There can be no evidence that Mormonism is false

[Doctor Scratch]

On the one hand, I applaud DCP for bearing his testimony in a public way like this. Normally he’s shy about this sort of thing, saying that he won’t cast “pearls before swine” and that sort of thing.

It what is most revealing is just how unserious he is about confronting real problems in LDS truth claims. For me, one of the most glaring examples of this was when he sat on the sidelines while Bill Hamblin was getting his clock cleaned by Phillip Jenkins. Why didn’t Dr. Peterson say this sort of thing to Jenkins? We all know why: it’s because Jenkins would have made him feel like a very small, irrelevant man.

Look: I will say that there are aspects of the Church that are really lovely. I had a loved one pass away a couple of years ago and I was really impressed at the parade of LDS who came to visit and take care of my relative. They brought the sacrament to the hospital room, among other things, but these are basic acts of human kindness. You don’t need the Church for these sorts of things to happen. Moreover, this sort of thing is 10 million miles away from Mopologetics, and frankly, the elitist brand of Mormonism that Dr. Peterson lives and breathes is really pretty ugly. It’s a petty and stupid rat race where the main goal is proving to everybody that you’re right, that you’re more successful, etc. Comb through his blog and try to find the sort of generosity and basic kindness that I’m talking about and you will be hard-pressed to find it.

[drumdude]

John Hamer's blog is a great contrast to their ugly apologetics.

https://bycommonconsent.com/author/johnhamer/

“Hosanna! Hosanna! Hosanna to God and the Lamb! Amen, Amen, and Amen!”

There’s nothing quite like singing “The Spirit of God” with a congregation in the Kirtland Temple. I’ve had the opportunity three times — the first time was at the dedication of the new Temple Visitor Center, the second was at a meeting of the John Whitmer Historical Association, and the third time was yesterday. However, yesterday was the first time the congregation also gave the “Hosanna shout.” (I’ve heard a lot of reviews of lackluster Hosanna shouts — I’ve never before participated in one, so I have no basis for comparison — but I thought this one was pretty good.)

Yesterday was the 175th anniversary of the dedication of the Kirtland Temple and I traveled there for the weekend to participate in the commemorative events. Beginning Friday there were a series of special meetings, services, seminars, lectures, and tours. There were three services on Sunday itself — an LDS service in the early morning and one in the evening, and a Community of Christ service in the mid-morning. To preserve the temple, the number of attendees for each session was limited to 300 (over a thousand apparently packed in for the original 1836 dedication), so I was only able to attend the Community of Christ service, but by every account, all three were very special and moving.

For Joseph Smith, the original dedication on March 27, 1836, was a pinnacle in his ministry. As I reflected on that event this weekend, I was struck that in some ways it was the highest pinnacle. Yes, Joseph had later triumphs — Nauvoo and the Nauvoo temple were larger and more impressive than Kirtland — but, of course, Joseph didn’t live to see the Nauvoo temple completed. The publication of the Book of Mormon was an earlier spectacular achievement for someone of Joseph’s background. But as sweet as it would have been to hold the first copy in his hands, the moment of publication would have been immediately accompanied by the need to sell books to try to pay Martin Harris’s note along with the discovery that the books wouldn’t sell. The construction of Kirtland temple was similarly burdened by crippling debt (that would likewise go largely unpaid), but in this case the financial reckoning was a year in the future. Meanwhile, contemporary reports of the spiritual outpouring that accompanied the dedication chronicle an elation that is without parallel in the history of the early church.

I have found in John the best Mormonism has to offer. Although it's not for me, in a perfect world his brand of Mormonism would dominate the petty Salt Lake one.

[DrStakhanovite]

William Crain was mentioned. Just caught this little snippet of some things he said that I find a bit relevant here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjHo7qDLuNE

Craig, like Peterson, lowers the bar for expected reasons to believe all the way down. Meaning it doesn't take any reason to believe, really. And, I suppose, that would suggest, there is no evidence against the claim since nothing can get under it, ultimately.

