Featured Post |
Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, and Megyn Kelly did not just present three distinct policy platforms or even three conflicting interpretations of the same political moment at Turning Point. They were three different answers to the bigger question: How do we know what we know?
I don’t want to decide if their conclusions were right or wrong, convincing or not. My concern is more basic, and for Christians, it has more serious consequences. Each speaker had a different idea of what truth, authority, emotion, and persuasion were. Most of the time, these ideas don’t show up on the surface. They work in the background to change how people think about credibility long before any specific claim is accepted or rejected.
I don’t want to judge; I want to make these underlying attitudes clear. Once we know their names, we can ask how each one fits with, goes against, or subtly changes a Christian worldview, especially in a public sphere that is becoming more and more ruled by algorithmic logic instead of moral or intellectual coherence.
Ben Shapiro embodies a belief that seems almost out of date: that truth is objective, external, and binding no matter how it is received. His arguments evolve through definition, distinction, and inference, as if public discourse were governed by coherence rather than engagement metrics. Shapiro is an Orthodox Jew, but the way he thinks about knowledge is very similar to the way Christians used to think about it. Both traditions support the........