Internet vs Chapel Mormons and Mormon Apologetics

[_GoodK]

GoodK is absolutely right.

That goes without saying.


Your response to my post was, if I'm not mistaken, a slight at the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

That is par for the course at the FARMS Review (of authors).

Your quote would like us to believe that Richard Dawkins is not worth listening to.

That is par for the course at the FARMS Review (of authors).

Your response pretends that calling someone's credibility into question is a good enough response.

That is par for the course at the FARMS Review (of authors).

Your response demonstrates that you didn't even consider the argument yourself.

That is par for the course at the FARMS Review (of authors).

You tippy-toed by and poisoned the well.

That is par for the course at the FARMS Review (of authors).

[_Dwight Frye]

"Imagine someone holding forth on biology," writes the British Marxist literary critic Terry Eagleton, a relatively sympathetic reader, "whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html

lol

Comparing theology to (chuckle) biology? What is, I wonder, the theological equivalent to the Book of British Birds? I, for one, would very much like to read it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

GoodK is absolutely right.

That goes without saying.

Yes, it would be best left unsaid. I agree.

Your response to my post was, if I'm not mistaken, a slight at the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

My response was a quotation from the man regarded by many as Britain's most influential living literary critic, the former Thomas Wharton Professor of English Literature at the University of Oxford (1992-2001) and John Edward Taylor Professor of English Literature at the University of Manchester (2001-2008) who has just accepted a chair in English literature at the University of Lancaster, who thinks that the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University is a theological illiterate. It seemed worth mentioning, since your opening post featured said Charles Simonyi Professor opining on theology, of all things.

I didn't expect, of course, that you would welcome such brazen impiety.

Your quote would like us to believe that Richard Dawkins is not worth listening to.

You should take that up with Professor Eagleton.

That is par for the course at the FARMS Review (of authors).

That's right. Most of our reviews, after a barrage of name-calling and ad hominem abuse uncluttered by even the merest nod in the direction of a fact or an argument, conclude with the line "Don't read this book!" (A quick browse through the links at http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/review/ will confirm that fact.)

[_Daniel Peterson]

Your response to my post was, if I'm not mistaken, a slight at the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

That is par for the course at the FARMS Review (of authors).

Your quote would like us to believe that Richard Dawkins is not worth listening to.

That is par for the course at the FARMS Review (of authors).

Your response pretends that calling someone's credibility into question is a good enough response.

That is par for the course at the FARMS Review (of authors).

Your response demonstrates that you didn't even consider the argument yourself.

That is par for the course at the FARMS Review (of authors).

You tippy-toed by and poisoned the well.

That is par for the course at the FARMS Review (of authors).

Ah. I see that GoodK has now expanded his original reply into something of a mantra (best recited while holding fingers firmly in ears) or a liturgy.

How ironically appropriate!

[_Dwight Frye]

"Imagine someone holding forth on biology," writes the British Marxist literary critic Terry Eagleton, a relatively sympathetic reader, "whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html

What I find interesting about Daniel providing us with this quote is the fact that it interacts with the points raised in the OP in no meaningful way at all. In fact, three people are quoted in the OP, Dawkins being only one of them. Daniel's quote seems all the more irrelevant when considering that in the quotes GoodK has provided, Dawkins is hardly commenting on theology at all, but rather the behavior of theologians.

I think we can do better than that.

[_Scottie]

Regardless of whether or not FROB does this, YOU did it, Dr Peterson.

It was a blatant, and shameless ad hom attack on Hawkins which absolutely ignored the argument.

[_The Dude]

Do any of the LDS General Authorities have a background or deep interest in academic theology of the sort Dawkins et al. are talking about?




What I see here is a knee jerk defense by DCP of something that is totally irrelevant to Mormonism.

(Or maybe DCP is just goofing off... it must be fun to watch everybody take the bait without a second thought.)

[_Daniel Peterson]

What I find interesting about Daniel providing us with this quote is the fact that it interacts with the points raised in the OP in no meaningful way at all. In fact, three people are quoted in the OP, Dawkins being only one of them. Daniel's quote seems all the more irrelevant when considering that in the quotes GoodK has provided, Dawkins is hardly commenting on theology at all, but rather the behavior of theologians.

I think we can do better than that.

What I find amusing here is that, while a discussion of theology and theologians between Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris is cited in the opening post, the mere mention of a brief comment made by one of the most prominent contemporary British intellectuals about Richard Dawkins's superficial knowledge of theology ( accompanied by a link to a longer review) has set the local hive here mightily abuzz with righteous indignation.

[_The Dude]

What I find amusing here is _____ has set the local hive here mightily abuzz with righteous indignation.

Yep.

[_harmony]

Do any of the LDS General Authorities have a background or deep interest in academic theology of the sort Dawkins et al. are talking about?

Doctors, lawyers, CEO's, business owners, church education employees, etc... no theologians though. Which might explain why we're run like a business (with something to hide) instead of a church.