I'm quite taken with this phrase I thought up a few days ago. It really 
captures a certain set of tactics I see everywhere on the Internet. 

I would define Intellectual McCarthyism (IM) as the attempt by a speaker or 
writer to announce or imply that they have "won" a debate or argument by 
referencing arguments that have never been presented, and citing them as being 
as authoritative as if they had been. 

I'm not comparing the politics of the people who do this to Joe McCarthy, of 
course, just to his tactics and personality. He was a bully. And one of his 
most famous bully tactics was to wave a blank piece of paper and say, "I have 
in my hand a list of the 57 known communists working in the State Department 
(or White House or movie industry or whatever his target was that week)." 

There is a great deal of persuasion in such a statement, and a veritable 
shitload of assumption. The statement *assumes*, for example, that there ARE 
communists in the State Department. All that's worth quibbling about is how 
many of them there are. The persuasion is the attempt to get the respondent to 
argue about the number rather than the assumption itself. Add to this the fact 
that these lists never existed in the first place, and you've got a real 
whopper of a mind-control technique. 

So how is this different from pointing to a supposedly authoritative set of 
opinions about classical theism, citing them as the strongest argument for 
theism, and then refusing to even synopsize those opinions? IMO the attempt to 
do so is again a distraction, an attempt to get the respondent to react to the 
supposedly important difference in how one imagines God -- as a being or as 
"Being" -- as if *that* is the thing that must be argued, not the assumption 
that there is a God in the first place. 

It's not how you choose to describe God that is important. It's that you 
believe there is one. 

It's like trying to lure someone into a debate about whether licking a 
unicorn's horn tastes more like honey or cherry-vanilla. Arguments about what 
it tastes like are moot if there are no unicorns. 

Reply via email to