Questions I'd like to see Peterson "actually answer (and not

[_Ray A]

By "personal experience," I'm talking about the "promptings of the Holy Ghost," not about Dr. Peterson's upbringing. I brought that up to undermine his implicit assertion that his interpretation of spiritual experiences was reliable. As noted in the article referenced above, that's not an ad hominem, because it actually addresses the argument.

Again, this is what you wrote:

Do you deny that you were taught to believe in the Mormon interpretation of "the Holy Ghost" as a child, or is my characterization more or less accurate...

Ad hominem means "agrument to the man", or "against the man":

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

He never made the claim. You effectively set him up with your first question, "do you deny....?" So yes, it is a classical ad hom.

[_JohnStuartMill]

he offered his personal experience as evidence for the truth of Mormonism.

Did I? I don't recall that. Could you provide a quotation?

Before I even entered the thread, you said:

And, since I do believe in revelation, I believe that revealed "preconceptions" will be at least as valid as any others, possibly more so, never less so.

Before I mentioned your upbringing, you said:

I've had experiences in which such promptings have been remarkably clear, and quite distinct from, even opposed to, my emotions.

I see now that my "he offered his personal experience... for Mormonism" formulation was sloppy. I should have said that you offered your personal experience as evidence that "promptings" can be disentangled from "emotions", which only supports the truth of Mormonism indirectly. Still, on those grounds, my mention of your upbringing is perfectly legitimate and on-point.

[Guest]

I disagree, and, anyway, as the never-mistaken beastie has predicted, I'm not going to participate in a discussion of it.

You've got from me as much, on this topic, as you're going to get.

I made a point that EAllusion, of all people, essentially endorsed. That was my point, and that was my only point.

I don't do serious theology on message boards (let alone on this one!), and I certainly don't bear personal testimony here.

[_JohnStuartMill]

I'm sorry, Ray, but I don't think you quite grasp the meaning of "ad hominem". You can't just look to its literal translation and call it a day.

Question: if a prosecutor impugned a witness's credibility by pointing out his actual bias in favor of the defendant, would that be an ad hominem fallacy?

[_JohnStuartMill]

I disagree, and, anyway, as the never-mistaken beastie has predicted, I'm not going to participate in a discussion of it.

You've got from me as much, on this topic, as you're going to get.

I'm honestly not trying to pry, Daniel. I only went there to try to ferret you out of your "well, my personal spiritual experiences are distinct from emotions" hole of unverifiability. I hope you notice that I don't bring up your personal life when we discuss cosmological arguments and the like.

You never responded to my point about the qualifiers Mormons should put on their interpretations of spiritual experiences. If you agree that "spiritual experiences are interpreted through filters of culture, psychology, etc.", then why don't you discourage the kind of certainty spoken of and socially undergirded in fast and testimony meetings? That's a fair question.

[_Ray A]

I'm sorry, Ray, but I don't think you quite grasp the meaning of "ad hominem". You can't just look to its literal translation and call it a day.

Question: if a prosecutor impugned a witness's credibility by pointing out his actual bias in favor of the defendant, would that be an ad hominem fallacy?

Going back to your own link:

Example:

"You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well."

This argument would generally be accepted as reasonable, as regards personal evidence, on the premise that criminals are likely to lie to protect each other. On the other hand, it is a valid example of ad hominem if the source making the claim is doing so on the basis of evidence independent of its own credibility.

In general, ad hominem criticism of evidence cannot prove the negative of the proposition being claimed:

Example:

"Paula says the umpire made the correct call, but this can't be true, because Paula is a stupid idiot."

Assuming the premise is correct, Paula's evidence is valueless, but the umpire may nonetheless have made the right call.

Sometimes it's better to stick with simple definitions, as there are also subtypes of ad hominem.

Another example:

Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

In other words, your questioning DCP and your deduction about the truth or falsity of the Mormon experience with the Holy Ghost says nothing about whether it's real, or valid, based on your questioning of DCP specifically. Wasn't your intention to question DCP, then apply his answers to the whole of "Mormon experience" and "revelatory experience" in general? That is, as I originally said, an "argument to the man", and then applying his answers to the whole of "revelatory experience". You can't establish whether it's true or not by drawing conclusions from one related experience.

[_JohnStuartMill]

On the other hand, it is a valid example of ad hominem if the source making the claim is doing so on the basis of evidence independent of its own credibility.

