DiscussMormonism.com

so Peterson is arguing that because he assumes something is true, he is justified in dismissing all evidence that it is not true as false evidence. Not because he knows it is false evidence, but because it doesn't support his feelings, which are not based on evidence. The Flat Earth Society needs him to write for them.

Peterson wrote: 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.

...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.

bolding added to that obnoxiously bad analogy. it reminds me of something Jenkins said about Rappleye, but which clearly applies here as well.

Apples, Oranges and Nephites
JULY 12, 2015 BY PHILIP JENKINS

...Neil Rappleye is a Book of Mormon apologist... Then as now, he strikes me as smart and literate. I am no less struck by the puzzling disconnect between the articulate nature of what he writes, and the startling lack of sophistication of his arguments.

By far his weakest spot concerns his use of far-fetched and wildly unconvincing analogies, which instantly destroy the credibility of his arguments...

This may all reflect the fact that Book of Mormon apologists really never engage with mainstream scholars.

Virtually no mainstream academic takes his cause seriously enough to be worth arguing with, so an apologist never has an opportunity to test his/her arguments in that setting....

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbe ... d-oranges/

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.

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.

Doctor Scratch wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 28, 2022 2:48 am

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.

his whole post just describes, in detail, why and how he has organized his cognitive life around confirmation bias.

Peterson seems to be answering the question of whether there can be substantial evidence against the Mormon church by saying that Mormons do not believe there can be a proof against it. He conceals the fact that this answer does not address the real question, by using the ambiguous term “valid evidence”, which could mean either conclusive evidence that absolutely disproves Mormonism, or merely substantial evidence that cannot be lightly dismissed.

Physics Guy wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 28, 2022 4:30 am

Peterson seems to be answering the question of whether there can be substantial evidence against the Mormon church by saying that Mormons do not believe there can be a proof against it. He conceals the fact that this answer does not address the real question, by using the ambiguous term “valid evidence”, which could mean either conclusive evidence that absolutely disproves Mormonism, or merely substantial evidence that cannot be lightly dismissed.

Shorter Peterson: evidence is irrelevant to my pre-determined conclusion.

The words “valid” and “genuine” are the heart of his special pleading.

Doctor Scratch wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 28, 2022 2:48 am

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."

How is Peterson's modus operandi any different from William Lane Craig's who also thinks the same thing of his version and brand of Christianity? And yet those two angles are indeed, quite separate, distinct, different, and end up at different goals entirely, and not to say blatantly contradictory conclusions! I would LOVE to see a Peterson/Craig debate on that thinking...genuinely.

My next question for Peterson would be how would we ever evaluate a claim if everyone ran with is reasoning? "well, it's my opinion its true so every counter you offer is simply mistaken, because the claim must be true. Whatever you say may sound pretty good or reasonable but when I look down a set of train tracks they appear to be moving towards each other...and that ain't true because I assume it?"

What he's done is explicitly stated the whole pursuit of apologetics, only in a very embarrassing way--a way most apologists like to pretend isn't happening. Philo mentioned William Craig...yep. He's does the same it seems to me. But he'd never be so foolish as to admit it, like Peterson has. I don't know....maybe he would.

I think he makes these kinds of statements just to see what reaction he gets. Maybe he thought his "critics" weren't paying enough attention to him lately.