And I’m especially bothered when I see some Evangelical Protestants, especially, treat the Arab-Israeli conflict as a battle of obvious good (represented by the righteous Jews who simply want to regain their ancestral land) against obvious evil (the heathen Muslims who seek to steal Jewish land from the Holocaust survivors who have settled upon it and made it to blossom as the rose).
I wish the situation were so simple and clear-cut.
Unfortunately, many of the Jews aren’t pious or even righteous. And, although I don’t concede that Muslims deserve to be oppressed in the first place, many of the Palestinian Arabs aren’t even Muslims. They’re Christians.
And I’m especially bothered when I see some Evangelical Protestants, especially, treat the Arab-Israeli conflict as a battle of obvious good (represented by the righteous Jews who simply want to regain their ancestral land) against obvious evil (the heathen Muslims who seek to steal Jewish land from the Holocaust survivors who have settled upon it and made it to blossom as the rose).
I wish the situation were so simple and clear-cut.
Unfortunately, many of the Jews aren’t pious or even righteous. And, although I don’t concede that Muslims deserve to be oppressed in the first place, many of the Palestinian Arabs aren’t even Muslims. They’re Christians.
Perhaps you forget, Marcus, that he is speaking as a pious and righteous Mormon. Remember that in his eyes the Jews should be grateful that Mormons want to baptize them posthumously, because the Jews don't have many friends in this world, and that their objections may deter Mormons from being friendly towards them.
Daniel C. Peterson, Mormon Discussions; March 15, 2011 wrote:I'm not sure why some Jews appear to be offended by Mormon temple service on behalf of Jews. Jews have precious few friends around the world. They should not be seeking to alienate Mormons, who are deeply philosemitic.
Daniel C. Peterson, 'Anger over baptism of Simon Wiesenthal' wrote:I would respond that we Latter‑day Saints do, quite unapologetically, insist that Jews 'are not worthy enough to receive God's eternal blessing on their own.'
(I love Dr P's scoring goals for Satan in the first of these quotes)
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
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.
I don’t think he took Craig out of context in the sense that, if he played more of the audio then Craig’s comments would be put into a better light. Rather, he seems totally unaware of what Craig believes and thus makes comments that are wholly irrelevant to the man.
I don’t see why paulogia has much more an obligation then respond to Craig’s words. But if Craig thinks quite the opposite of what he said, then we’re dealing with something much different then paulogia mistaking him. Sounds like Craig would then be guilty of speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
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.
“We should proportion our beliefs to the evidence” is a mantra of “Evidentialism”, a position in Epistemology (study of knowledge) that claims for a proposition to count as knowledge it needs to meet a certain level of evidentiary justification. Now it sounds great, yet evidence is an idea that is very conceptually weak and there are a lot of serious and practical problems inherent in the view.
More to the point, Craig explicitly rejects Evidentialism in favor of some variation of something called “Reformed Epistemology”. Now there are lots of objections and concerns related to Reformed Epistemology, but pointing out that Craig doesn’t sound or act like an Evidentialist is like complaining that I’m not acting like a proper Mormon when I don’t take a burning bosom as a sign that the Book of Mormon is what the Church says it is.
As for DCP, he isn’t even capable of having a conversation about either Evidentialism or Reformed Epistemology. He and Paulogia operate on the same level.
Whether or not evidentialism or empiricism has its problems, has little to do with Craig assuming his beliefs are true and disregarding any contrary evidence, as he himself, essentially, suggested he does—not much different than Peterson. I’m not feeling too concerned about putting people in certain hierarchically derived categories based on their grasp of philosophy and whether that means they have or good points to argue for or not. More interested in ideas shared rather than the people sharing them. In my view DCP has far more in common with Craig than paulogia on that front. But I’m still eager to see the worth of Craig’s position overall. Admittedly as much as I’ve tried to hear him out, it never seems like he has much. But I have no doubt he’s well accomplished in philosophy generally.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
By the way, I think it's worth noting that, like Mormonism, Judaism is not one dimensional. Many people who have a valid claim to describe themselves as Mormon "aren’t pious or even righteous" according to the current LDS definitions. But should they be disparaged, or denied their claim to their culture as a result? Just ask Lindsay Many Ways To Mormon Hansen Park!
I worked with a Jewish man in Toronto - back when I was a pretty orthodox Mormon. When I asked him what it meant to him to be Jewish (as an intended introduction to Mormonism), he replied that it consists of "morally and financially supporting the State of Israel" - nothing more, and nothing less.
Should I have decried his lack of piety and righteousness, and/or told him that he really needed to add a religious element to his life so that Gentiles would agree that he was Jewish?
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
Daniel C. Peterson, Mormon Discussions; March 15, 2011 wrote:I'm not sure why some Jews appear to be offended by Mormon temple service on behalf of Jews. Jews have precious few friends around the world. They should not be seeking to alienate Mormons, who are deeply philosemitic.
I have shared sometimes items discussed with Dr Jenkins He tends not to want to get into further debate.
In his last email on DanPs blog on evidence and the LDS church
"I am still trying to comprehend this one, except on the basis of the universe being a totally self-constructed reality where I alone decide what is true: subjectivism on steroids.
My answer presumes the Church to be true. Why? Because I believe it to be. (The question is about my personal opinion on the matter, right?)
Since the Church is ex hypothesi true, there can be no genuine evidence that it is false. Of course, there can be seeming evidence against its claims, evidence that reasonable people might well regard as genuine and damning. In the end, though, on the assumption that the claims of the Church are true, what seems to be genuine, damning evidence against it must ultimately prove not to be such."
"Solipsism! That is the word I was grappling to recall"
"Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. Wikipedia
Jenkins really nailed it and his debate with Hamblin is once again highly relevant.
Jenkins to Hamblin wrote:
What is that potential deal-breaker for you? If you reply that no piece of external evidence could shake your belief, however overwhelming it might seem, then you are stating explicitly that your view is a matter of faith, and not of science, scholarship or history. If that is so, then there is no point in trying to argue the issue in such terms. It is purely internal to you. Just don’t pretend that you have any claim in the realm of science, scholarship or history.
hauslern, I am almost completely sure that Peterson is saying the church is true because that is its real objective place in the real world not that it is true because he thinks so.
It is not a statement of why he believes nor even less an offer of a reason why you should believe.
///
I can see that the Jenkins quote Dr Moore provided above is applicable. Daniel Peterson is aware of the observation which would be why he keeps his distance from direct debate on the historical Book of Mormon.
I think Peterson's approach is another evidence that he simply can't be wrong. One he believes he is too smart, and two he belongs to a true organization which is just what smart people would do, so he is in the clear. Why would one risk that? One wouldn't, therefore come up with his approach - no matter what - the church I belong to is the only right and true one, and I am part of it so NYAH world!
I think something that is overlooked in this discussion is the point that Dr Peterson is not just arguing that there can be no evidence that Mormonism is false, he is also arguing that there is no evidence that his particular version of it is false, so, for example, there can be no evidence of a fictional divinely inspired Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham.
