Questions I'd like to see Peterson "actually answer (and not

[_Daniel Peterson]

If your point was that I was asserting that Dr. Miller had made a deliberate decision to omit information that contradicted his assertion, then why were you referring to the "history of science"?

Two different issues, beastie. Two totally separate and distinct issues.

Sorry you're confused.

There are not many options for why Dr. Miller omitted this information. I invite you to provide an option other than the ones I've provided.

Do you really have so much trouble focusing?

You asserted that he deliberately deceived.

I noted that you had asserted that he deliberately deceived.

You denied asserting that he had deliberately deceived.

I quoted you saying that he had deliberately deceived.

And now you suddenly act as if that was never at issue.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've had experiences in which such promptings have been remarkably clear, and quite distinct from, even opposed to, my emotions.

And stronger than your logical deductions?

It depends on which logical deductions we're talking about. Deductive logic is more assured than inductive.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Given that there's no way to calibrate or judge these experiences, I find it highly suspicious that you believe they emanate from the same forces that you happen to have been taught to believe in as a child.

You presume far, far too much.

I was raised by a non-Mormon father and an essentially non-practicing inactive very marginal Mormon mother in a very non-Mormon environment outside of the Mormon corridor. We didn't read the scriptures together, seldom went to church, etc.

Very presumptuous on your part to imagine that you have me figured out.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Huh. So you don't see a substantial difference between claiming that it is problematic for a person to assert one must believe a religious proposition before seeing the evidence in favor of it and claiming that scientists harbor no pre-existing beliefs when thinking about propositions?

Interesting.

And inaccurate.

Does anybody here ever get anything substantially right? Is the ideology so powerful that you can't even understand your opponent's position? Do you try? Does anybody here try?

Please. Please. Try to restore my confidence.

It's going fast.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Oh heavens, no need to be so touchy. I'm not pulling anything. At worst, I might think you are engaging in rhetorical jousting, something for which you have obvious relish.

I am not referring to objectively verifiable facts or logical self-evidents. I am referring to matters of belief, opinion, conviction, faith, etc.

Well, then I've addressed those.

[_Daniel Peterson]

As Mormonism writ large is an arrogantly, self-assured belief system that constitutes an indiscernible blip on the scope of any significance.

I am happy to concede that this board is nothing more than a blip and has no real significance for anything. (It is nothing more than a way to pass a few idle minutes.)

Mormon egocentricity, however, will admit no similar concession.

It seems that I would be egocentrically wasting your time if I were to take more of it for discussing anything related to my arrogantly self-assured belief system.

Best wishes.

[_EAllusion]

And inaccurate.

You said there was no substantial difference between asserting this, "
There is something problematic with the assertion that one must already hold active belief in religious proposition p in order to appreciate the rationally coherent (secular) case for p."

and thinking this

"...scholars and scientists always, often, or even commonly approach their subjects without any pre-existing beliefs?"

My wording and yours. If your post was a reply to Beastie's post, happily she was getting at the same thing and got the same line of reply.

Does anybody here ever get anything substantially right? Is the ideology so powerful that you can't even understand your opponent's position? Do you try? Does anybody here try?

An odd statement for someone repeatedly mischaracterizing opponent positions into strawmen to make.

[_Ray A]

It depends on which logical deductions we're talking about. Deductive logic is more assured than inductive.

I presume that means that "inductive logic" (inductive reasoning) also includes "the spiritual"?

Deductive (2+2) is definitely more secure than inductive ("there were Nephites"), and I think this is the separation beastie was trying to point out.

On another note, Kierkegaard believed that "one must believe because it is absurd". If it was logical, testable and empirical it would not be belief. My take on this is that Kierkegaard "felt" the fruits of "Christian living", but could not logically explain it. So rather than trying to appease his opponents, he offered another realm, perhaps articulated by Paul in his observation that "we see through a glass darkly". I would call that inductive reasoning. "Something works, but I'm not sure why it works, so I'll stick with it anyway."

I have next to nothing against this, but trying to justify belief by resorting to the exact dimensions of the Ark, and how all the animals got aboard, or Jaredite submarines, seems to be an unhealthy conflation of logical and deductive reasoning.

"Spiritual beliefs" are more often than not based on personal experiences, as you noted. That doesn't mean they're invalid. It just means they can't be tested in a laboratory.

[Guest]

I think you can distinguish the "promptings of the holy ghost" in a way that is distinct from emotions in the sense that "promptings of the holy ghost" gets attributed to a wider array of cognitive phenomena than just emotional states. The limbic "goosebumpy tingling" emotional state that people get when moved in certain ways is something Mormons are known for attributing to a spirit-being attempting to reveal important information, but that is far from the only thing that gets folded into spiritual experience. Everyone experiences that and and a burning sensation aptly describes it at times, so I think some mistakenly assume that's all Mormons are talking about. That would be a mistake. It runs from full-on auditory experiences to the classic mystical sense of "oneness and tranquility" to the above kind of experience, and to even many other things.

It also would be a mistake to think LDS are all on the same page with one another when they talk about promptings of the holy ghost, spiritual experiences, personal revelation and the like. You really need to find out just what kind of experiences the person is talking about to get a sense of what they are interpreting as supernatural communication, because it can vary significantly. The Church isn't exactly interested in rigorously studying the different kinds of experiences that "count" and why. For some, you would be right to guess they are talking about a special class of emotional states. For others, that couldn't be more wrong.

[_Daniel Peterson]

An odd statement for someone repeatedly mischaracterizing opponent positions into strawmen to make.

I don't do that intentionally, if I do it at all. Maybe you folks don't either.

Maybe we just don't communicate well.

Maybe it's not all that important, anyway.

Maybe it's not worth the effort.