Internet vs Chapel Mormons and Mormon Apologetics

[_GoodK]

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.

Righteous indignation? You are dramatic. We are just taking notice that you have - again - demonstrated the bread and butter of the FARMS Review.

Ironically, the editor of the FROA slunk by to poison the well with a misplaced quote from a Catholic whose criticism Dawkins directly addresses in the portion of the video that I cited in my initial post.

Eagleton: "I’m entirely with Dawkins in condemning redneck fascists from Texas to the Taliban. But the trouble with Dawkins is that he thinks that’s what religion is."

Dawkins: ""Academic Theologians will attack us for accusing people of taking the scriptures literally, and will say 'Of course we don't believe the book of Genesis literally.' And yet they do preach about what Adam and Eve did, as if they did exist. As if it is a sort of license to talk about things which they know and anyone with any sophistication knows is fiction, and yet they will treat their congregations, their sheep, as though they did exist. As though they were factual. And a huge number of those congregations think they do exist."

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

I have to say, folks, that this is absolutely one of the most hilarious displays of high dudgeon I've had the pleasure to observe here.

The mere playful citation in this context of a comment made by a prominent British intellectual appears to have been an act of impiety so egregious, so brazenly sacrilegious, so appallingly heretical, that it's apparently left several here fumbling for their smelling salts.

"Blatant"? "Shameless"?

Get serious, poor fellow. Really, this is pathetic.

An "ad hom attack"?

Look up the meaning of "ad hominem fallacy" in any basic logic textbook.

And now the GoodKid imagines that it was frightful act of "poisoning the well."

But he should look up the meaning of "poisoning the well" in any good handbook of practical logical fallacies, so that he can learn how to properly use the expression.

I quoted Terry Eagleton. That's it. But, it seems, I underestimated the aura of sanctity that surrounds Richard Dawkins for some, and failed properly to genuflect. It was a terrible, even unforgivable, act of lèse majesté, and, as an infidel, I'm now facing the wrath of offended True Believers. The GoodKid has even composed a liturgy for exorcism, in chant form.

Did I "ignore the argument"? Yes, I did. I didn't realize that every post here had to address every argument. Is that a rule that applies only to me? If I had a dime for every post here that fails to address an argument, I'd be retiring after next term. Comments on message boards are of various types. Some systematically address every point of a preceding post. Some address only one. Some crack jokes. Some -- these are very common here on this august board -- attack the previous poster's appearance or intelligence or some such thing. Some, here on MDB, raise the issue of female anatomy. Some are ironic, making an arch comment about a previous comment. Some are casual banter.

However, my quotation from Terry Eagleton, cited without comment but with a link attached, is a "blatant" and "shameless" act that calls for an entire swelling chorus of moral outrage.

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?

Happily, no.

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

A "defense"?

I merely quoted Terry Eagleton.

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

It is, actually.

What a delicious spectacle.

I'm beginning to wonder whether the paramedics ought to be on hand, with their defibrillators at the ready.



HaHaHaHaHoHoHoHoHaHaHaHaHoHoHoHoLOL

[_GoodK]

I have to say, folks, that this is absolutely one of the most hilarious displays of high dudgeon I've had the pleasure to observe here.

I have to say, folks, that this is absolutely one of the most hilarious displays of the pot calling the kettle black I've had the pleasure to observe here. Seriously. High dudgeon? That's great.

And now the GoodKid...

It seems like the editor of the FROA is angry (increasingly so, it rather oddly seems, and increasingly insulting).

HaHaHaHaHoHoHoHoHaHaHaHaHoHoHoHoLOL

Wow. What a spectacle.

[_GoodK]

I merely quoted Terry Eagleton.

This - like all DCP denials (see "I merely sent a link") - is to be read in a docile, sheepish voice with eyes widened for full effect.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm not angry. Not even slightly.

I'm amused. Really amused.

I think some here have posted truly ridiculous things.

In the GoodKid's case, though, I realize that I behaved irreverently toward one of his principal sacred cows, thus inflaming his perpetual belligerence yet again. That's slightly different. (He even thinks that I did more than posting a quote from Terry Eagleton. Perhaps he's seen something with his, um, spiritual eyes. Perhaps, seen through the eye of faith, I posted reams of the vacuous ad hominems of which his dogma speaks to him, and of which his imagination assures him.)

Still, I wish a happy winter solstice to you all!

I hate to come right out and say this, and at the risk of sounding unreasonable -- Daniel C. Peterson is about three hundred pounds of flotsam in a ten pound bag.

I am personally quite glad he has limited his posts here to simply pimping his crappy book review whenever another "steaming" pile is ready to be peddled to the sheep.

This "professor" has done more to dismantle a quiet Californian Mormon family (most of whom he's never met) than any of the "vices" the Mormon church cautions its membership against, all without the slightest hint of remorse.

