There can be no evidence that Mormonism is false

[Res Ipsa]

The whole blog entry just underscores what a fraud he is as an “intellectual.” God forbid anything might challenge his precious belief in the Church! He’s never known doubt or struggle or inner conflict. He’s just breezed through life, always knowing that “the Church is true!” It sure does explain a lot, such as his massive lack or empathy and understanding. He bristles if you accuse him of not understanding atheism, but he *doesn’t* understand it—not even close. I really wonder what it must be like to go through life without the ability to question your own assumptions.

There is a line from Simone de Beauvoir's 'The Mandarins' that springs to mind every time I read Daniel: "He contemplated the world from the height of an unwritten book."

Touché.

[master_dc]

Admitting/understanding that there is a chance that Mormonism is not true is a slippery slope. That is how my faith journey started. I clearly remember the moment I truly internalized the possibility of it not being true. I just don't think there is any incentive for Dr. P to go down that path. He has a good life and it appears to have worked for him rather well. It is very apparent he enjoys his position as the "foil" to this little corner of the internet.

[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.

[Kishkumen]

Can there be any valid evidence against the Church?

To which my answer is No, there cannot.

This is the point at which some of my critics began to froth years ago, and over which some continue to wax occasionally indignant still today. So permit me to explain:

My answer presumes the Church to be true. Why? Because I believe it to be. (The question is about my personal opinion on the matter, right?)

Since the Church is ex hypothesi true, there can be no genuine evidence that it is false. Of course, there can be seeming evidence against its claims, evidence that reasonable people might well regard as genuine and damning. In the end, though, on the assumption that the claims of the Church are true, what seems to be genuine, damning evidence against it must ultimately prove not to be such.

There is evidence that parallel rails on a train track converge in the distance. However, they don’t actually converge at a distance; they remain parallel. The visual evidence that they converge proves to be illusory.

There is evidence that the Sun goes around the Earth. For millennia, close watchers of the sky thought that it did, and they had reasons for thinking so. However, we can now explain those reasons, that evidence, in other ways.

There might be evidence strongly suggesting that Frank killed Bob. But if, in fact, it was Jim who killed Bob, and not Frank, the evidence suggesting that Frank was the murderer must eventually be reinterpreted as demonstrating no such thing.

It’s in that sense that I say that there can, in the end, be no valid evidence against the claims of Mormonism. Ultimately, you see, there can never be proof that something that is true is actually false.

I think this is a very candid confession on Dr. Peterson's part. Since he knows the Church is true, it cannot be false. Of course, there are a lot of sticky questions concerning the parallel examples he provides. Moreover, other people could say the Catholic Church is true on the same kind of grounds he claims the LDS Church to be true, but some would argue that both cannot be true as a matter of logic. And yet, how would one really know which of the two is true?

What does true mean in this context, anyway?

It must be so subjective that the claim effectively does not matter.

[Dr Moore]

I think this is a very candid confession on Dr. Peterson's part. Since he knows the Church is true, it cannot be false. Of course, there are a lot of sticky questions concerning the parallel examples he provides. Moreover, other people could say the Catholic Church is true on the same kind of grounds he claims the LDS Church to be true, but some would argue that both cannot be true as a matter of logic. And yet, how would one really know which of the two is true?

What does true mean in this context, anyway?

It must be so subjective that the claim effectively does not matter.

Your last point, reverend, is beautifully realistic about the past and empathetic about the future. The church, its members and defenders, have continuously altered specific claims about what is "true" within the broader "truth" umbrella. And will do so in the future. As such, the only true thing is the member's belief in the Church system being true, yesterday, today, and in the future.

This is not very different from atheism, which is fundamentally a belief in the scientific method, a system which changes over time (belief > contradiction > questions > experimentation > new belief >...

[Gadianton]

Moreover, other people could say the Catholic Church is true on the same kind of grounds he claims the LDS Church to be true, but some would argue that both cannot be true as a matter of logic

Some of these others would be outreach ministers who are labelled as "anti-Mormon" by the Mopologists, yet these people know there can be no evidence to support a second Bible, nor can the self-evident principles of Biblical Christianity be shown to be in error. You would think someone as inherently bright as DCP would realize that when a self-designated unstoppable force collides with an object rendered immovable by the very same logic, that not a whole lot could ever come of the meeting other than sparks. The only justification I can think of is to release ones anger -- banging on a wall and screaming might be therapeutic.

[Doctor Steuss]

Good critics can be a blessing. As a grinding wheel sharpens a knife, they can (and often do) sharpen arguments and help to clarify propositions.

If there is one sharp argument supporting Mormonism, I’d like to see it. One that has been sharpened by criticism. I’d love to see an example of it.

The sword of Mormonism, fresh from being sharpened on the grinding wheel of criticism.

[drumdude]

As expected, Daniel claims we don't "get it."


I could tell you he would say that without him ever reading this thread. It was as much a foregone conclusion as his conviction that all evidence against Mormonism is by definition incorrect.


Sad, and extremely predictable.

[drumdude]

"He contemplated the world from the height of an unwritten book."

DP in a nutshell indeed.

[Marcus]

I’m not advocating a closed mind. I’m not saying that I refuse to consider evidence contrary to my religious beliefs. I’m not saying that there are no substantial arguments against Mormonism that deserve consideration. I’m not saying that every objection has been answered to the satisfaction of every rational and honest mind. I am saying that my conviction that the claims of Mormonism is true entails the corollary conviction that arguments against its truth are, in the end, wrong.

this paragraph is just bizarre. let's take it in reverse:

sentence 5:

a) ...my conviction [is] that the claims of Mormonism is true
b)...[my] corollary conviction [is] that arguments against its truth are ...wrong.

So, the logic of sentence 5 leads to this:

a) starting assumption: M[ormon religion] is true

b)suppose there is E[vidence], such that M is proved not true. Since M is assumed true, then E(=M not true) is E that is not true.

Now, let's rewrite sentences 2, 3, and 4, so they agree with the logic of sentence 5:

2) given E(=M not true), E is proven not true given the starting assumption: M true:

"I AM saying that i DO refuse to consider evidence contrary to my religious beliefs."

3)given E(=M not true), E is proven not true given the starting assumption: M true:

"I AM saying that there are NO substantial arguments against Mormonism that deserve consideration."

4)given E(=M not true), E is proven not true given the starting assumption: M true:

"I AM saying that every objection has been answered to the satisfaction of MY IRrational and DIShonest mind."

and finally sentence 1:


1)"I AM advocating a closed mind. BY DEFINITION, if I make my desired conclusion a starting assumption, then any evidence that disagrees with that assumption is "PROVEN" (by me) NOT TRUE. I will not test, investigate, or consider any evidence that disagrees with my starting assumption. I will simply ASSUME all such evidence is not true. In other words, my mind is closed."


DCP assumes people misunderstand what he's saying, but his logic is pretty clear. Well, his illogic.