Stem,

This is an incredibly bad take and this Paulogia guy isn’t even aware of how much he personally doesn’t understand what is going on in those audio clips and so cannot properly contextualize WLC’s comments for his own audience. For example, take this comment:

Should we not, in the words that I prefer to use from Matt Dilahunty and others, should we not apportion our belief to the amount of evidence provided.

This is a sentiment made famous by David Hume (and is most certainly not unique to him) that comes from his ‘Enquiry to Human Understanding’:

A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. In such conclusions as are founded on an infallible experience, he expects the event with the last degree of assurance, and regards his past experience as a full proof of the future existence of that event. In other cases, he proceeds with more caution: He weighs the opposite experiments: He considers which side is supported by the greater number of experiments: to that side he inclines, with doubt and hesitation; and when at last he fixes his judgement, the evidence exceeds not what we properly call probability. All probability, then, supposes an opposition of experiments and observations, where the one side is found to overbalance the other, and to produce a degree of evidence, proportioned to the superiority. A hundred instances or experiments on one side, and fifty on another, afford a doubtful expectation of any event; though a hundred uniform experiments, with only one that is contradictory, reasonably beget a pretty strong degree of assurance. (Section X)

Now it doesn’t bother me that Paulogia can’t contextualize this idea and so attributes it to Matt Dilahunty because that is the kind of content he consumes, but it also means that Paulogia is essentially setting up the conditions for his own dialectical ass kicking if he takes this into a debate with an apologist who has done their homework.

Atheists on social media are in denial on this, but WLC is actually a competent philosopher and he can turn these nice sounding sentiments about the relation of evidence to belief around on you quickly. DCP cannot hold a candle to WLC on any front and isn't a tenth of the thinker WLC actually is.

[Doctor Scratch]

What would change my mind about DCP—what would really humanize him in my eyes—would be seeing him sincerely apologize to the people that he’s hurt over the years. And to do it unconditionally and without mockery or sarcasm. He *has* done a lot of incredibly hurtful things—either directly or via his various leadership roles. John Dehlin was legitimately rattled when he caught wind of Greg Smith’s “hit piece”: his fear was obvious in the emails that came to light. Will Dan Peterson apologize for his role in that?

He won’t, and that’s why his post about the invincible “truthfulness” of the Church is bogus. If there was no true way to undermine or attack the Church, then why is apologetics necessary? DCP says that *no* critique will ever refute the Church’s truth claims. Okay. So, why does the CES Letter merit a response, then?

One answer is that the average Latter-day Saint is a dumb rube who will be easily fooled by this sort of thing, and so you need a DCP to intervene. To say that this is the height of arrogance and condescension is a massive understatement.

But I return to my initial point: Why does Dr. Peterson feel the need to portray this unassailable armor of belief? Why not do the kind, human thing and apologize for his missteps and for the harm he’s done?

[dastardly stem]

William Crain was mentioned. Just caught this little snippet of some things he said that I find a bit relevant here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjHo7qDLuNE

Craig, like Peterson, lowers the bar for expected reasons to believe all the way down. Meaning it doesn't take any reason to believe, really. And, I suppose, that would suggest, there is no evidence against the claim since nothing can get under it, ultimately.

Stem,

This is an incredibly bad take and this Paulogia guy isn’t even aware of how much he personally doesn’t understand what is going on in those audio clips and so cannot properly contextualize WLC’s comments for his own audience. For example, take this comment:

Should we not, in the words that I prefer to use from Matt Dilahunty and others, should we not apportion our belief to the amount of evidence provided.

