In apologetics, all is permitted.

[_Runtu]

John Larsen:

The example you gave in your OP, about the atonement having the power to alter the fundamental laws of physics, could be viewed as either a really good example of apologetics, or a really bad example of apologetics. I wonder what DCP thinks? Either way, it is a real example you didn't make up yourself, so I think you are off the hook as far as being accused of inventing self-serving definitions. And strawmen, for that matter.

Why did they suspend you this time?

[_The Dude]

It was in a thread started by J.S.Mill about proof of God, proof of UFOs, proof of Bigfoot. Somebody posted a link to an article by Blake Ostler, justifying belief in God based on personal spiritual experiences. I clicked on the link and got sent to an error page that said "Object Not Found" which made me laugh out loud. So I replied in a post saying the link said "Object Not Found" just like evidence for God cannot be found. Ha ha. I thought it was funny in the spirit of the thread. I got suspended for that.

[_solomarineris]

What is missing? What is not permitted? Maybe the only one you can come up with is "poor written". So long as it gets it point across, no mater how fantastic, it is generally acceptable.

DCP
Straw man.

Sorry DCP but you're stuck here, this is not a straw man issue.
Unlike most of us, your life is governed by Masters, (which you wouldn't deny yourself),
starting from Granddady of them all Almighty God, Prophets, BYU, Stake President and on and on....
This is not an enviable lifestyle to most of critical thinkers, skeptics, doubters and sinners, I might add.
I'm sure your brain constantly critiques, analyzes most of the issues you face but the outcome cannot be changed. You can think outside of box but you cannot act upon.
Doing so would cause a professional, ecclesiastical suicide.
I can respect that. I know ton of people pretend and live a righteous life in Utah.

[Guest]

First of all, "new scientific methods"? As far as I know, the scientific method dates back to at least the Greeks and hasn't really gone through any revision.

The notion that there exists, somewhere out there in the land of Platonic archetypes, something called The Scientific Method is high school stuff.

But, that aside, it ought to be obvious to you that, by "new scientific methods," innovative techniques were intended -- not The Scientific Method that you learned about in high school science.

this statement is entirely disingenuous

I'm sorry. My patience is gone. Your criticism is tiresome and sophomoric, and your uncivil habit of questioning my sincerity doesn't exactly make its wearying fatuity easier to take. As physicists are sometimes inclined to say these days, "it's not even wrong." But it's completely wrong-headed, and I just don't have the time (or, more importantly, the inclination) to try to help you. I'm not optimistic, anyway, that rescue is possible in your case. I doubt that you want it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Driving home, I thought about your problem a bit.

You fundamentally misconceive the structure of the issues and arguments, it's true, but your muddle is fairly common among certain brighter-than-average critics, and your misunderstanding, although in a sense obvious, is a relatively subtle one.

I've addressed some elements of it already:

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... m=2&id=621

But, of course, there's much more to be said. (There always is.) Trouble is, I don't have time (or the inclination) to do a one-on-one tutorial, especially when I'm not sure that you're really even open to learning on this matter, nor do I want to spend a lot of time on something like this for the small handful of largely hostile and, frankly, often quite unserious posters on this board.

But you've impelled me to consider, once again, writing a treatise on the method, logic, character, and scope of apologetics -- one, though, that would go considerably beyond what you've raised here and that would draw upon such disparate thinkers as Paul Feyerabend, Avery Cardinal Dulles, Peter Novick, Karl Popper, and the like. But the project that I've envisioned will easily take a year or two, at the absolute minimum. (Other projects beckon.)

[_John Larsen]

Dr. Peterson:

I look forward to your future treatise. I believe it will be enjoyable and well thought out.

As to my misunderstanding of the mechanisms of science, reason and underlying issues of thought: your accusation is not a new one, I have been accused many times of not understanding the scientific methodology several times. But oddly enough, it has always been by individuals engaged in the defense of their faith based system. I have had many opportunities to engage scientists about their work, and they have never levied the same accusation. I actually make my living in a scientific endeavor, and so far my career has been successful based in no small part on my understanding of these core concepts. I will pass on the one-on-one tutorial. Since my (good) scientific education began at BYU by intelligent and thoughtful professors, I feel I understand the interface of both worlds.

I think that the view that you and some others hold is not that far off of mainstream, and I understand that you only depart with mainstream science on subtle nuance (although there are a large number of loud "apologists", some with the bully pulpit, who have no idea of what they are talking about. You are not one of them). Given a handful of propositions that you needfully accept based on faith and desire only, the rest works for you without too much hitch. I also understand that there are many notable scientists who hold the same sort of faith based belief, although it is telling that those beliefs rarely interfere with their main line work.

As a partial aside, I read over on MAD that you were an agnostic in your youth. I knew that you were a convert but I didn't know you were atheistic. That is interesting and I though about it last night. I believe that you and I are very similar in ways. I presume that you found some of the "answers" provided by agnostics to be unsatisfactory, and Mormonism provided an emotional and intellectual satisfaction to many of those questions. Similarly, I found that Mormonism left many gaps and unanswered questions, which answers I have found to be satisfied by a rejection of the supernatural claims of Mormonism. In a way, you and I sit in a position not shared by many critics and defenders, we understand both spiritually and mentally both sides of the issue.