Is Apologetics incompatible with Intellectual Honesty?

[Guest]

Religion and science are diametrically opposed, by definition.

Utter and complete b***s***.

A good working definition of science is the process of gaining (acquiring) knowledge (and building a worldview) through observation, experimentation, hypothesis generation, hypothesis testing using reason and logic applied to evidence, followed by refining and modification of the hypothesis as addition evidence requires.

A good working definition for religion is creation of a worldview based on faith (unfounded belief ) gained through irrational superstitions and willful ignorance of fact.

That is diametrically opposed by definition in my book.

And, you're responding to an obvious fake.

Sure - it's obvious now.

Wasn't so obvious when I started writing my response. (Although I did have, and did express, some doubt.)

You are correct, however. It would have been better to wait and see if it really was DCP.

[_Quasimodo]

Wasn't so obvious when I started writing my response. (Although I did have, and did express, some doubt.)

You are correct, however. It would have been better to wait and see if it really was DCP.

The new avatar is a much better likeness of DCP than the old one. Maybe that should have been a clue?

I was wondering at first if it was really DCP, too. In retrospect, I don't think he would use his real image (the other one was more like the image he wanted to project).

[_Jhall118]

Wasn't so obvious when I started writing my response. (Although I did have, and did express, some doubt.)

You are correct, however. It would have been better to wait and see if it really was DCP.

The new avatar is a much better likeness of DCP than the old one. Maybe that should have been a clue?

I was wondering at first if it was really DCP, too. In retrospect, I don't think he would use his real image (the other one was more like the image he wanted to project).

Haha, I thought long and hard which picture to use, and a real one seemed far funnier than anything else my creative mind could muster.

[_DrW]

Wasn't so obvious when I started writing my response. (Although I did have, and did express, some doubt.)

You are correct, however. It would have been better to wait and see if it really was DCP.

The new avatar is a much better likeness of DCP than the old one. Maybe that should have been a clue?

I was wondering at first if it was really DCP, too. In retrospect, I don't think he would use his real image (the other one was more like the image he wanted to project).

Agree. However, when the post first appeared on my computer it had no avatar. If I had seen the avatar (which really was DCP, I believe) I would not have responded because (I think you are correct) DCP would never post his own image as an avatar.

[_Quasimodo]

Haha, I thought long and hard which picture to use, and a real one seemed far funnier than anything else my creative mind could muster.

You rascal! LMAO! I doff my hat to a very funny, witty use of DCP's old account. Too bad the cat's out of the bag. Maybe you should still continue to post with it. I don't think everyone is on to you, yet.

[_Yahoo Bot]

I actually have considered revealing myself but the better part of prudence restrains me for many, many reasons. Look at what it did for you in the past. And whether one is anonymous or not has little bearing on the strength of the argument.

Also I once again note you are now a cowardly anonymous poster to many here. Do you really think every one here knows who you are?

My profile directs readers to me website and my professional profile.

If you think your posting is honorable and something God would applaud, do what you please. When I call such folk faithless degenerate apostates, that's just my opinion alone. Nobody else here shares it. Take comfort in the crowd which surrounds you.

[_Chap]

Hmm. I can see that you're thinly read. I take it you've never read Aquinas' apologia, or the apologia of other great Christian thinkers.
....

What is this work of Thomas Aquinas that Yahoo Bot imagines is referred to as his 'apologia'?

I think he is either making this up, or more likely has confused Thomas (1225-1274) with another very different great Catholic thinker, John Henry Newman (1801-1890), who did of course write (in English) a book with the Latin title Apologia pro vita sua.

I suspect Yahoo Bot is even more thinly read than I am. But there is an easy way for him to disprove that suspicion.

[_Jason Bourne]

I'm curious Jason, do you have an example of "good" LDS apologetics?

If you're referring to Owen and Mosser, their point had more to do with the laziness of Evangelical criticisms than it had to do with anything else. It certainly had nothing to do with the strength of the Mormon arguments. The only reason he made the "losing and not knowing it" remark, wasn't because he felt LDS apologetics presented good arguments. The point was that Evangelicals were not bothering to engage them. They'd dismiss them out of hand which made the lot of them look foolish.

Kevin,

you used to give some pretty good LDS apologetics....:-)

But never mind. I have no doubt that there is nothing I could dig up for you or Aristotle that would satisfy either of you.

LDS apologetics is really all real crappy apologetics.

[_brade]

I'm curious Jason, do you have an example of "good" LDS apologetics?

If you're referring to Owen and Mosser, their point had more to do with the laziness of Evangelical criticisms than it had to do with anything else. It certainly had nothing to do with the strength of the Mormon arguments. The only reason he made the "losing and not knowing it" remark, wasn't because he felt LDS apologetics presented good arguments. The point was that Evangelicals were not bothering to engage them. They'd dismiss them out of hand which made the lot of them look foolish.

Kevin,

you used to give some pretty good LDS apologetics....:-)

But never mind. I have no doubt that there is nothing I could dig up for you or Aristotle that would satisfy either of you.

LDS apologetics is really all real crappy apologetics.

Bourne, I'm with you on this one. I don't think it's all bad. Also, I think it's uncharitable to hold the apologetic project to the same standards as, say, standard historical scholarship. For one thing, it shouldn't be any secret to anyone that the apologetic project sets out with a conclusion in hand. If I recall correctly, Dr. Peterson admitted as much in his recent podcast interview. The point of apologetics is to go from a conclusion (e.g. "The Church is true") to either supporting evidence or to arguments that show that the conclusion they already hold isn't totally inconsistent with the best available evidence from other fields (e.g. science, history, etc.).

[_Aristotle Smith]

But never mind. I have no doubt that there is nothing I could dig up for you or Aristotle that would satisfy either of you.

LDS apologetics is really all real crappy apologetics.

Perhaps. I'm still interested in what you consider to be good apologetics.

And to be fair, I used to really like Hugh Nibley style apologetics (I read the first 13 volumes of his collected works). In fact, I owe a lot of my interests and hobbies to Hugh Nibley. I would never have learned Greek nor studied ancient history as a hobby without having encountered High Nibley's writing my freshman year at BYU.

However, after I had finally done what Hugh Nibley inspired me to do (get at least a passing familiarity with the ancient world and its cultures) I went back to Nibley to see if I could understand him better. This was in my NOM phase. I did understand what he was saying better, and I was quite frankly shocked at just how bad his arguments and evidence were. It was like night and day. As a starry eyed undergraduate I was absolutely enthralled with him, now as an adult I was almost embarrassed by my younger self. I say almost because how much can a young person educated in American public schools really know?

But still, I give him huge props for inspiring me. He is far and away the wittiest and best writer of all Mormon apologists. I think that is one of the problems that Mopologists have, they all want to be like Nibley but simply don't have the panache to pull it off. As a result, one sees through the bad arguments much more easily, because they simply don't have his style and wit. What in Nibley was witty and biting becomes just mean and angry. It's the difference between Don Rickles and just insulting people.