 she sits there in films these if that's not in 357 00:21:38.000 --> 00:21:41.720 her car, she has Funko pops all over the background. 358 00:21:42.240 --> 00:21:45.200 And I thought that that is iron It never fails. 359 00:21:45.279 --> 00:21:50.599 These are the religious iconography of the soy world, aren't they. 360 00:21:50.680 --> 00:21:54.720 I mean, whether it's Marvel Universe or whether it's you know, 361 00:21:54.799 --> 00:21:57.359 Phonko pops, these are the signs, and these are the 362 00:21:57.359 --> 00:22:00.640 semiotic indicators of soyness, are they not. 363 00:22:01.759 --> 00:22:02.400 Yeah. 364 00:22:02.440 --> 00:22:06.359 And it's funny because you were talking about like evangelical Christianity, 365 00:22:06.440 --> 00:22:09.839 and it seems like for them, they think that they're 366 00:22:09.880 --> 00:22:12.559 so much more rational. And I even watched a quote 367 00:22:12.640 --> 00:22:18.079 unquote pastor who's promoting this deconstruction my Christianity, deconstructing my Christianity, 368 00:22:18.119 --> 00:22:21.160 and he's saying how wonderful this is. And he didn't 369 00:22:21.359 --> 00:22:23.680 he said that this was a movement that began the nineties, 370 00:22:23.680 --> 00:22:27.160 no understanding of the history of philosophy or anything like that, 371 00:22:27.880 --> 00:22:32.000 but you could tell. So he was super pro LGBTQ, 372 00:22:33.240 --> 00:22:36.519 pro everything progressive, and it's a way for them to 373 00:22:37.359 --> 00:22:41.160 have a foothold in quote unquote Christianity. But rationalizing this 374 00:22:41.200 --> 00:22:44.400 is the modern person's religion. This is something that's deconstructed. 375 00:22:44.440 --> 00:22:48.799 We're taking away all the fictitious aspects of Christianity and 376 00:22:48.839 --> 00:22:52.359 now we're coming to for them a fuller realization, a 377 00:22:52.480 --> 00:22:56.319 rational understanding of the Biblical God. And how you know, 378 00:22:56.480 --> 00:23:00.680 all these criticisms of texts and discrept and sees what 379 00:23:00.720 --> 00:23:05.079 they perceive to be between Old Testament prophecies and the 380 00:23:05.119 --> 00:23:08.200 Messiah in Christ, this type of stuff. But it really 381 00:23:08.240 --> 00:23:10.799 just seems a way for them to present themselves as 382 00:23:10.920 --> 00:23:15.279 intellectually sound and hyper rational. And I think that's why 383 00:23:15.400 --> 00:23:19.519 we're seeing it in like evangelical and Pentecostal charismatic circles 384 00:23:19.640 --> 00:23:23.720 is one, you know, well in the charismatic circle is 385 00:23:23.799 --> 00:23:27.559 kind of irrational, but they're anti intellectual movements. So yeah, right, 386 00:23:28.200 --> 00:23:30.400 But I've made the argument because of the lack of 387 00:23:30.440 --> 00:23:34.319 sacraments and Protestantism, it really is an ideology. And so 388 00:23:34.400 --> 00:23:37.359 when you hear Protestants worry about the world, it's communism, 389 00:23:37.440 --> 00:23:42.200 it's it's you know, undermining capitalism, it's it's ideologies that 390 00:23:42.200 --> 00:23:45.160 are in competition with Protestantism. This is why, you know, 391 00:23:45.160 --> 00:23:48.759 if somebody's possessed, even I know somebody here in the 392 00:23:48.839 --> 00:23:51.680 local town, they went to a Catholic priest to get 393 00:23:51.720 --> 00:23:54.880 an extracism because their Protestant church doesn't deal with that 394 00:23:54.960 --> 00:23:59.440 sort of material realm of mystery and the sort of 395 00:23:59.559 --> 00:24:04.480 super spiritual reality within the world. So I think Protestantism 396 00:24:04.599 --> 00:24:08.240 is already lean because it's really an Enlightenment or early 397 00:24:08.759 --> 00:24:13.279 pre Enlightenment creation. It is a hyper it's ironic because 398 00:24:13.279 --> 00:24:15.880 they're anti intellectual, as you said, but at the same time, 399 00:24:15.920 --> 00:24:22.559 it's an ideology itself. It's fundamentally about rational apprehension of beliefs. 400 00:24:23.519 --> 00:24:26.519 Yeah, I think it's difficult to in our society be 401 00:24:26.759 --> 00:24:32.039