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

[_Daniel Peterson]

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

Not in my view, no.

On another note, Kierkegaard believed that "one must believe because it is absurd".

Typically, the sentiment is attributed to Tertullian. I don't think it's typically used correctly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum

If it was logical, testable and empirical it would not be belief.

See above.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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. 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.

I agree with something EAllusion says!

Time to quit.

[_EAllusion]

Hallucinations can seem just as real as veridical experiences do. In those cases, you can't distinguish the two by what gives yourself a basic sense of reality. That doesn't mean an individual is in a hopeless state when it comes to figuring out what perceptions are real and what are not. It's just that criteria extrinsic to the experience itself is used. This can get complex quick, but to pick one important example, you look for intersubjectivity. Are other subjects with the same cognitive equipment able to sense the same phenomenon in a reliable way with similar descriptions? To the extent they can't, are you creating unjustified or implausible ad hocs to deal with this?

You know, that sort of thing.

[Guest]

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.

With millions of adherents, the Mormon Church has people of every kind. In my experience, they run the gamut, same as any other large group, no better no worse. It has its fair share of insufferably arrogant, narrow minded, judgmental, self-righteous jerks, but it is also full of wonderful people, real salt of the earth types.

The institutional Church, however, is, in my opinion, authoritarian, controlling, unethical, power hungry, arrogant, and grandiosely (and undeservedly) self-important.

I try not to confuse the institutional Church with its members and to take the members as they come, rather than judge them as a group (though I do believe that there are certain pronounced and less pronounced general tendencies among LDS membership). I do not always succeed, but I am at least aware that this is a correct principle.

I should add that I was in no way implying anything about you personally Dan. If you took it that way, I apologize.

[Tator]

I think everyone should pause for a moment and appreciate the solemnity and honor of taking part in a watershed moment in the history of science. Right before our eyes, we are seeing solid evidence that parallel universes exist, because clearly DCP has been reading and posting on this thread in a parallel universe, where the posters are the same, but their comments are different. He’s just confusing universes in his replies.

I apologize for the lengthy reply, but untangling two universes takes some time.

(note: I provided a "cliff notes" version of this reply immediately below this one for those not interested in reading this lengthier version)

The beastie in this universe said:

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"?

The beastie in this universe was referring to this exchange:

DCP had objected that I never addressed his primary issue:

And no, you didn't actually address my point in Bullet #3. What you addressed wasn't my point.

DCP is now clarifying that this is his primary issue:

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.

No wonder I’m confused. Obviously he’s confusing beastie in this universe with the parallel universe he’s been visiting, perhaps through a worm-hole or some such.

Here’s what the beastie in this universe said about Dr. Miller:

Perhaps believers can appreciate the concerns of those not as persuaded that revelation is “possibly more so” valid than other preconceptions, who may not view the ignoring of data as justified at all. In fact, those same people may wonder if apologists are being deliberately misleading, when they make assertions about bows and arrows that contradict the accepted conclusions of the vast majority of professional Mesoamericanists, to use just one example.


Here’s another easy example, this one from the Journey of Faith DVD:

Under the special features section, one section is called “The Flora and Fauna of the Book of Mormon Lands”. One of their experts, “Wade E. Miller, Geology and Paleontology” was commenting on the animal life in the Book of Mormon. He said: “They would have found horses here, which are for the most part easily domesticated. The earliest horses in the world were here in North America, and it wasn’t until later, geologically speaking, that they got into the Old World.”

Why did Dr. Miller ignore the well accepted premise that while the EARLIEST horses were in North America, they went extinct approximately 11,000 years ago, and were re-introduced by Europeans many years past the Book of Mormon time period?

Can I assume that Dr. Miller, as an expert in geology and paleontology, was aware of this information? I can only hope so. So it is reasonable to assume that Dr. Miller was aware of this contradictory information, but chose to ignore it. Maybe he believes the data is flawed, or that future findings will reveal the existence of the horse during the Book of Mormon time period. I think that’s the most likely explanation, since there must be some way he justified such an egregious omission.

This is the danger of certain “knowledge”. Once one “knows”, then one can justify ignoring data that contradicts that certain “knowledge”.

DCP responded, to the bolded sentence:

Although, of course, you would be very reluctant to wonder such a thing, and would only do so as a last resort.

