Kent wrote:
EA, I expect Dan trusts experts in general, but probably not those he knows are inclined against the Church.
We're talking about neutral parties or, in the case of my link, a BYU colleague. If you define "inclined against the Church" in such a way that it is coextensive with sources that are unfavorable to his religious beliefs, then that's just another way of saying he is intellectually dishonest. What should we make of a man more willing to believe fringe claims from the back of a cereal box if they flatter his preconceptions than a relevant body of academics? And this isn't something that requires much trust. We are also talking about cases that are easy to appreciate as hoaxes or quotemining.
I am saying that I've seen his behavior over a large enough sample for a long enough period of time to reasonably infer his motives. I remember LDS apologists on boards like this used to love argue that we can't read minds and therefore are not in a position to call anyone dishonest. Of course, they'd call people dishonest, but then again consistency was never one of their virtues.You seem to imply you've seen Dan's motives.
Anyway, the line of reasoning that we simply can't infer people's motives from their behavior without some sort of ESP has always tickled me. I imagine one of their children blatantly lying to them and they begrudgingly admitting that they cannot tell if they are lying because that would require mind-reading ability.