There can be no evidence that Mormonism is false

[DrStakhanovite]

I’d love to read this.

Anything you'd like to see discussed in it?

[Philo Sofee]

Here are some well credentialed physicists and philosophers responding to Craig.

https://youtu.be/femxJFszbo8

That was just FANTASTIC!!!!! Thanks for the link man!

[Kishkumen]

What would change my mind about DCP—what would really humanize him in my eyes—would be seeing him sincerely apologize to the people that he’s hurt over the years. And to do it unconditionally and without mockery or sarcasm. He *has* done a lot of incredibly hurtful things—either directly or via his various leadership roles. John Dehlin was legitimately rattled when he caught wind of Greg Smith’s “hit piece”: his fear was obvious in the emails that came to light. Will Dan Peterson apologize for his role in that?

He won’t, and that’s why his post about the invincible “truthfulness” of the Church is bogus. If there was no true way to undermine or attack the Church, then why is apologetics necessary? DCP says that *no* critique will ever refute the Church’s truth claims. Okay. So, why does the CES Letter merit a response, then?

One answer is that the average Latter-day Saint is a dumb rube who will be easily fooled by this sort of thing, and so you need a DCP to intervene. To say that this is the height of arrogance and condescension is a massive understatement.

But I return to my initial point: Why does Dr. Peterson feel the need to portray this unassailable armor of belief? Why not do the kind, human thing and apologize for his missteps and for the harm he’s done?

It seems to me that, while he sees no possibility of the LDS Church not being true, he also understands that others do come to the (erroneous, in his eyes) conclusion that it is not true. He sees it as his contribution to the cause of Zion to prevent others from coming to that incorrect conclusion. As a believer, he sees the stakes as being so high that he has dedicated his life to the task. Those who seek to convince others that the LDS Church is not true are his opponents whom he must fight.

[drumdude]

Here are some well credentialed physicists and philosophers responding to Craig.

https://youtu.be/femxJFszbo8

That was just FANTASTIC!!!!! Thanks for the link man!

One of the things I actually admire greatly about William Lane Craig is his ability to calmly and rationally engage critics and take them seriously. Although I disagree with Craig, it fosters some great dialogue like this.

It’s a breath of fresh air after suffering through all the pettiness from Mormon apologetics.

[dastardly stem]

I think the best course of action is for me to create a new thread where I can craft an opening post that starts breaking the subject down piecemeal. The logic of his arguments is fine, and his understanding of physics is fine; Youtube atheists have a hard time discerning between a person misunderstanding physics and a person who takes a minority viewpoint of the nature of time and its relationship to observational physics and defends it.

It’ll have to wait till next week, I’m traveling this weekend, but I like the idea and want to act on it. I’ll make sure it doesn’t escape your notice.

Sounds great to me. Just to clarify as well, I didn't listen or watch the whole of the video I linked. I skimmed about half of it and noticed Paulogia noted Craig said a few things that sounded quite familiar to the topic of this thread. So I didn't review the original video from Craig and would be happy to find that Paulogia mischaracterized him. The other note I made about Craig and people taking him to task has to deal with his contentions concerning the Kalam Cosmo argument he named. There are a couple of videos out there featuring prominent physicists and philosophers taking him to task, or so it seems. Some of that can be found in these 2 videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGKe6YzHiME&t=1477s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGKe6YzHiME&t=1550s

Also, I'd be happy to hear more about the failures of Humean thinking when it comes to seeking evidence for claims. That seems fairly reasonable.

Looking forward to it.

[Res Ipsa]

I’d love to read this.

Anything you'd like to see discussed in it?

I don’t have the chops in Philosophy to fully understand his argument, so I can’t distinguish between a substantive response to it and a superficial one. It would help me understand better, I think, to hear from someone who treats it as a serious argument even though they may not be persuaded by it. So, I’m interested in why you consider it a serious argument and an example of a substantive response compared to a superficial one.

And a pony.