I responded:

I actually do try and reserve for a last resort. Sometimes the examples are so egregious that it does seem the only reasonable conclusion. I classify Dr. Miller’s statement as one such example. He had to know that his statement was going to mislead his audience into believing something that the vast majority of scholars in his field reject.

In addition:

The only other alternative is that he is so ill-informed that he really doesn’t know that the vast majority of scholars in the field accept that the horse went extinct 11,000 years ago. I find that far more difficult to believe than that he simply decided that the fact that the Book of Mormon is “true” and that, one day, perhaps evidence of the horse will be found after all, justified this serious omission.

by the way, it never ceases to amuse me how eagerly apologists dumb down Americans. It hardly takes “superior knowledge” of the history of science to know:

1. the vast majority of scholars accept that the New World horse went extinct around 11,000 years ago
2. the vast majority of Mesoamericanists see no evidence of the bow or arrow prior to around 900 AD
3. if scholars are going to propose a theory that requires rejecting either of these widely accepted pieces of information, those same scholars, if being responsible, will warn their audience that they are so doing – else, the audience may erroneously assume the scholar is making a statement that correlates with the vast majority of scholars in his/her field.

DCP:

I don't know Dr. Miller, but I'm sure that you're right in labeling him a deliberate deceiver.

And I bow to your superior knowledge of the history of science, etc. (Why have I wasted so much time on this today?)

And

My comment about the history of science had absolutely nothing whatever to do you with the extinction of the horse or evidence for Mesoamerican bows and arrows. It was a more general theoretical point than that, and you missed it completely. I'm fine with that. However, I'm still operating on what I believe to be the reasonable hypothesis that Morrissey is a serious discussion partner.

Perhaps readers who, like me, are in this universe can understand my confusion. DCP is talking about Dr. Miller, but he’s also referring to more “general theoretical point” that I missed completely.

Yet, still confused about even his own posts between the two universes, DCP reminded me that his primary point was whether or not I had called Miller a “deliberate deceiver”, by sharing these past posts to make his point:

DCP

beastie wrote:
In fact, those same people may wonder if apologists are being deliberately misleading.

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Although, of course, you would be very reluctant to wonder such a thing, and would only do so as a last resort.

beastie wrote:
I actually do try and reserve for a last resort. Sometimes the examples are so egregious that it does seem the only reasonable conclusion. I classify Dr. Miller’s statement as one such example. He had to know that his statement was going to mislead his audience into believing something that the vast majority of scholars in his field reject.

If DCP were firmly grounded in this universe, and was not being subjected to the confusing worm-hole effect of switching back and forth between parallel universes, he would understand that when he asserted that his primary point, which I missed was:

a more general theoretical point

it would be reasonable for the beastie in this universe to not understand that his primary point was, in fact, no more general theoretical point at all, but whether or not I had called Miller a deliberate deceiver.

But no matter. Understanding the confusion has been caused by shifting universes, I will address DCP’s primary concern.

DCP now claims that I denied calling Miller a deliberate deceiver. What I actually denied was that this was a fair paraphrase of my statement about Miller:

DCP

No, I don't know that. If I misunderstood you, explain. Don't pull the standard-issue beastie stunt of presuming that I'm a dishonest cretin operating in bad faith.

When I pointed out that I had made no such presumption about DCP, he reminded me of Dr. Miller. So this can only mean that, to DCP, these two statements are equivalent:

Can I assume that Dr. Miller, as an expert in geology and paleontology, was aware of this information? I can only hope so. So it is reasonable to assume that Dr. Miller was aware of this contradictory information, but chose to ignore it. Maybe he believes the data is flawed, or that future findings will reveal the existence of the horse during the Book of Mormon time period. I think that’s the most likely explanation, since there must be some way he justified such an egregious omission.

dishonest cretin operating in bad faith

Here’s another reason I was confused by what DCP’s point actually was. Earlier his responses seemed to indicate that it was normal and accepted for scholars to ignore information that seemed to contradict their theories, as this exchange would indicate.

Beastie:

Perhaps believers can appreciate the concerns of those not as persuaded that revelation is “possibly more so” valid than other preconceptions, who may not view the ignoring of data as justified at all.

