Pot, Meet Kettle: A Master Class in Hypocrisy from a Self-Proclaimed Paragon of Truth

[drumdude]

I've had some unexpected and unpleasant encounters with random anti-Mormonism, as well. And sometimes at academic conferences, no less. I don't understand it. I would NEVER treat anybody that way.

Hilarious coming from the “Metcalfe is Butthead” crew.

[I Have Questions]

I've had some unexpected and unpleasant encounters with random anti-Mormonism, as well. And sometimes at academic conferences, no less. I don't understand it. I would NEVER treat anybody that way.

Hilarious coming from the “Metcalfe is Butthead” crew.

Given the way he publicly talks about posters on this board on his blog, I find his words ring hollow. Generally speaking, those people who actively laud their own virtue are doing so because they know they lack the virtue to which they are publicly laying claim. It’s a confession of sorts.

Do you remember Peterson telling the story about him and (I think it was) Midgely turning up at another faith's gathering in order to cause a bit of trouble? What about the tales from his mission where he claims to have ridiculed another faith’s minister? There are more examples that Peterson definitely would do that. And consider it funny.

[drumdude]

It’s a bit sad, really.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I've had some unexpected and unpleasant encounters with random anti-Mormonism, as well. And sometimes at academic conferences, no less. I don't understand it. I would NEVER treat anybody that way.

Hilarious coming from the “Metcalfe is Butthead” crew.

Folks, you really can't make this stuff up. DCP ALWAYS treats people that way, and much, much worse. How many times has DCP publicly (shouted from the internet bleachers) degraded other religions? How many times has DCP publicly attacked others? How many public feuds has DCP had?

One thing is as certain as death and taxes: the truth is not in DCP.

[Physics Guy]

A week or two ago, I came across the assured declaration online that there is absolutely no rational, reasonable, objective evidence to suggest a life after death. The person issuing the declaration is of no particular intellectual distinction or scholarly authority, but I was struck — and, truth be told, somewhat amused — by the complete confidence with which he issued it. I can only conclude that he doesn’t get out much or read very extensively. [Emphasis added.]

The bolded sentences are a relevant example. First of all they are—for once, literally—an argumentum ad hominem, a disparagement of the person who said something rather than a critique of what they said. That's a logical fallacy, because even if a speaker lacks authority they might well still be right. A babbling drunk could blurt out truth by accident. So, since there is no logical point in mentioning his critic's lack of distinction and authority, let alone in declaring that someone must not get out much, Peterson has simply gone out of his way to deliver an insult.

In this case the insult is particularly unwarranted because the only thing that Peterson next cites, as the evidence which his critic has overlooked, is a mass of so-called "near-death experiences" that are all experiences of people who didn't actually die. So in fact he blithely endorses his critic completely. We have to suppose, though, that Peterson had failed to notice that problem, and so honestly thought that he had a wealth of sound evidence on his side, of which his critic was appallingly ignorant.

He felt that his critic was speaking from appalling ignorance, and that this entitled him to be rude. Okay, maybe a saint would still be polite in that case, but statements based on appalling ignorance are annoying, and normal people get testy. A certain amount of offensiveness may be pardonable, if Peterson really thought that his opponent's position was disgracefully weak, even though in fact it was not weak.

By the same token, though, Peterson should take into account that his conservative Mormonism may well genuinely appear to non-Mormons as ridiculous. If some of them seem disrespectful of his faith, they are only behaving as he also does with something he finds ridiculous.

[Chap]

By the same token, though, Peterson should take into account that his conservative Mormonism may well genuinely appear to non-Mormons as ridiculous.

I would say that is a very tactful way of putting it.

Mormonism is a wonderful example of the truth of the proposition that the mere fact that lots of people are loyal to a particular religious institution proves absolutely nothing about whether the truth claims of that religion make any sense at all. And that is one reason why I find it so fascinating.

(Who was that wonderful Exmo poster whose sig line was "I'll let you into a little secret. Mormonism is not only not true, it's obviously not true.")

[I Have Questions]

A week or two ago, I came across the assured declaration online that there is absolutely no rational, reasonable, objective evidence to suggest a life after death. The person issuing the declaration is of no particular intellectual distinction or scholarly authority, but I was struck — and, truth be told, somewhat amused — by the complete confidence with which he issued it. I can only conclude that he doesn’t get out much or read very extensively. [Emphasis added.]

The bolded sentences are a relevant example. First of all they are—for once, literally—an argumentum ad hominem, a disparagement of the person who said something rather than a critique of what they said. That's a logical fallacy, because even if a speaker lacks authority they might well still be right. A babbling drunk could blurt out truth by accident. So, since there is no logical point in mentioning his critic's lack of distinction and authority, let alone in declaring that someone must not get out much, Peterson has simply gone out of his way to deliver an insult.

In this case the insult is particularly unwarranted because the only thing that Peterson next cites, as the evidence which his critic has overlooked, is a mass of so-called "near-death experiences" that are all experiences of people who didn't actually die. So in fact he blithely endorses his critic completely. We have to suppose, though, that Peterson had failed to notice that problem, and so honestly thought that he had a wealth of sound evidence on his side, of which his critic was appallingly ignorant.

