Mormon apologists are necessarily cranks

[_Doctor Scratch]

Sure I'm jealous, Dr. Peterson. Who wouldn't be?

Gee, off the top of my head? I'll tell you what: if you're willing to go out on a limb and endorse the book as being non-"crank-ish," and if you're willing to stand in support of the book's techniques, observations, science, etc., I might be willing to go down this path with you.

In other words, you haven't read it.

Lol. No, I've read portions of it---whatever I was able to access via either Google books or Amazon's "Look Inside" feature.

Nice attempt at a dodge, though. I guess it's safe to assume that you believe in UFOs, too? And that this book was in no way "crank-ish"?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Sure I'm jealous, Dr. Peterson. Who wouldn't be?

LOL.

No, I've read portions of it---whatever I was able to access via either Google books or Amazon's "Look Inside" feature.

Not exactly overwhelming.

Nice attempt at a dodge, though.

No dodge.

I guessed that you hadn't read the book, and you've now confirmed that you haven't read the book.

Your relationship to Mormon scholarship strikes me as basically comparable to the relationship of People Magazine or Entertainment Weekly to film-making. Except, of course, that you're consumed with hatred.

I guess it's safe to assume that you believe in UFOs, too?

Is it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

And that this book was in no way "crank-ish"?

Crank-ish is so vague and subjective a term that you're probably free to use it for just about anything or anybody you choose. But that also means that using it has little real value.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Lol, Dan. What a big surprise that one of the first tactics you trot out is this predictable, "Oh, well, have you read it?" It's not as if you haven't been guilty of this yourself--including your dismissal of Bob McCue's critique of your embarrassingly bad "Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism" without your having read the entirety of what he wrote.

But perhaps you want to explain how and why one has to read all of, say, Dianetics in order to formulate an opinion on whether or not it is "crank-ish"? Sure: if you read it all, you get a Gold Star for being thorough, and no one can accuse you of having overlooked anything. But is it really necessary? Methinks not. And methinks you agree.

And that this book was in no way "crank-ish"?

Crank-ish is so vague and subjective a term that you're probably free to use it for just about anything or anybody you choose. But that also means that using it has little real value.

Is it really all that "vague and subjective" in this case? I don't think so. If you want to defend the book, and to explain how it's not "crank"-ish, then by all means go ahead. I'm really interested in seeing you explain how this is a serious and substantive work of UFOlogy. Come on, Prof. P. I know you're up for it.

But that's not really what this is about, is it? It's instead about your ridiculous terror that anyone involved with MST could be legitimately labeled a "crank." Well, this guy isn't really the only one, is he? What about that woman who got lambasted for her posts over at MDD a few months back? What was her name?

Regardless, I seriously doubt that you need to worry in any significant way that your primary audience for MST will be in the least way affected by learning that so-and-so is a crank. As long as the appropriate credentials are in place, most TBMs won't care, as I'm sure you know.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Lol, Dan. What a big surprise that one of the first tactics you trot out is this predictable, "Oh, well, have you read it?"

Predictable largely because your flippant dismissals of things you haven't read are so predictable.

You're more attitude than substance.

your embarrassingly bad "Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism"

Reminiscent of your reference, yesterday or the day before, to Jack Welch's purportedly "embarrassing" work on chiasmus.

Dismissive adjectives can't do all your heavy lifting for you, Scratch.

Substance. That's the thing. Substance.

It's instead about your ridiculous terror

What "ridiculous terror"?

You make these fictions up, and then try to use them as evidence for your further fictions.

that anyone involved with MST could be legitimately labeled a "crank."

You just want to slap a label on somebody whose position you don't like, so that you can dismiss him without having to do the actual work of presenting a substantial argument.

In this case, the one you're trying to dismiss has a Ph.D. from Caltech, taught for decades at respectable state universities, chaired a couple of academic departments, published widely (including in Nature and with Oxford), and etc. It's rather lazy on your part, but quite typical of you, to try to marginalize him by sheer verbal fiat. And it's especially ironic when you yourself are so spectacularly weird. If I were you, I would be very careful about bringing up the word crank.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Dan---

I have to admit that I'm a little confused why you're arguing with me over this issue. You won't defend the man's UFO work, and that's what I labeled "crank-ish." I think it's terrific that he got a Ph.D. from CalTech, that he published widely, and that he had a respectable (ahem) publication record. (I would have loved to see his alien spaceship work turn up in Nature.) Heck, it's even kind of terrific (in a funny way) that he purchased that "Who's Who" entry for himself.

As I'm sure you realize, I only brought him up as a comparison with the bulk of LDS apologists. Compared with most Mopologists, this guy seems--on account of his UFOlogy--like more of a crank.

[_Daniel Peterson]

People Magazine stuff, Scratch. Your forté. Your métier. And, it's increasingly obvious, the limit of your capacity.

No substance.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Well, Dan, the "substance" here is whether the guy's UFO work is "crank-ish" or not. You refuse to deal with the question, so I guess there's little else to say on the matter.

[_Buffalo]

People Magazine stuff, Scratch. Your forté. Your métier. And, it's increasingly obvious, the limit of your capacity.

No substance.

Daniel, the question we all want to know is, do you want to believe?

[_mikwut]

Hi Buffalo,

"Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who unshakably holds a belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[1] A "cranky" belief is so wildly at variance with commonly accepted belief as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate an often futile task.

Your last "do you want to believe?" post made me think of a couple things. First, the above fits perfectly well as a descriptor for atheism. Most contemporaries consider it false, it is wildly at variance with the commonly accepted belief and atheists dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate an often futile task. Someone could without any subtlety state, there is really no disputing this. You can't be an atheist and not also be a crank.

I don't believe atheists are cranks, I believe you are demonstrating a lack of an ability towards proper nuance and context.

Secondly, I am reminded of a quote by Thomas Nagel regarding the fear of religion:

In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and wellinformed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.

- from, The Last Word.

So, Bufflao, inquiring minds also want to know, do you want to believe in atheism?

my best, mikwut

[_Buffalo]

Hi Buffalo,


Your last "do you want to believe?" post made me think of a couple things. First, the above fits perfectly well as a descriptor for atheism. Most contemporaries consider it false, it is wildly at variance with the commonly accepted belief and atheists dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate an often futile task. Someone could without any subtlety state, there is really no disputing this. You can't be an atheist and not also be a crank.

I'm not aware of any evidence at odds with atheism - could you provide me with some? I can certainly provide you with all the evidence you like that is at odds with any superstitious belief you care to examine.

To date I'm not aware of any evidence that shows the existence of any deities at all. This is perfectly in line with atheist thought.