DCP’s response:

As anybody versed in the history of science knows, anomalies are never put on the shelf, and theories are never adopted until they've been proven.

Readers in this universe may be forgiven for assuming that DCP is saying that, “in the history of science”, anomalies – ie, data that contradicts the theory – are “put on the shelf”, ie, ignored.

So why is DCP now so certain that I really called Miller a dishonest cretin operating in bad faith, if what Miller did is actually par for the course in the history of science? Could it be that DCP had no adequate rebuttal for my reply that:

If scholars choose to ignore widely accepted theories regarding their areas of expertise in order to explore a new option, then same scholars, if responsible, will alert their audience that they are doing just that. But this is not how the examples I provided were worded. There was nothing in either example to alert the audience that the scholar was forming a generalization that required ignoring accepted data and theories about the item in question. Both Dr. Clark and Dr. Miller stated the information as if it reflected accepted knowledge about the point in question.

Now, readers who, like me, are not shifting between two parallel universes will understand that I would classify Dr. Miller as one who would feel justified ignoring contradictory data. There is no reasonable doubt that, in his statements on the DVD, Dr. Miller did, indeed, ignore contradictory data – and, by the way, data that is nearly universally accepted, which is that the New World horse went extinct 11,000 years ago. It is reasonable to assume he felt justified doing so, otherwise, he wouldn’t have done so. Why does he feel justified? The most reasonable conclusion is that because he believes the Book of Mormon is true, he believes – like many MADdites – that the science that states that the New World horse went extinct 11,000 years ago is fundamentally flawed and is just missing the evidence that will eventually be found. Why would he believe this? Well, science is flawed, as a human endeavor, and sometimes evidence is missed, so since he knows the Book of Mormon is true, that must be the case here, as well.

Now, is it fair to paraphrase my statements as: Dr. Miller is a dishonest cretin operating in bad faith?

Of course not. There are multiple problems with that summary. I specified that I was uncomfortable with a possible explanation that depended upon Miller truly being unaware of the fact that New World horses went extinct 11,000 years ago. So clearly I do not believe he’s a “cretin”. Is it fair to say I think he’s operating in bad faith? Obviously not. I clearly stated that his firm conviction that the Book of Mormon is true likely creates the conviction that New World horses probably did not really go completely extinct, and that flawed science has simply overlooked that evidence. So he probably really believes that the Nephites “would have found horses here”. If someone is sharing information that bolsters what he/she sincerely believes to be true, that is not “operating in bad faith”.

I do, however, think it is dishonest not to qualify his comments by explaining that the vast majority of scholars do, in fact, believe the New World horse went extinct 11,000 years ago, and would not be found on this continent until after the European re-introduction of horses.

In short, I have never denied that he “deliberately deceived”. But DCP can be forgiven for his confusion, given the shifting universes. I did deny that it was fair to paraphrase my comments as asserting that means he’s a dishonest cretin operating in bad faith.

Did Miller deliberately deceive?

There are only two options that would disprove that assumption:

1. Dr. Miller does not know that the vast majority of scholars assert that the New World horse went extinct 11,000 years ago.
2. Dr. Miller does know that this fact, but does not believe omitting this information constitutes deception.

I’ll let readers judge for themselves by rereading Miller’s statement:

Under the special features section, one section is called “The Flora and Fauna of the Book of Mormon Lands”. One of their experts, “Wade E. Miller, Geology and Paleontology” was commenting on the animal life in the Book of Mormon. He said: “They would have found horses here, which are for the most part easily domesticated. The earliest horses in the world were here in North America, and it wasn’t until later, geologically speaking, that they got into the Old World.”

They would have found horses here.
They would have found horses here.
They would have found horses here.

Dr. Miller believes they would have found horses here, because the Book of Mormon says they found horses here, and he “knows” the Book of Mormon is true.

Dr. Miller knows that the vast majority of scholars would NOT believe “they would have found horses here”.

Dr. Miller has been presented as an authority on the topic.

Unless his audience knows better, his audience will assume that his statements represent what authorities on the topic would accept.

Was this a deliberate deception?

In my view, the only answer is “yes”. But he’s not a cretin, and he didn’t operate in bad faith, when he likely genuinely believes science will eventually prove him right.

