Apologetics Isn’t Dead: Cameron Bertuzzi’s Conversion to Catholicism

[Michie]

Recently, Cameron Bertuzzi, the man who runs the YouTube-based ministry Capturing Christianity, announced that he recently entered RCIA at a Catholic Church and will formally enter the Church this Easter. Besides being an occasion of joy, Bertuzzi’s conversion offers an opportunity to reflect on a somewhat controversial topic: the role of apologetics in evangelization.

Some in Catholic and other Christian circles are pessimistic about the role of apologetics and argue that it has little or no role in evangelization. People convert to Christianity—we are told—by Christians living out their faith publicly and thus serving as witnesses to the potential converts. There is much truth in this point of view. After all, arguments alone do not bring people into the faith. Indeed, strictly speaking, it is false to say that any one person converts another. Rather, all conversion is fundamentally the work of the Holy Spirit. But while we can all agree that arguments and evidence themselves do not move the hearts and minds of our fellow human beings towards conversion, it doesn’t follow that they have no role, or even no major role, in the conversion of some people. Cameron Bertuzzi’s conversion illustrates that point well.

A Bit about Cameron Bertuzzi

Bertuzzi runs Capturing Christianity, which seeks to “expose you to the intellectual side of Christian belief.” The primary focus of his channel is to defend what C.S. Lewis called “mere Christianity”—that is, the most important and foundational elements of Christian belief: God’s existence, the divinity of Jesus, the historicity of Jesus’ Resurrection, and similar matters. Bertuzzi’s channel has featured some of the most prominent scholars, both atheist and Christian alike, including William Lane Craig, Graham Oppy, Edward Feser, and many others. Bertuzzi himself has engaged in debates with other leading atheist apologists, like Alex O’Connor and Stephen Woodford. Throughout these interviews, discussions, and debates, Bertuzzi shows his great zeal for truth and his willingness to seriously engage arguments—even ones that cut strongly against his own views. This trait would present itself again in his conversion to Catholicism.

His Conversion

Continued below.

Apologetics Isn’t Dead: Cameron Bertuzzi’s Conversion to Catholicism - Word on Fire

Cameron Bertuzzi’s conversion can offer some consolation to apologists that their work matters in bringing people to the faith.

www.wordonfire.org

 

[RileyG]

Glory to God!

 

[WarriorAngel]

The Lord inspires and therefore, compels us to plant seeds and He then grows them so they reach for the Light.

 

[BAChristian]

He and Matt Fradd collaborate as well on Matt's "Pints with Aquinas" YT channel. I like Matt and his work and watch him frequently.

 

[zippy2006]

I have to say that this conversion felt strange to me. He basically handed his soul over to the Bayesian probability calculator and followed wherever it led. I think you could find many places where Catholic theology proscribes such an approach.

 

[Michie]

I have to say that this conversion felt strange to me. He basically handed his soul over to the Bayesian probability calculator and followed wherever it led. I think you could find many places where Catholic theology proscribes such an approach.

I realize that many feel an initial pull or acceptance in their hearts and convert with little theological knowledge. I imagine that is why we offer RCIA to get them started before just giving everyone access to the sacraments that say they want to be Catholic. But I would assume there are many like Bertuzzi that convert in this fashion by exploring all that is out there before coming to a final decision.

 

[zippy2006]

I realize that many feel an initial pull or acceptance in their hearts and convert with little theological knowledge. I imagine that is why we offer RCIA to get them started before just giving everyone access to the sacraments that say they want to be Catholic. But I would assume there are many like Bertuzzi that convert in this fashion by exploring all that is out there before coming to a final decision.

If you listen to the explanation of his conversion that he gave to Matt Fradd you will see what I mean, particularly with respect to Bayesianism (link).

 

[Michie]

If you listen to the explanation of his conversion that he gave to Matt Fradd you will see what I mean, particularly with respect to Bayesianism (link).

I’ll give it a listen later. Thanks. I tried a few links in the op and I did not have the app to listen to them. I live in the country and it’s next to impossible at times.

 

[BAChristian]

I have to say that this conversion felt strange to me. He basically handed his soul over to the Bayesian probability calculator and followed wherever it led. I think you could find many places where Catholic theology proscribes such an approach.

Exactly what I did.

 

[zippy2006]

Exactly what I did.

The only question is whether Catholicism is obligatory, but I don't think this question is hard to answer. Regarding probabilism, Bayesianism, and Bertuzzi:

"Again, it is not lawful to act on mere probability when there is question of gaining an end which is obligatory, since certain means must be employed to gain a certainly required end. Hence, when eternal salvation is at stake, it is not lawful to be content with uncertain means."​

​

-"Probabilism," The Catholic Encyclopedia​

 

[BAChristian]

The only question is whether Catholicism is obligatory, but I don't think this question is hard to answer. Regarding probabilism, Bayesianism, and Bertuzzi:

"Again, it is not lawful to act on mere probability when there is question of gaining an end which is obligatory, since certain means must be employed to gain a certainly required end. Hence, when eternal salvation is at stake, it is not lawful to be content with uncertain means."​

​

-"Probabilism," The Catholic Encyclopedia​

This ---> Hence, when eternal salvation is at stake, it is not lawful to be content with uncertain means."

In essence, the Church's doctrine does not allow for uncertainty. Neither should we but we should base our faith on another instruction from the Church -- on logic including the teachings of the Church. I can give numerous examples. And Priests can too when offering advice. (Particularly on the subject of sins within the confessional.) Just my $0.02.

