Peterson Misleading Again

[_harmony]

About the letter (you know... the subject of the thread)

Dr Hamblin's letter to Bro Watson does not interest me. What interests me is Bro Watson's reply (letter #2).

I don't have any doubt there was a #2 letter. I just don't see why it's unreasonable to ask to see it. My receipt exists that I paid my property taxes, but the IRS isn't going to allow me to take that deduction if I can't produce it, no matter how many people will testify with their hands on a Bible that I paid it. I may have to go to the court house and get another receipt, to prove that I'm not making it up, but I don't take exception to them saying they won't believe me until I produce proof. The IRS isn't calling me a liar or dishonest or lacking in intergrity. They're simply asking me to produce the proof that I paid what I said I paid. Why is this any different?

#1 letter obviously exists. Show us #2, so we can also see what it said, without an intermediary with an agenda.

[_guy sajer]

Oh, and please point out where my frank summary of Christianity was inaccurate, since you used an obviously inaccurate (and insulting to a certain religious sect) summary of evolution as a counter-point. Or do you concede that point?

by the way, speaking of that certain religious sect, I'm betting they have plenty of eye witnesses and empirical evidence supporting their belief that God will protect snake handlers who have enough faith. I know that's counter-intuitive, but hey, scientists believed in the Big Bang before there was supportive empirical evidence.

I agree with Dan's argument that we ought not always rule out counterintuitive theories/explanations, and what might at first appear wildly wrong-headed may in fact turn out to be correct. This may occur in science (I am sure it does), but I'm reasonably certain that it occurs all the time in 'real life.' Conventional wisdom, as it were, is quite often wrong.

Where I disagree with Dan is the underlying implication of his argument that, since the counterintuitive may in fact be correct, we should not dismiss Mormonism and its many rather fantastical claims. After all, if Einstein was correct, why not Joseph Smith?

Ok, all well and good. But I wonder whether Dan, or someone else, can point out any examples of fantastical religious claims (particularly those related to the supernatural) that have later been validated by science (or in some other objectively verifiable manner)?

I also disagree with what appears to be Dan's argument that the scientific method is inappropriate for religion. Far from being naïve, I strong believe that the scientific method (a method of inquiry that uses sound theory building, empirical observation, and transparent, a priori, and objective decision rules) is one the most effective checks we have to evaluate religious (and all fantastical or supernatural) claims and protect ourselves, and society, from charlatans and unwise beliefs and practices.

I think that it is awfully convenient to suggest that one's set of beliefs is exempt from the process of scientific (rational) inquiry. I don't think that any belief should be so exempted. Not all religious claims can be tested scientifically, but many can, but one may also use scientific principles of rational inquiry to assess a number of religious claims that might not be otherwise testable in a laboratory, as it were.

A common tactic of believers is to try to persuade septics to suspend skepticism and have an open mind. Yet, they apply this argument only to their own set of beliefs, generally being unwilling to suspend skepticism where it comes to other persons' beliefs. That is, they seek to privilege their own beliefs without providing a rationale as to why, among the thousands of other similar beliefs, theirs and theirs alone should be so privileged.

I strongly suspect that Mormon apologists would be singing a different tune were they on the other side of the argument-a skeptic being asked to hold an open mind about someone else's supernatural beliefs. They would be unwilling to grant privilege to that person's beliefs, yet they then turn around and ask (and even at times expect) that skeptics privilege their beliefs.

[_beastie]

Exactly, guy. Some claims of religion may be totally outside the venue of the scientific method or even rules of logic (another method that helps us discipline our thoughts so we are not always enslaved by our naturally gullible minds), such as “God exists and loves you.” Ok, well, if there is a God, most of the time, by definition, that God is totally outside our dimension and is an incomprehensible being, so we can’t really test that claim in and of itself. But most religions make many other claims, on top of that one, that actually can be tested – and should be tested. Can snake handlers really be bitten by poisonous snakes and not suffer harm? Testable. Can faith healers really heal real illnesses? Testable. Can people see buried treasures or translate documents with a peep stone? Testable.

Religionists are actually only too happy to refer to science when they believe science has accommodated them and provided evidence that helps their case (see the enthusiasm for occasional studies that supposedly show prayer works). It’s only when science is not accommodating them that they turn up their noses at it.

[_guy sajer]

Exactly, guy. Some claims of religion may be totally outside the venue of the scientific method or even rules of logic (another method that helps us discipline our thoughts so we are not always enslaved by our naturally gullible minds), such as “God exists and loves you.” Ok, well, if there is a God, most of the time, by definition, that God is totally outside our dimension and is an incomprehensible being, so we can’t really test that claim in and of itself. But most religions make many other claims, on top of that one, that actually can be tested – and should be tested. Can snake handlers really be bitten by poisonous snakes and not suffer harm? Testable. Can faith healers really heal real illnesses? Testable. Can people see buried treasures or translate documents with a peep stone? Testable.

Religionists are actually only too happy to refer to science when they believe science has accommodated them and provided evidence that helps their case (see the enthusiasm for occasional studies that supposedly show prayer works). It’s only when science is not accommodating them that they turn up their noses at it.

One cannot prove or disprove God, but one can, I think, use the scientific process to test the proposition that God is a 'loving father.'

It's about defining your terms clearly.
Establishing what outcomes would be consistent with the hypothesis. (Decision rules).
Making empirical observations (including reading accounts in scripture and general observations of human experience)
Comparing the evidence to your definitions and decisions rules
Making a conclusion.

Going through this process, I find that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that if God exists, and he is the God of Christianity as portrayed in the Bible and (for Mormons) Book of Mormon, he is anything but a loving father, using reasonable definitions of what the word "loving" means.

