My Experience With Daniel Peterson

[Guest]

No need, Simon.

Read the rest of my post.

Many, if not most of them, will eventually figure it out for themselves.

This is not to say that they will have the courage to admit to others that they have figured it out, or let their families and friends know, or leave the Church when they do. But most of them will figure it out, just as I would bet from reading his apologetics that the Good Doctor has figured it out.

I'll be honest with you. For a Doctor and one who claims to be a critical thinker, it is pretty naïve to state that:

Any rational, educated and individual who truly believes the foundation truth claims of the LDS Church (including those I listed earlier in this thread) is either severely lacking in curiosity, lying, delusional, or some unfortunate combination of the above.

I mean, do you see the blaring errors in your reasoning here?

No true Scotsman would do such a thing.

It is like if I have stated (and I have before, but I am not a Dr.) that "all apostates never really understood the Church, or they wouldn't have left."

No, Simon, my statement above and your statement here are not analogous. A statement that would be analogous would be something like:

Apostates who leave the Church do so because they finally developed some curiosity, decided not to lie to themselves anymore, were disabused of their delusions by some kind stranger who had their best interests at heart, or some fortunate combination of the above.

And such a statement is one that I can reasonably defend.

Can you see the difference?

[_lostindc]

No, Simon, my statement above and your statement here are not analogous. An statement that would be analogous would be something like:

Any apostates who leaves the Church do so because they finally developed some curiosity, decided not to lie to themselves anymore, or were disabused of their delusions by some kind stranger who had their best interests at heart, or some fortunate combination of the above.

And such a statement is one that I can reasonably defend.

Can you see the difference?

Do you honestly consider the above an analogous statement? Either you are trolling or else you lack the basic skills to develop an argument, whatever that may be up to this point, and you fail to understand the definitions of many of the terms you toss around in each post.

Now, can you clearly and concisely post the argument you are wishing to make in this thread? Again, pose the argument in a clear concise manner. Start with one argument and focus.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So let me get this straight.

I'll certainly let you. My only real question is, Can you?

Given your response, I'm not very optimistic.

But, LOL, you've got DrCam4WC endorsing your error, and you can take some sort of comfort, I suppose, in that. And I'm a patient teacher, particularly when I'm dealing with such a remarkable mind as yours.

You are saying that there is no contradiction in your quoted statement wherein you reject the assertion that Mormonism has not proven its truth claims because Mormonism and Mormons have not attempted to do so?

Really? Is that what you are saying?

No.

That's not what I'm saying.

Remember, your reasoning skills are transcendently superior to mine. (We have your word for it!) That should give you some real help here. Try to focus.

I reject the assertion that Mormonism has failed to prove its truth claims because (a) I do not believe that its truth claims are ultimately susceptible to definitive proof or disproof in the current or foreseeable state of the evidence -- theologically, I don't think they're supposed to be "proven" in the sense that, say, a geometric proof can be demonstrated --and because, understanding this, (b) those who assert and defend its truth claims in terms of evidence and argument (I'm talking here about reasonably educated, sophisticated, reflective thinkers) don't regard themselves as attempting to prove the claims of Mormonism.

I've seldom -- if ever -- heard my friends (e.g., John Welch, Hugh Nibley, William Hamblin, John Sorenson, Matthew Roper, Blake Ostler, John Gee, Larry Morris, Richard Lloyd Anderson, John Clark, Stephen Ricks, Paul Hoskisson, etc., etc.) speak of "proof." And I'm not talking about the big picture ("There. I've now proven Mormonism true."). They never assert "proof" in the big picture. I'm talking about the smaller details (e.g., not "I have now demonstrated that the Rio Grijalva was the Sidon River," but rather "The Grijalva seems to fit the data regarding the Book of Mormon's River Sidon very well [or better than ________ ].) At most, they create, and see themselves as creating, cumulative cases based on assembled probabilities.

That verb to fail is very important, and crucial to understanding what I said.

Again, since, for all your vaunted superiority in logic and rationality, you seem unable to grasp the point, I'm going to give you a couple of analogues:

It is true that I haven't levitated fifty yards above my house.

It would, however, be a bit perverse to fault me for having failed to levitate fifty yards above my house.

I don't believe such levitation is possible, and I haven't attempted it.

Which does not mean, as you seem to think it means, that I'm claiming that I haven't levitated fifty yards above my house merely because I haven't attempted to do so.

Mormon scholars haven't "failed" to accomplish a task that they don't believe they've been asked to do, don't believe can be done, haven't attempted to perform, and have never said they were undertaking.

