Debating Religion

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Debating Religion

Post by _Kishkumen »

I enjoy listening to wacky podcasts. One of my favorites is Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio. One of the regular guests is a freelance writer named Scott Smith who has left Mormonism and is now a self-proclaimed Gnostic. Listening to Scott’s voice, one can readily hear his LDS background, in my opinion. Before I knew he was Mormon, I knew he was Mormon. In any case, Scott recently debated Jan Dyer, another independent author who writes on esoteric subjects but is Greek Orthodox.

The debate was Greek Orthodoxy versus Gnosticism. I found it thoroughly frustrating. Jan Dyer really knew his stuff, but his stuff was pretty weak. Sure, if you start with the presupposition that Orthodox faith is true, then all of his points seem to follow from there. The worst part of the whole thing was Smith’s failure to call Dyer on his BS. It was hardly a debate at all. Dyer would tear Smith to shreds, and Smith would just take the subjective approach. “My experience is....” “In my book I wrote....”

But Dyer was uttering howlers left and right, such as, “We Orthodox believe that Adam, Eve, and Moses were real people.” On what basis? Where’s the evidence? Scott Smith says nothing.

Dyer’s apologetic position is like that of many apologists. They want to use history when it is convenient for their position, but they feel they should be free to assume the historicity of an anachronistic set of claims with only theology as a justification. If I can use theology to write out the inconsistencies of my history whenever I want, I can never be wrong! But I should not be able to use history unless I use it consistently. I can’t say Moses existed just because I need him to exist for my narrative to work. To say he exists is to say he is a historical figure. He can only be such if we have evidence to support that position.

There are many decent and highly intelligent scholars who pursue history with passion for the purpose of bolstering their religious views. I know and like them. But I have to admit that their religious aims and blind spots are irritating. I don’t like watching people research other religions for polemical-theological purposes. I don’t like to watch people misuse history to argue in favor of their faith.

If you are interested in this particular “debate,” see https://thegodabovegod.com/orthodoxy-vs-gnosticism-debate/

Another example is Brian Hales’ recent article in BYU Studies on naturalistic explanations of the Book of Mormon. It is about what you would expect. Hales is setting up explanations that do not satisfy him as a straw man and then declaring victory for the supernatural explanation. It is worth reading for exposure to some interesting comparanda, but it is disappointing to see Hales substitute defense of the received faithful narrative for actual historical investigation. I don’t begrudge him his belief, but I do regret his failure of curiosity.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: Debating Religion

Post by _Lemmie »

another example is Brian Hales’ recent article in BYU Studies on naturalistic explanations of the Book of Mormon. It is about what you would expect. Hales is setting up explanations that do not satisfy him as a straw man and then declaring victory for the supernatural explanation. It is worth reading for exposure to some interesting comparanda, but it is disappointing to see Hales substitute defense of the received faithful narrative for actual historical investigation. I don’t begrudge him his belief, but I do regret his failure of curiosity.

I agree, as I skimmed through that I kept expecting him to get to a point, any point! How does documenting the evolution of the naturalistic explanations give any support for the supernatural one? If anything, he is just giving chapel Mormons ideas. Bad ideas. Shelf-breaking ideas, even.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Debating Religion

Post by _Gadianton »

An entertaining story, Rev, thanks.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Debating Religion

Post by _Kishkumen »

I agree, as I skimmed through that I kept expecting him to get to a point, any point! How does documenting the evolution of the naturalistic explanations give any support for the supernatural one? If anything, he is just giving chapel Mormons ideas. Bad ideas. Shelf-breaking ideas, even.

Indeed, Professor Lemmie. Some of those naturalistic explanations are not unpersuasive. The big risk is even having believers consider other alternatives. Doubtless some will start to think other possibilities could be the key to how it was done. Best to allow only one approved version to enter their minds.

I know I was given food for thought, although I am surely a lost cause already.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Debating Religion

Post by _Kishkumen »

Gadianton wrote:An entertaining story, Rev, thanks.

Always a pleasure, Dean Robbers.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Debating Religion

Post by _Gadianton »

I was very tired, and almost commented about how weird it seems that two very strange and different religions, Greek Orthodox and gnostic?? going head to head. How random is that? But then I wondered if there was some history, and also it occurred to me how absolutely ridiculous it must look to normal people that we are discussing such a weird-ass thing as Mormonism.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: Debating Religion

Post by _Lemmie »

Gadianton wrote: also it occurred to me how absolutely ridiculous it must look to normal people that we are discussing such a weird-ass thing as Mormonism.

:lol: so my college-age children tell me. They have no idea how thrilled I am that they are in a position to tell me that.
_Symmachus
_Emeritus
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Debating Religion

Post by _Symmachus »

Kishkumen wrote: Dyer would tear Smith to shreds, and Smith would just take the subjective approach. “My experience is....” “In my book I wrote....”

Seems like a rather faint and not altogether respectable Gnosticism on Smith's part, a theological cowardice quite unworthy of his surname. He should have at least tried: "in my superior knowledge of reality which I have gleaned through instructions of Yaldabaoth's messengers on this lower rung, whom I invoke, I can assure you that...."
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Debating Religion

Post by _Kishkumen »

Symmachus wrote:Seems like a rather faint and not altogether respectable Gnosticism on Smith's part, a theological cowardice quite unworthy of his surname. He should have at least tried: "in my superior knowledge of reality which I have gleaned through instructions of Yaldabaoth's messengers on this lower rung, whom I invoke, I can assure you that...."

Yes, dear consul, contemporary Gnosticism, as represented by the community on Aeon Byte, at least, is not what one might expect. There seems to be a heavy admixture of a New Age spirit in this version, wherein strong pronouncements about epistemological certainty through gnosis are simply absent. It is a Gnosticism of the contemporary stew of occultism, the New Age, science fiction (Phil Dick), and conspiracy culture. It can be downright depressing to observe at times.

Still, it makes for interesting listening on occasion. Aeon Byte has some bona fide scholars as guests of the show now and then. And one can hear the inimitable character Bob Price on the show on a fairly regular basis.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Post Reply