This is a sentiment made famous by David Hume (and is most certainly not unique to him) that comes from his ‘Enquiry to Human Understanding’:

A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. In such conclusions as are founded on an infallible experience, he expects the event with the last degree of assurance, and regards his past experience as a full proof of the future existence of that event. In other cases, he proceeds with more caution: He weighs the opposite experiments: He considers which side is supported by the greater number of experiments: to that side he inclines, with doubt and hesitation; and when at last he fixes his judgement, the evidence exceeds not what we properly call probability. All probability, then, supposes an opposition of experiments and observations, where the one side is found to overbalance the other, and to produce a degree of evidence, proportioned to the superiority. A hundred instances or experiments on one side, and fifty on another, afford a doubtful expectation of any event; though a hundred uniform experiments, with only one that is contradictory, reasonably beget a pretty strong degree of assurance. (Section X)

Now it doesn’t bother me that Paulogia can’t contextualize this idea and so attributes it to Matt Dilahunty because that is the kind of content he consumes, but it also means that Paulogia is essentially setting up the conditions for his own dialectical ass kicking if he takes this into a debate with an apologist who has done their homework.

Atheists on social media are in denial on this, but WLC is actually a competent philosopher and he can turn these nice sounding sentiments about the relation of evidence to belief around on you quickly. DCP cannot hold a candle to WLC on any front and isn't a tenth of the thinker WLC actually is.

No doubt bill craig is more accomplished and has a better grasp of philosophy then dr Peterson. I’m confused by this defensive pose for Craig though, Stak. As smart as he is ultimately he speaks eerily similar to DCP. And in this case he basically provides the same reasoning for belief. I’ll have to review the whole video again and comment more later. If Craig would provide an ass kicking id like to see it. I keep seeing people taking him to task for his failed logic, misrepresentations of things like the concept of infinity and physics. Admittedly I’ve never found his arguments very interesting or convincing. DCP would likely love to be considered on his level and has at times attempted to follow his lead, I’ve noticed as have millions of others.

[DrStakhanovite]

No doubt bill craig is more accomplished and has a better grasp of philosophy then dr Peterson. I’m confused by this defensive pose for Craig though, Stak. As smart as he is ultimately he speaks eerily similar to DCP. And in this case he basically provides the same reasoning for belief. I’ll have to review the whole video again and comment more later. If Craig would provide an ass kicking id like to see it. I keep seeing people taking him to task for his failed logic, misrepresentations of things like the concept of infinity and physics. Admittedly I’ve never found his arguments very interesting or convincing. DCP would likely love to be considered on his level and has at times attempted to follow his lead, I’ve noticed as have millions of others.

I think the best course of action is for me to create a new thread where I can craft an OP that starts breaking the subject down piecemeal. The logic of his arguments is fine, and his understanding of physics is fine; Youtube atheists have a hard time discerning between a person misunderstanding physics and a person who takes a minority viewpoint of the nature of time and its relationship to observational physics and defends it.

It’ll have to wait till next week, I’m traveling this weekend, but I like the idea and want to act on it. I’ll make sure it doesn’t escape your notice.

[Res Ipsa]

No doubt bill craig is more accomplished and has a better grasp of philosophy then dr Peterson. I’m confused by this defensive pose for Craig though, Stak. As smart as he is ultimately he speaks eerily similar to DCP. And in this case he basically provides the same reasoning for belief. I’ll have to review the whole video again and comment more later. If Craig would provide an ass kicking id like to see it. I keep seeing people taking him to task for his failed logic, misrepresentations of things like the concept of infinity and physics. Admittedly I’ve never found his arguments very interesting or convincing. DCP would likely love to be considered on his level and has at times attempted to follow his lead, I’ve noticed as have millions of others.

I think the best course of action is for me to create a new thread where I can craft an opening post that starts breaking the subject down piecemeal. The logic of his arguments is fine, and his understanding of physics is fine; Youtube atheists have a hard time discerning between a person misunderstanding physics and a person who takes a minority viewpoint of the nature of time and its relationship to observational physics and defends it.

It’ll have to wait till next week, I’m traveling this weekend, but I like the idea and want to act on it. I’ll make sure it doesn’t escape your notice.

I’d love to read this.