Besides his obsession with me (despite his claims that he is in fact the object of Scratch's obsession), he is generally a pompous charlatan and I sincerely hope his greasy and fatty diet catches up to him before he damages any more family relationships in the name of that tinpot review of authors.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Looks like the embrace is quite complete, Chris.

I don't apologize for my liberal shift, which was entirely the result of measured and conscientious reflection. Had I remained a conservative evangelical in spite of the results of my inquiries, then I would have cause to apologize.

To clarify, though, the most radical elements of my shift came after my exit from ministry.

I can't say that I'm surprised you now equate biblical fidelity in an evangelical church to the rule of an "ignorant mob," and, really, I can't even say I'm overly offended.

My apologies if the remark was offensive. It was intended to be mostly tongue-in-cheek, though I do think there's a certain amount of ignorance involved where people affirm 6-day creation and the subjugation of women and will not countenance other opinions. My mom is quite conservative except for not believing in inerrancy or 6-day creation, but she has been shut out of teaching ministries at church after church on that account.

I don't know exactly what church community you've migrated from, but I will state that my own experience radically contrasts with your own. My pastor is not an employee. He is "in charge" of his flock.

I came out of the Pentecostal tradition (which by the way tends to be highly fundamentalist).

If your church is congregationally governed, then your pastor is an employee of the congregation, at least in a sense. He is only "in charge" until the congregation or elders' board decide otherwise. Ergo, he is substantially constrained in terms of the approach he may take to leadership and the things he may teach from the pulpit.

And he would rightly be deposed were he to abandon biblical fidelity upon the altar of post-Enlightenment agnosticism.

An agnostic minister at an evangelical church wouldn't be much of a minister. If such an individual didn't have the integrity to step down, he should be deposed. In congregationally governed churches, the supremacy of the congregation is part of the deal when you enter ministry. If a minister is not prepared to submit to those terms, he shouldn't be there.

The point of my post, which you seem to have missed, was not that mob rule is horrible or that you are ignorant. It was that when ministers do not teach their moderate and/or nuanced theological perspectives from the pulpit, this is not to be chalked up to a lack of integrity or to some sort of deliberate sleight of hand cunningly designed to throw atheist critics off the trail. Rather, it is to be attributed to the complexities and politics involved in ministering to a church comprised of human beings. These complexities and politics are unfortunate but inevitable. Under such circumstances, evangelical ministers with moderate theological views and real faith commitments often hold their potentially controversial theological nuances in reserve and focus on what they perceive to be more important, which is the salvation and healing of souls. This is where I was at until my list of reservations reached a certain critical mass where I felt I was compromising my integrity by continuing in my ministerial position. At that time, I took advantage of circumstances that provided me with a convenient excuse to resign.

Although I no longer have a ready-made audience, my conscience is now unburdened and I am free to spread with impunity whatever principles I feel are true and important.

Best,

-Chris

[_bcspace]

I don't apologize for my liberal shift, which was entirely the result of measured and conscientious reflection.

Oh I highly doubt that. Besides being {moderator edit by harmony: personal attack}

[_CaliforniaKid]

Oh I highly doubt that. Besides being {Moderator edit by harmony: personal attack}i

You're right. I'm a psychopath. (I'm curious what you think is the meaning of the word "phrenological".)

[_GoodK]

Repeating that seething hyperbolic quote of mine in a display of high dudgeon, as you put it - like a rape victim - isn't going to make me feel chagrined. Not even slightly.

I'm not angry. Not even slightly.

I'm amused. Really amused.

Oh me too. Could you have reacted to an apt assessment of your sept of stamp collectors any more predictably?

I think some here have posted truly ridiculous things.

I think you have published some truly ridiculous things. Like this:

In the GoodKid's case, though,

Name calling now, eh?

On a side note, I am noticing that the moderators are giving Mormonism's biggest apologist (no pun intended) a pass when it comes to the new moderating standards.

For instance, if I say that the editor of the FARMS Review* is a "gutless old ward-heeler" (HST's assessment of Hubert Humphrey) that would certainly beget a red stamp.

I realize that I behaved irreverently toward one of his principal sacred cows, thus inflaming his perpetual belligerence yet again.

Ah... take it in folks. More of the scholastic rigor we all can feast upon in the pages of the FARMS Review*

Suggest that Richard Dawkins is blunderingly unqualified to vocalize on the subject of theology - and then try and reinforce that innuendo with a bizarre personal attack towards me ignoring the irony all the way home.

Again, is anything else to be expected from the editor of the FARMS Review*?

(Again an example of why I believe certain moderators here are catering - no pun intended - to the editor of the FARMS Review*)

of which his dogma speaks to him, and of which his imagination assures him.)

More steamy goodness from the brains behind the Mormon version of The American Stamp Dealer.


*FARMS REVIEW of Authors

[_antishock8]

Mr. Peterson, it seems, has a different standard here AND at MADB reference moderation. That's unfortunate. He never really adds anything of substance, preferring to insult people passively and deflect any obligation to discuss anything on a... Discussion board.