Why Evolution is True Contest

Jerry Coyne over on Why Evolution is True posted a contest for an apt neologism, and I thought it would be fun to pass it on to fellow fallacyophites here.

Neologism wanted by whyevolutionistrue

I'm looking for readers to help invent a new word, since the concept I want to encapsulate isn't represented by any words or phrases I know.

And here's the concept. You're all familiar with the ploy that theologians use when you criticize their ideas. Many of them—most notably Edward Feser, but also Alvin Plantinga and others—will respond by saying, "You haven't read the best and most thorough exposition of my ideas, in books X, Y, and Z." And if you read and criticize those works, they just shunt you on to other works.

It's a never-ending trip down the illusory Rabbit Hole of Fuzzy Thought. They'll even pull this stunt with other theologians, as when Catholic theologian Edward Feser argued with David Bentley Hart in 2015 about whether dogs go to Heaven—one of the more hilarious theological disputes I've documented. Feser, who said "no way dogs can get through the Pearly Gates," told his opponent Hart that he'd better read Thomas Aquinas to settle the issue. Can you believe that people get paid to argue about such stuff?

Now, I find, advocates of panpsychism are pulling the same trick, saying that you can't criticize their dumb ideas unless you read every book that's ever been written about the Consciousness of the Inanimate. I keep reading and don't find a "there" there, but am still being told to dig deeper. Fool that I am, I often comply, but it's a futile endeavor.

So here's my request:

Come up with a word or short phrase (two words) that describes the never-ending requests of those theologians or philosophers who require that you keep reading ever more books and papers before you're qualified to criticize their views.

My own guess would be a variation of an Argumtentum ad Ignorantium,
or what Alfred Hitchcock coined as a Macguffin.

Here's how he explains it

https://youtu.be/mNkPLuBjZRM<>

PS. It also might also be a type of Red Herring, or ideological goose chase that leads you nowhere closer to the truth.

Come up with a word or short phrase (two words) that describes the never-ending requests of those theologians or philosophers who require that you keep reading ever more books and papers before you're qualified to criticize their views.

This is another tough one because there is some truth to the idea that one really can't intellectually criticize one's work, or any concept for that matter, if they are not familiar with it. The fallacy would in an unreasonable request... when the required reading is simply unnecessary. This is often used as an "out" for someone who cannot explain their position. A word/name for this? Perhaps "Read This" Fallacy . This would also apply to the more generic request to "read this" when someone cannot argue a position but was convinced by something they read, but cannot articulate why. Here is an example:

Theist: Why don't you believe in God?
Atheist: Read this. (hands the Christian a Bible)