I spent a lot of time on this because I think it’s instructive. This illustrates why dialogue between the two sides is almost impossible. When I say that Dr. Miller chose to ignore accepted data that contradicts his theory because he knows the Book of Mormon is true, so believes science will eventually provide support for that theory, DCP “hears” that Dr. Miller is a dishonest cretin operating in bad faith.

In fact, even now, after pages of explanation, I truly believe DCP will continue to feel justified in so paraphrasing my comments.

The only way to avoid these type of miscommunications is for the critic to bend over backwards, to try and second-guess the worst possible way for his/her words to be “heard”, and to try and avoid that confusion by reassuring believers, from the get-go, that is not the intent. Some critics are good at that. I don’t have the patience for it. Even if I did, it takes a lot of time and imagination to successfully anticipate the worst possible way for your words to be heard. And that is one point I agree with DCP on: it’s not worth it.

[_beastie]

Here's the Cliff notes for folks not interested in plowing through my lengthier, more detailed response:

I did not deny that I said Miller was a deliberate deceiver. I denied that it was a fair paraphrase to say this meant Miller is a dishonest cretin operating in bad faith.

Miller obviously deceived his audience in that he was presented as an authority in the field, and as that authority, he asserted the Nephites would have found horses in the New World. I assume that since this was an important DVD in LDS apologia, that was a deliberate decision.

Nothing I said implied Miller was a "cretin". Nothing I said implied Miller was operating in bad faith. He likely "knows" the Book of Mormon is true, so likely believes that the science that today says the New World horse went extinct 11,000 years ago is fundamentally flawed and mistaken, and that one day science will "catch up" to the real truth. In other words, he believes what he was saying is true. He just deceived the audience by not alerting them to the fact that the vast majority of scholars do not presently agree with his summary, so his status as an authority should not be interpreted to mean such.

[_beastie]

Of course, there is a third possibility that explains Miller's misleading statements on the DVD. Perhaps he really did clarify that in asserting that "they would have found horses there", he was not in accordance with the vast majority of scholars in the field, but whoever edited his portion decided to delete that section.

I don't believe this is the most likely scenario, however, because of the context of the full comments:“They would have found horses here, which are for the most part easily domesticated. The earliest horses in the world were here in North America, and it wasn’t until later, geologically speaking, that they got into the Old World.”

I guess it's possible that he really said:
“They would have found horses here, which are for the most part easily domesticated. The earliest horses in the world were here in North America, and it wasn’t until later, geologically speaking, that they got into the Old World. It should be noted that experts in the field today believe that the New World horse went extinct 11,000 years ago, and were reintroduced on the continent by Europeans. I personally, do not agree with that conclusion, but it is the conclusion of the majority of experts in the field.”

...and some editor decided to delete the italicized portion. That would be most unfortunate for Dr. Miller. Again, I don't think this is the likely scenario, but it's possible. And in that case, Dr. Miller would not have deliberately misled the audience himself, but would have been an unfortunate puppet in the hands of others who did.

I will add that, no matter which scenario is accurate, that this is an example of unfortunate and arguably incompetent editing. The fact that the vast majority of scholars believe the New World horse went extinct 11,000 years ago is hardly an esoteric bit of trivia, known by few. Lots of people, including believers, are aware of this fact. So it seems quite a glaring error – no matter who made the error – to be allowed to remain in the final cut. It seems remarkably careless for people who, in general, believe others lurk to make them “offenders for a word.” Why make it so easy for those malicious folks?

[_Ray A]

Even if I did, it takes a lot of time and imagination to successfully anticipate the worst possible way for your words to be heard. And that is one point I agree with DCP on: it’s not worth it.

We have two contrasting boards, MAD and MDB. On MAD "this place" is known as "the board that shall not be named" (along with RFM). I can see how both are talking past each other. Even in this thread I can see it. Your posts above demonstrate how DCP perceives himself and other apologists as being perceived here, as "cretins" (missing important clarifying points in your posts). On MAD, and by some apologists, you are perceived as being "out to destroy the Church/Mormonism" , or as some kind of "apostle of atheism". I know both are totally incorrect. I know enough about you to know what your real motivations are, because you've stated them, publicly and privately, ad infinitum, yet some apologists still don't see it. Sometimes your more "impatient" posts are just responses to very poor and sometimes disingenuous defenses of Mormonism. Likewise some of mine. I presume most don't enjoy being corrected or challenged, but it's good for the intellect (and humility).

