Debating Religion
Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 12:13 am
I enjoy listening to wacky podcasts. One of my favorites is Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio. One of the regular guests is a freelance writer named Scott Smith who has left Mormonism and is now a self-proclaimed Gnostic. Listening to Scott’s voice, one can readily hear his LDS background, in my opinion. Before I knew he was Mormon, I knew he was Mormon. In any case, Scott recently debated Jan Dyer, another independent author who writes on esoteric subjects but is Greek Orthodox.
The debate was Greek Orthodoxy versus Gnosticism. I found it thoroughly frustrating. Jan Dyer really knew his stuff, but his stuff was pretty weak. Sure, if you start with the presupposition that Orthodox faith is true, then all of his points seem to follow from there. The worst part of the whole thing was Smith’s failure to call Dyer on his BS. It was hardly a debate at all. Dyer would tear Smith to shreds, and Smith would just take the subjective approach. “My experience is....” “In my book I wrote....”
But Dyer was uttering howlers left and right, such as, “We Orthodox believe that Adam, Eve, and Moses were real people.” On what basis? Where’s the evidence? Scott Smith says nothing.
Dyer’s apologetic position is like that of many apologists. They want to use history when it is convenient for their position, but they feel they should be free to assume the historicity of an anachronistic set of claims with only theology as a justification. If I can use theology to write out the inconsistencies of my history whenever I want, I can never be wrong! But I should not be able to use history unless I use it consistently. I can’t say Moses existed just because I need him to exist for my narrative to work. To say he exists is to say he is a historical figure. He can only be such if we have evidence to support that position.
There are many decent and highly intelligent scholars who pursue history with passion for the purpose of bolstering their religious views. I know and like them. But I have to admit that their religious aims and blind spots are irritating. I don’t like watching people research other religions for polemical-theological purposes. I don’t like to watch people misuse history to argue in favor of their faith.
If you are interested in this particular “debate,” see https://thegodabovegod.com/orthodoxy-vs-gnosticism-debate/
Another example is Brian Hales’ recent article in BYU Studies on naturalistic explanations of the Book of Mormon. It is about what you would expect. Hales is setting up explanations that do not satisfy him as a straw man and then declaring victory for the supernatural explanation. It is worth reading for exposure to some interesting comparanda, but it is disappointing to see Hales substitute defense of the received faithful narrative for actual historical investigation. I don’t begrudge him his belief, but I do regret his failure of curiosity.
The debate was Greek Orthodoxy versus Gnosticism. I found it thoroughly frustrating. Jan Dyer really knew his stuff, but his stuff was pretty weak. Sure, if you start with the presupposition that Orthodox faith is true, then all of his points seem to follow from there. The worst part of the whole thing was Smith’s failure to call Dyer on his BS. It was hardly a debate at all. Dyer would tear Smith to shreds, and Smith would just take the subjective approach. “My experience is....” “In my book I wrote....”
But Dyer was uttering howlers left and right, such as, “We Orthodox believe that Adam, Eve, and Moses were real people.” On what basis? Where’s the evidence? Scott Smith says nothing.
Dyer’s apologetic position is like that of many apologists. They want to use history when it is convenient for their position, but they feel they should be free to assume the historicity of an anachronistic set of claims with only theology as a justification. If I can use theology to write out the inconsistencies of my history whenever I want, I can never be wrong! But I should not be able to use history unless I use it consistently. I can’t say Moses existed just because I need him to exist for my narrative to work. To say he exists is to say he is a historical figure. He can only be such if we have evidence to support that position.
There are many decent and highly intelligent scholars who pursue history with passion for the purpose of bolstering their religious views. I know and like them. But I have to admit that their religious aims and blind spots are irritating. I don’t like watching people research other religions for polemical-theological purposes. I don’t like to watch people misuse history to argue in favor of their faith.
If you are interested in this particular “debate,” see https://thegodabovegod.com/orthodoxy-vs-gnosticism-debate/
Another example is Brian Hales’ recent article in BYU Studies on naturalistic explanations of the Book of Mormon. It is about what you would expect. Hales is setting up explanations that do not satisfy him as a straw man and then declaring victory for the supernatural explanation. It is worth reading for exposure to some interesting comparanda, but it is disappointing to see Hales substitute defense of the received faithful narrative for actual historical investigation. I don’t begrudge him his belief, but I do regret his failure of curiosity.
so my college-age children tell me. They have no idea how thrilled I am that they are in a position to tell me that.