Jacques-Yves Cousteau didn't "fail" to reach Mars. Nobody asked him to do it. He never thought he could sail the Calypso to Mars. He never undertook the challenge. He never said he was going to Mars.

we are not talking about philosophy or metaphysics when it comes to the foundation truth claims of the LDS Church. One is talking about falsifiable (and mainly falsified) truth claims. Here are a few examples of foundational LDS truth claims.

I'm aware of your dogmatic certainty on these matters, and of the dogmatic way in which you assert your position. We disagree. Still, although I haven't paid much attention to you, I've paid enough to know that I'm going to leave arguments with you to others.

Your opinion on such things, however, is irrelevant to the matter under discussion. It is a very specific issue,

Your criticism of me on logical grounds is misguided, because my statement reflects my understanding of the factual situation and is, given my views, entirely logically consistent.

You can try to rebut the statement on factual grounds, but that's a different matter.

Again, I try to illustrate the point with arguments that will make the theoretical point without arousing your dogmatic rejection of Mormonism, which seems to cloud your superior reasoning abilities:

Take the following syllogism:

All lizards are Republicans.
All Republicans live in Greenland.
Therefore, all lizards live in Greenland.

Every statement in it -- the premises as well as the conclusion -- is false. And yet it is logically sound.

Now consider another syllogism:

Some people are taller than others.
Some people are blonde.
Therefore, Norway is north of Greece.

Every statement in it -- both premises and conclusion -- is true. Yet the syllogism is logically unsound. The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Logical soundness and truth are separate and distinct matters. You've ridiculed my statement as self-contradictory (that is, logically unsound), but you were wrong to do so. Even Homer nods occasionally, and your peerless intellectual gifts were perhaps a bit sleepy. Now, you're attempting to shift your criticism from a logical one to a factual one (or perhaps confusing the two categories).

I'm not interested in discussing your new factual criticism with you. I simply wanted to help you understand that your logical criticism was egregiously and rather embarrassingly misguided.

I've done that. QED.

But, as I say, you've got DrCamWC on your side. Who could ask for anything more?

Hello Dr. W,

You raise an interesting point about the Mormon's ability to live within absurdity or contradiction and think nothing of it.

As you now understand, I think -- I'm confident of this, given the sheer stunning intellectual power of your giant throbbing brain -- you raised no such point.

Let's take your signature line, for example:

I cheerfully admit, and routinely say, that Mormonism has not proven its claims.

Here the Mormon admits that Mormonism has made claims, and that it has not proven the claims it has made. This is problematic for most rational people. Generally if someone makes a claim people want to see proof of the claim, or it's dismissed.

Poor DrCamWC, who imagines himself to be ranked with "rational people," obfuscates the issue by confusing proof with evidence.

Most rational people will want to see evidence, it's true. But most rational people also understand that the kind of "proof" that is available in high school geometry, say, or via a litmus test in chemistry, is absent in other legitimate areas of human thinking.

Nobody, for instance, can "prove" that the universe has intrinsic meaning, or that it doesn't have intrinsic meaning, in the same way that one can prove the presence or absence of carbon in a straightforward chemical compound. Likewise, to bring it right home, whether or not Joseph Smith saw God in that grove in upstate New York cannot be proven or disproven to anything like the same level of certainty one can reach astrophysics. Literary criticism, history, political philosophy, ethics, archaeology, cosmology -- these and many other quite legitimate fields have differing levels of certainty, different methods of argument, different kinds of evidence, varying according to the nature of the subject matter.

It's not possible to "prove" that Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation for reasons x, y, and z in the same way that it's now possible to prove Fermat's Theorem. Which is not to say that evidence and argument about Lincoln's reasons are not available, let alone that one should, accordingly, collapse into sheer irrationality.

But it's just silly to exclaim that "Jones has failed to prove, with the certainty of a mathematical equation, that French culture is better than English culture," or that "He claims that an angel appeared to him, but I demand to see chemical proof for it!"

Oddly, the Mormon simultaneously holds the belief that the Mormon church isn't supposed to prove the claims it makes. In other words, the Mormon church is exempt from a reasonable expectation that it provide evidence for whatever claim it's making.

Note that casual In other words: It's an attempt to mask a flagrant instance of the fallacy of equivocation.

To say that one cannot prove x is not at all the same thing as to say that one cannot or need not provide evidence for x. Failure to provide proof is quite different from failing to provide evidence.

Now, with the most stunning twist in logic I've seen in quite a while the Mormon rejects your claim that the Mormon church hasn't proven its claims all the while believing that it hasn't proven its claims and it isn't supposed to prove its claims. In other words, the Mormon church hasn't proved anything, isn't supposed to prove anything, but has proved something.