On the other hand, I can also see how DCP has been incorrectly perceived by many ex-Mormons. First of all because I know that in real life he's nothing of the ogre some perceive him to be. Secondly, knowing this, I can also see how many of his posts come across as curt, overly defensive, even rude at times.

So what's needed is more effort to understand the other point of view, and I think you've done a good job of that above. It's a very charitable approach to take, not assuming the worst of Dr. Miller, yet still pointing out where he could have done more so as not to mislead people, especially members of the Church who will hang on to their words. This is the cause of much disillusionment among those who leave. The best example of someone who virtually gives his critics ammunition to shoot him is Dale. He doesn't wait for others to point out the weaknesses in his arguments - he tells them what they are. That's one reason I take Dale seriously. But other than that, most of the time we really talk past each other. The word "apologist" offends some, and the word "anti-Mormon" offends others, but I think we need to go beyond taking offences to really talk to each other.

I've always said that I admire the Mormons (most anyway, I really don't have much time for Droopy's sporadic atom-bombing and labelling) who post here, and it's necessary to have them here. Your effort to portray Dr. Miller in as accurate light as possible is something that would yet be met with further attacks on you if you did this at MAD. And that's what's unfortunate, and it symbolises the barrier. Likewise DCP is often misunderstood here. The only difference is that here there's not a snowflake's chance in hell that he would be banned, whereas you would be just for trying, albeit at times very bluntly, call the shots as you see them on MAD. As the former founder of the Australian Democrats here in Oz often said, his job, as a minor party leader, but one that co-jointly held the balance of power, was to "keep the bastards honest", that is, both of the major parties in power. It's actually an affectionate Aussie term and not intended to offend. And I think in that sense we maybe need people, on both sides, to "keep the bastards honest". And that includes curbing the extremes from both sides.

[_JohnStuartMill]

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.

I'm familiar with your story, which is why I chose the words I did. Do you deny that you were taught to believe in the Mormon interpretation of "the Holy Ghost" as a child, or is my characterization more or less accurate?

[_beastie]

I've always said that I admire the Mormons (most anyway, I really don't have much time for Droopy's sporadic atom-bombing and labelling) who post here, and it's necessary to have them here. Your effort to portray Dr. Miller in as accurate light as possible is something that would yet be met with further attacks on you if you did this at MAD. And that's what's unfortunate, and it symbolises the barrier. Likewise DCP is often misunderstood here. The only difference is that here there's not a snowflake's chance in hell that he would be banned, whereas you would be just for trying, albeit at times very bluntly, call the shots as you see them on MAD. As the former founder of the Australian Democrats here in Oz often said, his job, as a minor party leader, but one that co-jointly held the balance of power, was to "keep the bastards honest", that is, both of the major parties in power. It's actually an affectionate Aussie term and not intended to offend. And I think in that sense we maybe need people, on both sides, to "keep the bastards honest". And that includes curbing the extremes from both sides.

Ray, I agree with the points you've made.

I know that DCP gets attacked here, sometimes in personal ways. I've really tried to refrain from those sort of attacks, although I can be, and will be, merciless in my "attack" on claims or arguments I find lacking. I don't recall ever having stated, or insinuated, that apologists are "cretins" who are operating in "bad faith". In fact, I'm pretty sure I've repeatedly asserted that apologists are generally very intelligent people who believe that they're doing the right thing. But I understand that's not what DCP "hears", and it may be due to the personal attacks he's received over the years.

At the same time, I recognize I can be quite blunt.

It is dismaying to see one's words be interpreted in the worst possible manner, a manner I never intended. It's happened so often I think it's just par for the course, part of the natural impediment to communication between two groups with so wide a divide. And I know believers often feel the same way, that their words are interpreted in the worst possible manner, as well. It is such an ingrained part of humanity to divide into "tribes", and to see the worst in the "other" tribe, while not noticing our own tribe is usually engaging in the same behavior. We don't notice because we justify the behavior when it's our own tribe, and fail to recognize the other side engages in the exact same type of justifications.