So, while I cannot cite evidence necessarily to support my view that there is no God, I can cite substantial evidence suggesting he is not the loving God portrayed in Christian and Mormon rhetoric and popular belief.

A similar process can be applied to many beliefs that are not strictly testable.

And for someone who objects to my little thought experiment here, I would ask the following:

What is your operational definition of 'loving' that allows for genocide or killing children who disagree with you, choose not to do everything you wish, or fail to show sufficient obsequience (sic)?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I just don't see why it's unreasonable to ask to see it.

I"ve never said that there's anything "unreasonable" about simply asking to see it.

What is unreasonable, in my view, is suspecting that the source checker, Dr. Hamblin, Dr. Ricks, and I -- and perhaps some others -- may be lying about its content or may even have forged it if we can't produce it for your inspection.

Things get lost. It happens. There's nothing intrinsically impossible or even improbable about Professor Hamblin's claim that he had a copy of the letter a bit more than a decade and a half ago but, in the interim, has mislaid it.

My receipt exists that I paid my property taxes, but the IRS isn't going to allow me to take that deduction if I can't produce it, no matter how many people will testify with their hands on a Bible that I paid it. I may have to go to the court house and get another receipt, to prove that I'm not making it up, but I don't take exception to them saying they won't believe me until I produce proof. The IRS isn't calling me a liar or dishonest or lacking in intergrity. They're simply asking me to produce the proof that I paid what I said I paid. Why is this any different?

Because the IRS is the IRS and you aren't. Because the IRS's treatment of taxpayers is rarely considered a model of fairness and sweet reason. Because the crime of tax fraud is common and because the motivation to commit it is powerful, whereas the absolute forging of primary source documents or the wild distortion of two-sentence texts is pretty rare in edited and source-checked articles and whereas the motivation to lie brazenly about a small bit of supporting material for a relatively minor point is considerably less powerful. Because the potential benefits of successful tax fraud are tangible and considerable, whereas the potential benefit of wildly distorting a statement from the Office of the First Presidency (or, even, of inventing it whole cloth) is minuscule. Because it's a rational judgment that the risks of detection by the IRS in a case of tax fraud, though considerable, are outweighed by the potential benefit, whereas the ratio of the enormous risk to a member of the Church and an employee of BYU of brazenly, publicly, deliberately, and fraudulently falsifying or forging a statement from the Office of the First Presidency to its very tiny benefit would just about have to judged unacceptably high by any rational person. And so on and so forth.

The IRS isn't the appropriate model here. Historical writing and research should be the model. And the simple fact is that primary source materials disappear all the time. Letters are lost. Journals go missing. Documents vanish. Most written sources don't survive. Most don't even survive very long.

#1 letter obviously exists.

Does it? Have you seen it? Have you tested it? Have you read what I've already posted here about the ease with which it could have been forged?

Show us #2, so we can also see what it said, without an intermediary with an agenda.

It's unreasonable to continue to demand to see Watson letter #2 when you've been plainly told, many times, that it is apparently gone. Altogether gone. Period. End of story. Probably long ago decomposed in a landfill. It's unreasonable to act as if I can somehow produce it but am simply, obstinately, refusing to do so. It's unreasonable to suggest, on the basis of nothing at all, that, since I haven't produced it, it's reasonable to suspect that I conspired with others to forge it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I have many rough drafts of things but nothing formal, I would love to email you some thoughts and ideas.

I'd love to see it.

(I'll have to tear myself away from this place, of course, to find any time to read it!)

[_antishock8]

You know, antishock8, it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

I suppose so, but afte years of watching these con men continue a blatant and hurtful lie I just don't care to be courteous to them. They don't merit the respect, in my opinion, that most here give them. I just don't see the point in being courteous to liars and obfuscators. That in of itself seems to legitimize their behavior on some levels.

[_harmony]

Show us #2, so we can also see what it said, without an intermediary with an agenda.

It's unreasonable to continue to demand to see Watson letter #2 when you've been plainly told, many times, that it is apparently gone. Altogether gone. Period. End of story. Probably long ago decomposed in a landfill. It's unreasonable to act as if I can somehow produce it but am simply, obstinately, refusing to do so. It's unreasonable to suggest, on the basis of nothing at all, that, since I haven't produced it, it's reasonable to suspect that I conspired with others to forge it.

If you say so.

[_Trevor]

I suppose so, but afte years of watching these con men continue a blatant and hurtful lie I just don't care to be courteous to them. They don't merit the respect, in my opinion, that most here give them. I just don't see the point in being courteous to liars and obfuscators. That in of itself seems to legitimize their behavior on some levels.

How do you figure that Daniel Peterson is a con man? I may disagree with him about a lot of things, but I don't see a con man in him.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Let's go with the translating disappearing gold plates with a peep stone.

Ya know, beastie? I gotta be candid with ya. The very way you phrase that, coupled with my pretty considerable experience of your posting style (including, but far and away not limited to, its triumphalism and combativeness), tells me that a serious conversation on this subject with you is pretty much beyond reach and that the ratio of cost to benefit would be way higher than would ever interest me.

The subject you raise is an interesting one, and I'm happy to discuss it. Just not with you nor with anybody like you. (As a matter of fact, I am putting together a pair of pretty massive books on what I term "the rationality of belief." Someday, if you care to do so, you can review them. You can even trash them, if you like.)

And by the way, if talk of the scientific method is naïve and irrelevant

Your failure even to recognize my point when I capitalize (i.e., typographically "reify") The Scientific Method is another indicator that . . . well, let me just leave it at saying that there are other things I would prefer to do.