As you can now readily see, I think, given what you describe as your impressive reasoning skills, poor DrCamWC is simply incoherent here. He doesn't really know what he's talking about, but he's very, very confident of it.

I would think the Mormon, instead of arguing this notion to death would simply see its absurdity and state he misspoke. Rather, we get a breathy retort that is somehow supposed to impugn your logic. Wow.

LOL. I've sometimes thought that a basic logic course ought to be required in every high school curriculum. Certainly in college curricula. I think it might save us a lot of problems.

[_DrW]

No, Simon, my statement above and your statement here are not analogous. An statement that would be analogous would be something like:

Any apostates who leaves the Church do so because they finally developed some curiosity, decided not to lie to themselves anymore, or were disabused of their delusions by some kind stranger who had their best interests at heart, or some fortunate combination of the above.

And such a statement is one that I can reasonably defend.

Can you see the difference?

Do you honestly consider the above an analogous statement? Either you are trolling or else you lack the basic skills to develop an argument, whatever that may be up to this point, and you fail to understand the definitions of many of the terms you toss around in each post.

Now, can you clearly and concisely post the argument you are wishing to make in this thread? Again, pose the argument in a clear concise manner. Start with one argument and focus.

I would say that, aside from a detour or two to help Simon out a bit, I have made a fairly clear and concise argument. Instead of commenting on the format of the argument, why not try to refute it with some facts?

[_lostindc]

I would say that, aside from a detour or two to help Simon out a bit, I have made a fairly clear and concise argument. Instead of commenting on the format of the argument, why not try to refute it with some facts?

Again, please state your argument clearly and concisely. If you believe you have done so, then prove so by restating.

If not, you might as well get going on your weekends work of torturing insects and cats.

[_DrW]

So let me get this straight.

I'll certainly let you. My only real question is, Can you?

Given your response, I'm not very optimistic.

But, LOL, you've got DrCam4WC endorsing your error, and you can take some sort of comfort, I suppose, in that. And I'm a patient teacher, particularly when I'm dealing with such a remarkable mind as yours.

You are saying that there is no contradiction in your quoted statement wherein you reject the assertion that Mormonism has not proven its truth claims because Mormonism and Mormons have not attempted to do so?

Really? Is that what you are saying?

No.

That's not what I'm saying.

Remember, your reasoning skills are transcendently superior to mine. (We have your word for it!) That should give you some real help here. Try to focus.

I reject the assertion that Mormonism has failed to prove its truth claims because (a) I do not believe that its truth claims are ultimately susceptible to definitive proof or disproof in the current or foreseeable state of the evidence -- theologically, I don't think they're supposed to be "proven" in the sense that, say, a geometric proof can be demonstrated --and because, understanding this, (b) those who assert and defend its truth claims in terms of evidence and argument (I'm talking here about reasonably educated, sophisticated, reflective thinkers) don't regard themselves as attempting to prove the claims of Mormonism.

I've seldom -- if ever -- heard my friends (e.g., John Welch, Hugh Nibley, William Hamblin, John Sorenson, Matthew Roper, Blake Ostler, John Gee, Larry Morris, Richard Lloyd Anderson, John Clark, Stephen Ricks, Paul Hoskisson, etc., etc.) speak of "proof." And I'm not talking about the big picture ("There. I've now proven Mormonism true."). They never assert "proof" in the big picture. I'm talking about the smaller details (e.g., not "I have now demonstrated that the Rio Grijalva was the Sidon River," but rather "The Grijalva seems to fit the data regarding the Book of Mormon's River Sidon very well [or better than ________ ].) At most, they create, and see themselves as creating, cumulative cases based on assembled probabilities.

That verb to fail is very important, and crucial to understanding what I said.

Again, since, for all your vaunted superiority in logic and rationality, you seem unable to grasp the point, I'm going to give you a couple of analogues:

It is true that I haven't levitated fifty yards above my house.

It would, however, be a bit perverse to fault me for having failed to levitate fifty yards above my house.

I don't believe such levitation is possible, and I haven't attempted it.

Which does not mean, as you seem to think it means, that I'm claiming that I haven't levitated fifty yards above my house merely because I haven't attempted to do so.

Mormon scholars haven't "failed" to accomplish a task that they don't believe they've been asked to do, don't believe can be done, haven't attempted to perform, and have never said they were undertaking.