[DrStakhanovite]

But I return to my initial point: Why does Dr. Peterson feel the need to portray this unassailable armor of belief? Why not do the kind, human thing and apologize for his missteps and for the harm he’s done?

I hesitate to express this because of the connotations, but Jean-Paul Sartre describes something eerily similar in 'Anti-Semite and Jew: An Exploration of the Etiology of Hate' (p.12-15):

How can one choose to reason falsely? It is because of a longing for impenetrability. The rational man groans as he gropes for the truth; he knows that his reasoning is no more than tentative, that other considerations may supervene to cast doubt on it. He never sees very clearly where he is going; he is "open"; he may even appear to be hesitant. But there are people who are attracted by the durability of a stone. They wish to be massive and impenetrable; they wish not to change. Where, indeed, would change take them? We have here a basic fear of oneself and of truth. What frightens them is not the content of truth, of which they have no conception, but the form itself of truth, that thing of indefinite approximation. It is as if their own existence were in continual suspension. '

But they wish to exist all at once and right away. They do not want any acquired opinions; they want them to be innate. Since they are afraid of reasoning, they wish to wad the kind of life wherein reasoning and research play only a subordinate role, wherein one seeks only what be has already found, wherein one becomes only what he already was. This is nothing but passion. Only a strong emotional bias can give a lightning‐like certainty; it alone can hold reason in leash; it alone can remain impervious to experience and last for a whole lifetime.

The anti‐Semite has chosen hate because hate is a faith; at the outset he has chosen to devaluate words and reasons. How entirely at ease he feels as a result. How futile and frivolous discussions about the rights of the Jew appear to him. He has placed himself on other ground from the beginning. If out of courtesy he consents for a moment to defend his point of view, he lends himself but does not give himself. He tries simply to project his intuitive certainty onto the plane of discourse. I mentioned a while back some remarks by anti‐Semites, all of them absurd: "I hate Jews
because they make servants insubordinate, because a Jewish furrier robbed me, etc." Never believe that anti‐Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.

What he flees even more than Reason is his intimate awareness of himself. But someone will object: What if he is like that only with regard to the Jews? What if he otherwise conducts himself with good sense? I reply that that is impossible. There is the case of a fishmonger who, in 1942, annoyed by the competition of two Jewish fishmongers who were concealing their race, one fine day took pen in hand and denounced them. I have been assured that this fishmonger was in other respects a mild and jovial man, the best of sons. But I don't believe it. A man who finds it entirely natural to denounce other men cannot have our conception of humanity; he does not see even those whom be aids in the same light as we do. His generosity, his kindness are not like our kindness, our generosity. You cannot confine passion to one sphere.

Now I am fully confident that Daniel is not an anti-semite, or some kind of bigot, or that Daniel is some kind of crypto-fascist. That said, there are some really strong parallels here between Sartre's description of the anti-semite and the Mopologists. I mean, how many fish-mongers have the Mopologists "denounced"? I've seen Daniel, in real time on the old MAD Board, comment that he heard a rumor that Grant H. Palmer lied to his superiors in the CES about his true beliefs until he had secured their version of a retirement pension; Chris Smith directly confronted him on this and he demurred with the equivalent of "I'm just reporting what I heard, I didn't comment upon the veracity of it, calm down already and stop assuming the worst in people all the time!"

[drumdude]

Here are some well credentialed physicists and philosophers responding to Craig.

https://youtu.be/femxJFszbo8

[Philo Sofee]

Dr. Stak
I've seen Daniel, in real time on the old MAD Board, comment that he heard a rumor that Grant H. Palmer lied to his superiors in the CES about his true beliefs until he had secured their version of a retirement pension; Chris Smith directly confronted him on this and he demurred with the equivalent of "I'm just reporting what I heard, I didn't comment upon the veracity of it, calm down already and stop assuming the worst in people all the time!"

Just a Goonie gossip monger isn't he..... The "great" Daniel C. Peterson, gossiping for the Lord so others don't have to.