I slightly disagree with that final point. Peterson knows full well that he doesn’t have a wealth of sound evidence on his side. But he’s relying on his limited readership’s inability to notice that. And their inability to work out that he is blithely endorsing my assertion. That’s why he opened with an irrelevant baseless ad hominem, it’s his sleight of hand. It’s his “tell” that what he is going to follow with, is very inadequate.

[Gadianton]

I don't think in this case he's just out to trick his gullible readers because the first person he wants to convince is himself. He's very worried about dying, and the nonstop good times of food and travel and feeling important ending. Dan is an elitist, and I really do think that if somebody of academic importance (under his own interpretation of what that means because this can be fudged) says something favorable to his way of thinking it lifts his spirits. He's not moved at all if such a person says something against his way of thinking and can easily dismiss it as uninformed bias. I wonder how "wide" a person can read on the topic of NDEs while sticking with "scholarly authorities".

An AI search resulted only with Bruce Greyson, who is a psychiatrist. He's not saved, +1. And I think you can say NDEs could be scholarly material in his line of work, +1. He compares his research to quantum mechanics' usurping classical mechanics, -1.5. That leaves him with a net positive of .5, which is better than I expected for the category.

Of course, Physics Guy makes a good point that the study of near death experiences isn't actually a study of life after death. In fact, the first problem in my view is it isn't clear what the problem is that Dan wishes to resolve. Is it physical immortality? The existence of God? Mind-body separation?

1) As far as I'm concerned from a physical standpoint, Dan has already won. It's just a matter of time before science can advance to the point of making Dan immortal. The problem of personal immortality is entirely a philosophical problem. Is the resurrected/extended Dan really Dan? Is there really a Dan to begin with?

2) A God is just a tool to get him to personal immortality, and so it's not the primary end. I don't think establishing a God is what he's after.

3) The philosophical problem of mind-body has nothing to do with his interests, and whenever he brings up "materialism" he's misspeaking; he's tackling the wrong problem. A clue to his own wide and deep reading. Mormonism provides a good way to speak of the problem he's actually interested in as spirit and body separation. Mormonism is materialist and asserts a physical spirit. This is a proper, empirical scientific topic. There are numerous ways a spirit could be proven. One of those is documenting people separating from their bodies and wandering around to cull information they couldn't have otherwise known about.

The third and the first are in quite a bit of conflict with each other.

[Physics Guy]

Mormonism is a wonderful example of the truth of the proposition that the mere fact that lots of people are loyal to a particular religious institution proves absolutely nothing about whether the truth claims of that religion make any sense at all. And that is one reason why I find it so fascinating.

(Who was that wonderful Exmo poster whose sig line was "I'll let you into a little secret. Mormonism is not only not true, it's obviously not true.")

Yeah, I have to agree with my brother, who isn't religious himself but has lived in countries with a range of different predominant religions and has called Mormonism "the world's most obviously made-up religion". Even Scientology is less fake, I've concluded, because I think that Scientological "auditing" probably does tend to induce a temporary euphoria after a couple of hours, so that it's real in the way that a religion based on beer would be real.

I understand that Mormonism has nonetheless been very important to a lot of people, and I consider that they have thereby invested it with a lot more meaning than Joseph Smith ever put into it. And it's an interesting religion for having been launched in the early 19th century, at the dawn of modernity. Even though I think it's an obvious fraud, I'll also agree that it is not just a fraud.

I don't see a future for Mormonism as a major religion, however. Every other religion I know has ridiculous elements, too, but the big ones do seem to me to have some impressive things that make me think it's not just an accident that they've spread and persisted. They have enough capital that they can survive markdown; you can toss out the ridiculous parts, and still have something good left. I'm afraid I don't see that with Mormonism.

The big religions have silly stuff, sure, but their best shots are good shots: the start of the Bhagavad Gita, the opening of the Quran, the Sermon on the Mount, the Fire Sermon. I've asked for a highlight reel from the Book of Mormon, and the only answer I've ever gotten has been the absurd and appalling advent of "Jesus Christ" in 3 Nephi.

And that's what fascinates me, too, about Mormonism. Mormonism is like a controlled experiment in religion: specifically, it's the control group, where we take away any significant moral or metaphysical insight and see what pure placebo can do. Quite a bit, it turns out. That's worth learning.

[Physics Guy]

Peterson knows full well that he doesn’t have a wealth of sound evidence on his side. But he’s relying on his limited readership’s inability to notice that. And their inability to work out that he is blithely endorsing my assertion. That’s why he opened with an irrelevant baseless ad hominem, it’s his sleight of hand. It’s his “tell” that what he is going to follow with, is very inadequate.

I don't think in this case he's just out to trick his gullible readers because the first person he wants to convince is himself.

I think you may both be right. Nothing helps more to convince oneself than to see an audience being convinced.