[dastardly stem]

Anything you'd like to see discussed in it?

I don’t have the chops in Philosophy to fully understand his argument, so I can’t distinguish between a substantive response to it and a superficial one. It would help me understand better, I think, to hear from someone who treats it as a serious argument even though they may not be persuaded by it. So, I’m interested in why you consider it a serious argument and an example of a substantive response compared to a superficial one.

And a pony.

What "argument" are you curious about, Res?

I admit I'm feeling a bit perplexed by DrStak's response. Yesterday I skimmed the video, didn't give it a great deal of attention, got a few quotes from it from Craig that sounded very similar to what we're talking about here and included it because of that. Today I went and gave the video a bit more of an intended direct listen. I don't think Paulogia is misrepresenting what Craig said, or is taking it out of context. So I'll be interested in what Stak comes back with there. It seems to me, Craig isn't being very philosophical here, nor is he offering us anything more than the type of reasons DCP gave for belief. If Stak intends to get more involved with Craig's published positions or explanations and show us why they hold merit, I'm all for that. But it sounds like he's saying the very quotes offered in Paulogia's videos are worth defending to some degree. If so, I have a hard time imagining what we'll get. Either way, it ought to be a treat considering the source, at least.

[huckelberry]

What I see is Mr Peterson makes a statement of his personal belief. He believes the church is true while evidence is inconclusive. He believes that evidence that appears to show the church as false is incomplete or misunderstood. This clearly is not an argument. This is not an attempt to demonstrate the truth. It is not a demonstration that critics are wrong. I think it says he believes the church is true and he knows he does not have answers for every criticism.

There are a number of observations made in this thread about how lame Peterson's statement is as a truth demonstration. I think that is obvious enough not to require a lot of effort to see.

But it is just a statement of his personal belief. I would not doubt that Mr Peterson realizes that people in all sorts of differing religious belief systems might have the same thought as he is expressing. We all deal with incomplete knowledge and understanding.

[sock puppet]

What I see is Mr Peterson makes a statement of his personal belief. He believes the church is true while evidence is inconclusive. He believes that evidence that appears to show the church as false is incomplete or misunderstood. This clearly is not an argument. This is not an attempt to demonstrate the truth. It is not a demonstration that critics are wrong. I think it says he believes the church is true and he knows he does not have answers for every criticism.

There are a number of observations made in this thread about how lame Peterson's statement is as a truth demonstration. I think that is obvious enough not to require a lot of effort to see.

But it is just a statement of his personal belief. I would not doubt that Mr Peterson realizes that people in all sorts of differing religious belief systems might have the same thought as he is expressing. We all deal with incomplete knowledge and understanding.

As rationale beings, the mix of information (and the absence of other information) and why a person priortizes some information over other bits of information can explain why he or she "believes" as he or she does. Discussion in which the layers are peeled back often reveals why he or she so believes. Discussion can and usually does also results in those involved each learnings some new information, leaving each discussion participant's knowledge base enhanced to some degree. In my experience, when someone resists a probing discussion it is because they cling to a 'belief' for some reason that they realize is rather indefensible. For example, if I know the Mormon truth claims to be bunk, but like the LDS church for social reasons I may not want to discuss my 'belief' because it will leave me realizing and the other discussion participants knowing that I want to continue social participation in an organization that shills a fabricated story of its source and founding, misleading others into joining or remaining.

[drumdude]

I would not doubt that Mr Peterson realizes that people in all sorts of differing religious belief systems might have the same thought as he is expressing. We all deal with incomplete knowledge and understanding.

Catholics don’t say they “know” the church is true.

Catholics don’t have a problem saying they believe in spite of X problem which they agree with critics exists.

Catholics don’t have to say “all evidence criticizing Catholicism is false.”

All DP did was demonstrate that fundamentalist orthodoxy is alive and well within Mormonism. Which is understandable when it is only 200 years old and not thousands of years old like more mature religions.