Jacques-Yves Cousteau didn't "fail" to reach Mars. Nobody asked him to do it. He never thought he could sail the Calypso to Mars. He never undertook the challenge. He never said he was going to Mars.

we are not talking about philosophy or metaphysics when it comes to the foundation truth claims of the LDS Church. One is talking about falsifiable (and mainly falsified) truth claims. Here are a few examples of foundational LDS truth claims.

I'm aware of your dogmatic certainty on these matters, and of the dogmatic way in which you assert your position. We disagree. Still, although I haven't paid much attention to you, I've paid enough to know that I'm going to leave arguments with you to others.

Your opinion on such things, however, is irrelevant to the matter under discussion. It is a very specific issue,

Your criticism of me on logical grounds is misguided, because my statement reflects my understanding of the factual situation and is, given my views, entirely logically consistent.

You can try to rebut the statement on factual grounds, but that's a different matter.

Again, I try to illustrate the point with arguments that will make the theoretical point without arousing your dogmatic rejection of Mormonism, which seems to cloud your superior reasoning abilities:

Take the following syllogism:

All lizards are Republicans.
All Republicans live in Greenland.
Therefore, all lizards live in Greenland.

Every statement in it -- the premises as well as the conclusion -- is false. And yet it is logically sound.

Now consider another syllogism:

Some people are taller than others.
Some people are blonde.
Therefore, Norway is north of Greece.

Every statement in it -- both premises and conclusion -- is true. Yet the syllogism is logically unsound. The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Logical soundness and truth are separate and distinct matters. You've ridiculed my statement as self-contradictory (that is, logically unsound), but you were wrong to do so. Even Homer nods occasionally, and your peerless intellectual gifts were perhaps a bit sleepy. Now, you're attempting to shift your criticism from a logical one to a factual one (or perhaps confusing the two categories).

I'm not interested in discussing your new factual criticism with you. I simply wanted to help you understand that your logical criticism was egregiously and rather embarrassingly misguided.

I've done that. QED.

But, as I say, you've got DrCamWC on your side. Who could ask for anything more?

Dr. Peterson,

You should probably stop now. The more you write, the worse it gets.

[_MCB]

Dr. Peterson:
Your pretended ignorance knows no bounds. You are digging yourself a deep hole, all the way to the North Pole. Certainly you hope to find someone living there. Hmmmnn wasn't there something in Norse legend about that?

All lizards are Republicans.
All Republicans live in Greenland.
Therefore, all lizards live in Greenland.

Some people are taller than others.
Some people are blonde.
Therefore, Norway is north of Greece.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Dr. Peterson,

You should probably stop now. The more you write, the worse it gets.

Sorry to hear it.

Take two aspirin. But please don't call me in the morning.

I'm patient, but not infinitely so.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Dr. Peterson:
Your pretended ignorance knows no bounds. You are digging yourself a deep hole, all the way to the North Pole. Certainly you hope to find someone living there. Hmmmnn wasn't there something in Norse legend about that?

Whoosh.

Don't trouble yourself about these things, MCB. Have a nice weekend.

[_Simon Belmont]

No, Simon, my statement above and your statement here are not analogous. A statement that would be analogous would be something like:

Apostates who leave the Church do so because they finally developed some curiosity, decided not to lie to themselves anymore, were disabused of their delusions by some kind stranger who had their best interests at heart, or some fortunate combination of the above.

And such a statement is one that I can reasonably defend.

Can you see the difference?

The difference is that your twin statements of:

Any rational, educated and individual who truly believes the foundation truth claims of the LDS Church (including those I listed earlier in this thread) is either severely lacking in curiosity, lying, delusional, or some unfortunate combination of the above.

And

Apostates who leave the Church do so because they finally developed some curiosity, decided not to lie to themselves anymore, were disabused of their delusions by some kind stranger who had their best interests at heart, or some fortunate combination of the above.

Are not analogous at all.

But let's forget your second attempt for a moment. I want to focus on your true argument, which is:

Any rational, educated and individual who truly believes the foundation truth claims of the LDS Church (including those I listed earlier in this thread) is either severely lacking in curiosity, lying, delusional, or some unfortunate combination of the above.

This is a classic example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy, which is a combination of begging the question and equivocation. It is a grave error in reasoning.

It goes like this (using your example):

DrW: I can't see how anyone could believe in the truth claims of the LDS Church.
SB: I am LDS and I believe in the truth claims of the LDS Church.
DrW: Oh, well... any rational, educated individual wouldn't believe them.

And, juxtaposed with a No True Scotsman Example:

DrW: Scotsmen can't resist the taste of haggis.
SB: I'm a Scotsman and I actually don't like haggis.
DrW: Oh, well... no true Scotsman can resist its taste.