Peterson Misleading Again

[_Dr. Shades]

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.

Hey guy and beastie, there's an essay along these lines, showing specific examples, that the two of you simply MUST READ. It's at:

Everyone's a Skeptic---About Other People's Religions

[_Daniel Peterson]

If you say so.

Produce your childhood tricycle. Produce your grandparents. Produce your first Valentine. Produce the puppy you had when you were a little girl.

If something is gone, it's gone. And once you know it's gone, it's unreasonable to continue to demand that it be produced for your curiosity and to act as if somebody else is being obstinate or covering something up for failing to do so.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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 may interest you to learn, GS, that there's a vast literature in both philosophy and theology on what's often called "the problem of evil" or "theodicy." It goes back into pre-Christian times, and has flourished richly among Jewish and Muslim thinkers as well.

The problem is a difficult one -- perhaps the most difficult for believers -- but I doubt that there are too many serious philosophers, even among the skeptics, who think it can be settled with a bumper sticker slogan or even by a brief post on a message board.

[_antishock8]

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.

Oooooooo... NOW it's gone! Ha. Whereas BEFORE it was "mislaid" in a messy office, and if we wanted to see it all we had to do was ask Mr. Hamblin. NOW it's gone. DECOMPOSING in a landfill!! Next thing you know the con man will assert that he saw the letter with his "spiritual eyes"!!

Con man.

[_antishock8]

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.

Because he makes his living as an apologist, supported by an employer that depends on people like him to continue duping people into believing in Mormonism. Sure he possesses a secular title, and is involved with secular endeavors, but the majority of his works and time is spent producing and participating in apologia (he himself admitted that his curriculum vitae contains his apologia). He has a great cover, but the bottom line is he is paid to do this work. He makes a living deceiving people. That's a con, brother.

He could walk away, supposedly, but he doesn't and THAT is very telling... Along with pesky little forms from the IRS that pop up on the Internet.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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)?

You'll enjoy criticizing my two-volume work on the rationality of religious belief, when and if I ever finish it and find a publisher. (It's probably years off, especially if I continue to waste time here.)

I believe that good arguments can be made, of varying strength, for the plausibilty of various religious claims. I do not believe, however, that any argument or evidence exists for any major claim that is so compelling (in the literal sense) that every rational person who is paying attention will be rationally obligated to accept it.

I also disagree with what appears to be Dan's argument that the scientific method is inappropriate for religion.

I don't believe that there is a single thing called The Scientific Method. Not even in science. And I don't believe that scienftic methods are the only avenues to knowledge. History is, for example, not science, and to speak of The Scientific Method in the researching and writing of history is, on the whole, simply foolish. To say nothing of trying to drag The Scientific Method into such areas as philosophy and literary criticism . . .

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.

Nor do I. Nor have I ever said otherwise.

It's really tiresome to be constantly called upon to defend propositions that I haven't advanced.

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 haven't done this.

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.

Your suspicions and imaginations about what I and people who think like me must think have pretty much no value. You're simply wrong about me.

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.

You include me among your stereotyping they, but on the basis of nothing beyond your fantasies. I don't hold the views you ascribe to me.

[Tator]

Well, of course you're going to refuse to answer. There's always a very, very good reason for you to do so. You do your serious writing in a different venue (one that doesn't allow for direct criticism from skeptics, I'll warrant). The questioner is unworthy. You don't have time. Whatever, Dan, your pattern is clear.

So the way I phrased this:

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

is unacceptable, just as my summary of Christianity was unacceptable. And yet, both were completely accurate.

Yes, I figured out after the ZLMB exodus to the protected fields of FAIR that I just am not good at obsequious pandering. The gold plates disappeared along with the angel. If I used the phrase "the angel took back the gold plates to an unknown location, would that have been acceptable? Joseph Smith translated them with a peep stone. If I had said "Joseph Smith translated them through the power of God via a peep stone", would that have been acceptable? Tell me, Dan, just what would have passed the test?

Mother May I Take One Step Forward? Mother May I? If I cross myself and bend at the knee, will that do?

You know, you could have a point if my frank summaries were incorrect. But they're not incorrect, and you know it, because you offered no specifics on how they were incorrect. You just don't like the way they sound. If I ever actually expected a direct answer from you, I would now be disappointed. But because I've seen your pattern for years, I knew what to expect all along. So you didn't disappoint at all. You met my expectations.

Just in case anyone has the slightest doubt: there is no evidence Joseph Smith could see buried treasures with a peepstone, and there is no evidence that Joseph Smith could translate anything accurately with a peepstone. All Dan has is his pet eye witness testimonies... and eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable, and memories are extremely subject to contamination, and someone writing out a statement beforehand to be signed is a classic form of contamination. Not to mention all the eyewitnesses around the world that testify of all sorts of goofy things that Dan would likely never accept on their word.


Unreliability of Eyewitnesses

Thanks for the article, Shades. It reminds me of sethbag's posts. So let's use one of the examples from the article Shades linked which, coincidentally, has to do with the religious sect that Dan mocked earlier.

In the mountains of West Virginia, some people obey Christ's farewell command that true believers "shall take up serpents" (Mark 16:18). They pick up rattlers at church services. Do you believe this scripture, or not?

Snake Handler: Counter-intuitive things often turn out to be true, like quantum mechanics.