Yes, I think this is true. However, Dr. Peterson did not make his claim about revelation being distinct from emotion "on the basis of evidence independent of [his] own credibility" -- he explicitly appealed to his own experience, and therefore, implicitly appealed to his own credibility. Also notice that I only tried to undermine Dr. Peterson's credibility in the narrow area in which he appealed to it, and that I didn't say that he is generally a liar or a schizophrenic.

In other words, your questioning DCP and your deduction about the truth or falsity of the Mormon experience with the Holy Ghost says nothing about whether it's real, or valid, based on your questioning of DCP specifically.

I agree that I didn't deductively prove that revelation is always false, but that wasn't my aim. My aim was to give reasons to doubt one's own interpretation of spiritual experiences. I think I succeeded.

Wasn't your intention to question DCP, then apply his answers to the whole of "Mormon experience" and "revelatory experience" in general?

Not at all.

That is, as I originally said, an "argument to the man", and then applying his answers to the whole of "revelatory experience". You can't establish whether it's true or not by drawing conclusions from one related experience.

Nor did I try to.

[_Ray A]

I agree that I didn't deductively prove that revelation is always false, but that wasn't my aim. My aim was to give reasons to doubt one's own interpretation of spiritual experiences. I think I succeeded.

Sure, but I would have worded my questions differently, without referring to DCP's upbringing or insinuating "brainwashing" (my phrase) through parental upbringing. It was an assumption not based in fact, later clarified by DCP. I understand you were questioning DCP's "certainty" and his stating the "reality" of it. in my opinion it's still subjective, but I would have left it at that.

[_JohnStuartMill]

I agree that I didn't deductively prove that revelation is always false, but that wasn't my aim. My aim was to give reasons to doubt one's own interpretation of spiritual experiences. I think I succeeded.

Sure, but I would have worded my questions differently, without referring to DCP's upbringing or insinuating "brainwashing" (my phrase) through parental upbringing.

I wasn't trying to insinuate brainwashing, although that charge against Mormons is common, and my point was similar enough to it that I should have differentiated myself with a clarification.

It was an assumption not based in fact, later clarified by DCP.

Um, no. I was familiar with the contour's of DCP's history before I posted that, which is why I chose the words I did.

I understand you were questioning DCP's "certainty" and his stating the "reality" of it. in my opinion it's still subjective, but I would have left it at that.

Then you and I are different. But that still doesn't make what I wrote an ad hominem.

[_EAllusion]

JSM -

Let's take a simple example. I very much believe a certain % of Mormons hear a voice that seems distinct from their own that communicates with them in a way they'd describe as the Holy Ghost. Do you? I'd think so.

This would aptly be described as a spiritual experience a Mormon uses as evidence of their beliefs. It really isn't an emotion, though. Sure, a person might have an emotional reaction to the experience, but the experience itself is something different.

Both you and I are likely going to agree that this most likely is just a hallucination. (And no, that does not mean the person experiencing it is "insane" or "psychotic." Psychosis requires more than this.) I really don't think you'd call this an emotion.

I think the broader point you are attempting to make can be rehabilitated easily. Beyond some broad similarities, the content of spiritual experiences in various religions seems to be heavily dependent on the culturally informed expectations of the individuals having the experiences. It isn't a simple 1 to 1 correspondence, which we wouldn't expect, but it is close. This is more easily explained in terms of the source of that content being the individual rather than a deity consistently revealing information through a spirit sense. There are various apologetic explanations for that attempt to strengthen the religious interpretation I think are flimsy ad hocs.

I'll discuss the one I think is most natural for a Mormon to reach to in this kind of conversation:

They might argue that God reveals truth to people in a way that person can understand given their background knowledge. That's why the content seems so dependent on what one would expect given a person's background knowledge and talents and a little creative liberty.

I don't think this works to rescue the explanatory virtues of the deity-source view. There are all manner of ideas that can be initially alien to us but can be explained rather efficiently by providing background in a culturally accessible way. We can educate more effectively than this and we're not a god. The HG could reveal the truth of Mormon theology in auditory voice mode quite easily to a person who is not at all familiar with Christian, much less Mormon doctrine living in a remote area in Africa if not just the same, then far closer than what we observe. But that won't happen to any degree that rises above what one would expect given occasional rare coincidences of thought. The pattern we observe cannot be accounted for on the simple grounds of allowing for cultural differences in understanding the same revelation of the same underlying spiritual reality.