 

[zippy2006]

This ---> Hence, when eternal salvation is at stake, it is not lawful to be content with uncertain means."

And conversion to Catholicism concerns eternal salvation. Hence, probabilism is excluded as a basis for conversion.

 

[jas3]

I can say firsthand that apologetics are worthwhile. Catholic Answers dispelled a lot of misconceptions I had about Catholicism when I began looking outside of Methodism. I've followed Cameron since he began looking into Catholicism and listened to most of his interviews and guest appearances on other channels. I will say, as someone who is himself considering converting, I thought Cameron was a little rushed. In his interview with Matt Fradd when he announced his conversion, around the 1:25:50 mark he didn't even know whether the change to the Novus Ordo came from Vatican I or II. He seemed to go really in depth with the Eliakim typological argument for the papacy, but not so much anywhere else.

I can think of another example similar to Cameron: Austin Suggs, who runs a channel called Gospel Simplicity. Austin seems to have considered Eastern Orthodoxy (and even Oriental Orthodoxy) more thoroughly than Cameron, but I get the impression that he and Cameron ran into the same problem, where scheduling and preparing for these interviews takes up so much of their time that they aren't able to do much research outside of their videos. That's not quite as true for Austin since when he wasn't making videos he was studying for a theology degree, but he still hasn't uploaded anything of substance in the last several months. Even looking back at this "Thoughts on Catholicism" and "Thoughts on Orthodoxy" videos from a year ago, which at the time was a year into his looking into both traditions, both videos only cover a few points and are very surface-level theologically.

And conversion to Catholicism concerns eternal salvation. Hence, probabilism is excluded as a basis for conversion.

Cameron was actually challenged on this by the Protestants he interviewed before converting, I think mainly by James White. They pointed out that you can't be 91% certain that Catholic dogmas are true, you have to affirm that they are absolutely true. Cameron's response was that even people who think they're being dogmatic are making probabilistic judgments, e.g. about Scripture being preserved without corruption, about things in the early Church that aren't well documented, about the reliability of secondary and tertiary sources, etc., and that his Baysian analysis was the same thing but done in a more rigorous way.

In my opinion, his argument's weakness is that even if you do the Bayesian analysis itself very rigorously, assigning numerical probabilities to pieces of evidence is fraught with opportunities for subjectivity: What defines a single piece of evidence as opposed to several pieces? How do you distinguish between something having a probability of 0.8 vs. 0.92 vs. 0.93?

So it didn't seem to benefit him to do the whole Bayesian thing. He ended up spending a lot of time in his interviews defending his model instead of focusing on the actual arguments that were being put into the model. He wasn't knowledgeable enough about Bayesian analysis itself to defend it very thoroughly and was relying on the instructions of others for some of his decisions with the model (which he talked about a little in the interview with Matt Fradd).

 

[zippy2006]

I can say firsthand that apologetics are worthwhile. Catholic Answers dispelled a lot of misconceptions I had about Catholicism when I began looking outside of Methodism. I've followed Cameron since he began looking into Catholicism and listened to most of his interviews and guest appearances on other channels. I will say, as someone who is himself considering converting, I thought Cameron was a little rushed. In his interview with Matt Fradd when he announced his conversion, around the 1:25:50 mark he didn't even know whether the change to the Novus Ordo came from Vatican I or II. He seemed to go really in depth with the Eliakim typological argument for the papacy, but not so much anywhere else.

I can think of another example similar to Cameron: Austin Suggs, who runs a channel called Gospel Simplicity. Austin seems to have considered Eastern Orthodoxy (and even Oriental Orthodoxy) more thoroughly than Cameron, but I get the impression that he and Cameron ran into the same problem, where scheduling and preparing for these interviews takes up so much of their time that they aren't able to do much research outside of their videos. That's not quite as true for Austin since when he wasn't making videos he was studying for a theology degree, but he still hasn't uploaded anything of substance in the last several months. Even looking back at this "Thoughts on Catholicism" and "Thoughts on Orthodoxy" videos from a year ago, which at the time was a year into his looking into both traditions, both videos only cover a few points and are very surface-level theologically.


Cameron was actually challenged on this by the Protestants he interviewed before converting, I think mainly by James White. They pointed out that you can't be 91% certain that Catholic dogmas are true, you have to affirm that they are absolutely true. Cameron's response was that even people who think they're being dogmatic are making probabilistic judgments, e.g. about Scripture being preserved without corruption, about things in the early Church that aren't well documented, about the reliability of secondary and tertiary sources, etc., and that his Baysian analysis was the same thing but done in a more rigorous way.

In my opinion, his argument's weakness is that even if you do the Bayesian analysis itself very rigorously, assigning numerical probabilities to pieces of evidence is fraught with opportunities for subjectivity: What defines a single piece of evidence as opposed to several pieces? How do you distinguish between something having a probability of 0.8 vs. 0.92 vs. 0.93?

Yes, I agree with much of this.

So it didn't seem to benefit him to do the whole Bayesian thing. He ended up spending a lot of time in his interviews defending his model instead of focusing on the actual arguments that were being put into the model. He wasn't knowledgeable enough about Bayesian analysis itself to defend it very thoroughly and was relying on the instructions of others for some of his decisions with the model (which he talked about a little in the interview with Matt Fradd).

And that is the crux of his error as far as I am concerned. He placed his faith in Bayes or Bayes' interpreters rather than in God. Admittedly this is a crude way to put it, but at the end of the day I think it is true. Still, God can write straight with crooked lines.