My criticism of Chris Langan’s CTMU theory

The following response is a result of a prior interchange that can be found here:

INTRODUCTION

I stand before a rather impossible task, Christopher Langan, author of the CTMU theory, challenged me to refute his writings. I have no doubt that within that challenge is the request that I convince him that his writings are rubbish – and yet, this task is impossible, and as such I do not undertake it. However, I do undertake the task of showing how CTMU theory is fanciful nonsense to the common reader. Mr. Langan laments that I have so much power and he has no room for any rebuttal. If, upon reading this, he wishes to submit a response (via comments section or via the contact section) I will readily post it as a full article. I should also note that his ravings can be found on many of his own sites and it is not as though I am a media giant unleashed against innocent prey. His caricature is quite to the contrary; he is a self-professed genius who has had much exposure in the media.

Mr. Langan also somewhat attempts to trick me, however clever he thinks himself to be. He, with great flourish, challenged me and me alone to debunk his nonsensical CTMU theory, or “a real, high-powered, household-word celebrity atheist to pick up the sword in [my] stead.” For what purpose does he respond to a relatively obscure blog? This is for the primary purpose of publicity. Yet he claims that his work is not popular “because [he hasn’t] really done much to promote it.” What of the television appearances, the numerous websites, and the numerous responses to online criticism? Chris Langan tries to make himself out to be modest, which after even the most superficial of investigations one can see that the ruse is laughable. So, in some sense I have fallen for his game. I have given him additional publicity. And yet, there is a marketplace of ideas and there is not nearly enough mockery of CTMU and the criticism of the “theory” is often coupled with the response that “well, you just don’t understand it.” To emulate him, it is no doubt that the sesquipedalian, obfuscated language is an intentional inoculation against healthy discourse. Continue reading…