Skeptic: Quantum mechanics is accepted because it is a theory that has passed the stringent test of the scientific method, and it has power has a predictive and explanatory theory. In other words, it has empirical evidence obtained through the scientific method which controls for human reasoning error. What is the similar empirical evidence for snake handling?

Snake Handler: Your reference to the scientific method is naïve and irrelevant. And I do have empirical evidence.

Skeptic: You were the one who used quantum mechanics as an example of counter-intuitive things that turn out to be true, and the whole reason we know it's true is due to the scientific method. So what is your empirical evidence?

Snake Handler: There's a ton. (links generic apologetic site)

Skeptic: Look, I've already read a lot of that stuff and don't recall a single article that provided reliable empirical evidence for your claim. At least provide a link to one article that does.

Snake Handler: Well, if you've already read a lot of that stuff and aren't convinced, then it's not worth the bother. But there is empirical evidence.

Skeptic: Ok, give me just the empirical evidence for ONE specific claim: you can reliably tell if a snake handler is worthy based on whether or not the snake bite makes him sick.

Snake Handler: Based on the way you phrased that, I have no interest in continuing this conversation with you or anyone like you.


Now, at the end of this conversation, would anyone actually believe the snake handler had reliable empirical evidence?

[Guest]

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 may interest you to learn, GS, that there's a vast literature in both philosophy and theology on what's often called "the problem of evil" or "theodicy." It goes back into pre-Christian times, and has flourished richly among Jewish and Muslim thinkers as well.

The problem is a difficult one -- perhaps the most difficult for believers -- but I doubt that there are too many serious philosophers, even among the skeptics, who think it can be settled with a bumper sticker slogan or even by a brief post on a message board.

Thanks Dan. I'm well aware of theodicy. Many believers and non-believers are, as well I imagine, aware of theodicy, if not by that name. It is a persistent, troubling issue.

I'm well aware, moreover, than many philosophers and great minds have attempted to deal with it. In my short little post I've tried to operationalize theodicy in a relatively straight-forward way and frame it so that it yields a set of testable propositions to which we can apply something akin to the scientific method, if only in a thought experiment.

As for for what appears to be an attempt to insult me in your last sentence (really, Dan, you gripe about civility, or the lack thereof, but you cannot resist making little digs like this time and time again, and in a situation in which I'm trying to address you constructively and civilly) let me simply say, Dan, that I don't have spare hours to type out a long dissertation on the topic. This IS a discussion board, so the length and content on the posts reflect that fact.

Notwithstanding, having read up much on the question of theodicy over the years, I have found a productive way to deal with it, and similar questions, is the process I've described. Rather than take cheap shots at me by implying I can't hold a candle to the great thinkers through the ages who have dealt with this question, I' curious as to what you think the fundamental flaws are to approaching such issues in this way. I could torture for years over highly complex systems of rationalization (and frankly, some of the 'solutions' the great thinkers have come up with are far, far from satisfactory), or I can apply simple, but proven effective, processes of rational critique. Sometimes the solution to a problem doesn't require a thick tome of tortured reasoning by 'great men' but can be dealt with through simpler, though effective and reasonable means.

While we're at it, I'm curious as to how you accommodate genocide or mass murder into your definition of 'loving.'

[_Daniel Peterson]

Incidentally, Bill Hamblin is spending the summer at Oxford University, but I sent "Arnold Friend's" purported Hamblin letter to him for his amusement. Here's his response, unedited and in full:

That's really funny. And completely insane.

Of course, I may have forged Professor Hamblin's response. That can't be altogether ruled out.

Or, alternatively, since it's fully two sentences long, I may have garbled it and completely misrepresented its contents in the act of copying it.

So it really counts for nothing at all.

[_guy sajer]

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)?

You'll enjoy criticizing my two-volume work on the rationality of religious belief, when and if I ever finish it and find a publisher. (It's probably years off, especially if I continue to waste time here.)

I believe that good arguments can be made, of varying strength, for the plausibilty of various religious claims. I do not believe, however, that any argument or evidence exists for any major claim that is so compelling (in the literal sense) that every rational person who is paying attention will be rationally obligated to accept it.

I also disagree with what appears to be Dan's argument that the scientific method is inappropriate for religion.

I don't believe that there is a single thing called The Scientific Method. Not even in science. And I don't believe that scienftic methods are the only avenues to knowledge. History is, for example, not science, and to speak of The Scientific Method in the researching and writing of history is, on the whole, simply foolish. To say nothing of trying to drag The Scientific Method into such areas as philosophy and literary criticism . . .

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.

Nor do I. Nor have I ever said otherwise.

It's really tiresome to be constantly called upon to defend propositions that I haven't advanced.

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 haven't done this.

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.

Your suspicions and imaginations about what I and people who think like me must think have pretty much no value. You're simply wrong about me.

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.

You include me among your stereotyping they, but on the basis of nothing beyond your fantasies. I don't hold the views you ascribe to me.

You'll note, Dan, that I was careful to speak in general terms and not refer to you by name. You may infer that I was talking about you, but I'm willing to give you some benefit of the doubt, which is why I spoke in general terms. Though I concede that I've seen little from you to convince me that they generalizations do not apply to you as well. I'm open to be convinced otherwise.

There is, moreover, a difference between a 'generalization,' and a 'stereotype.' I believe I've offered reasonable generalizations that are generally accurate based on numerous data points and are not 'stereotypes' in the pejorative sense, as you imply.