DP latches on to another dubious miracle story

[drumdude]

The omitted part where the co pilot runs away in instinctual protection of his selfish gene made me laugh. The truth behind these faith promoting stories is always there just waiting to refute them.

So what is the truth on that odd point of the story? What happened with the co-pilot?

No clue. As the guy starts out saying (which DP omitted) there were various accounts.

A mountain appears to have been made out of a molehill to push the thesis of the book, “spiritual brain.”

[Alphus and Omegus]

Peterson knows nothing about biology or psychology and he really showed it with this blog post. There have been hundreds of studies demonstrating social behavior and willingness to help others on the part of many different animals. Species that can be altruistic seem to have a better odds of thriving and reproducing than those which are not, even if altruistic behavior may be detrimental to individual members of the population.

Had Peterson spent even 5 minutes typing "animal altruism" into Google, he would have easily found many examples. That he did not actually is rather typical behavior of fundamentalist apologists. For them, it is disadvantageous to become familiar with ideas that undermine their anti-scientific beliefs.

Since he's reading this thread, here is one of thousands of web pages about altruistic behavior in animals that you can read, Dan:

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/09/79486765 ... tudy-finds

Dan, you would also be much better-served by learning about biology from PZ Meyers instead of from creationist propagandists. He can also help you see your political errors as well:

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula

[Moksha]

So what is the truth on that odd point of the story? What happened with the co-pilot?

No clue. As the guy starts out saying (which DP omitted) there were various accounts.

A mountain appears to have been made out of a molehill to push the thesis of the book, “spiritual brain.”

I am thinking an untold story is out there, much like that firey plane descent endured by President Nelson at that cow-infested landing field in Delta. Fortunately, the crack investigative team at Discuss Mormonism came through and helped fill in the blanks of that story. Maybe the co-pilot had the heebie-jeebies just like the hysterical woman across the aisle from the prophet, however, the story does not seem plausible.

[Alphus and Omegus]

Apparently no one told Dan that "evolutionary psychology" is not a widely accepted academic discipline. Mostly it's a thing for amateurish online libertarians who want to believe deterministic "just so" stories.

As also evinced by his constant attempts to argue with a man long dead (Christopher Hitchens), Peterson seems utterly out-of-touch with atheist thought. Hitchens was never regarded as a leading philosopher, just a polemicist. But Dan enjoys debating him since he can't defend himself. And that's also how he runs his online commentating. He's a classic midwit who can't debate and so has retreated behind his censorship wall.

Deep down, Dan must know this. I suspect it's why he doesn't seem to engage with actual philosophic atheism, or even living proponents.

Perhaps he has though. I've only rarely read his little blog after seeing it occasionally mentioned here.

You are correct. FAIRMormon had a young fellow last year actually argue against the best atheist philosophers and it was fantastic. Dan should have learned from him to punch up, not down. Literally 6 feet down in Hitchens case.

I clicked on over to Peterson's place and saw a few more of his attempts to debate with atheism. It was pretty amusing that he is stuck trying to make arguments against books from 2008 to 2010 from Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins. Literally none of these men were ever regarded as serious atheist philosophers and both Dawkins and Harris have lost a considerable amount of popular esteem in recent years that they once had.

Dan is arguing with out-of-date books by people who never influenced atheist thought. No wonder his comments section is a ghost town (in addition to his iron-clad censorship of critical comments.)

[drumdude]

You are correct. FAIRMormon had a young fellow last year actually argue against the best atheist philosophers and it was fantastic. Dan should have learned from him to punch up, not down. Literally 6 feet down in Hitchens case.

I clicked on over to Peterson's place and saw a few more of his attempts to debate with atheism. It was pretty amusing that he is stuck trying to make arguments against books from 2008 to 2010 from Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins. Literally none of these men were ever regarded as serious atheist philosophers and both Dawkins and Harris have lost a considerable amount of popular esteem in recent years that they one had.

Dan is arguing with out-of-date books by people who never influenced atheist thought. No wonder his comments section is a ghost town (in addition to his iron-clad censorship of critical comments.)

They were popularizers. No one faults Carl Sagan if some of what he wrote then doesn’t hold up today. He got people interested in space. Likewise, the “new atheists” got people interested in atheism.

It’s just sad to see Daniel, who is obviously a bright person, a phD, and a former university professor, unable to take even the smallest amount of criticism without resorting to name calling.

His Hitchens file gag wasn’t particularly funny the first time and it won’t be funny the ten thousandth time either.

[Gadianton]

unable to take even the smallest amount of criticism without resorting to name calling.

Don't feel bad. How many times have those kids saying hello from their car window been called "idiots" over the years? A hundred? No reason to believe they did anything wrong or were the least bit critical about the Church. For all we know, one of them could be a GA by now.

[malkie]

unable to take even the smallest amount of criticism without resorting to name calling.

Don't feel bad. How many times have those kids saying hello from their car window been called "idiots" over the years? A hundred? No reason to believe they did anything wrong or were the least bit critical about the Church. For all we know, one of them could be a GA by now.

I think I heard that bears came out of the canyons and ate them all up - even the potential GA.

But goo try, Gad

[huckelberry]

You are correct. FAIRMormon had a young fellow last year actually argue against the best atheist philosophers and it was fantastic. Dan should have learned from him to punch up, not down. Literally 6 feet down in Hitchens case.

I clicked on over to Peterson's place and saw a few more of his attempts to debate with atheism. It was pretty amusing that he is stuck trying to make arguments against books from 2008 to 2010 from Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins. Literally none of these men were ever regarded as serious atheist philosophers and both Dawkins and Harris have lost a considerable amount of popular esteem in recent years that they once had.

Dan is arguing with out-of-date books by people who never influenced atheist thought. No wonder his comments section is a ghost town (in addition to his iron-clad censorship of critical comments.)

Alphus and Omegus, Your statement is a bit of a tease. Are there some significant advances in atheist philosophy in the past decade or so?

Yes those folks you mention were speaking more as social influencers than philosophers I believe. Some have pointed out that atheism is a lack of belief in God not a particular philosophy. Of course that leaves the posiblity of atheism having a significant role in some philosophic thought.

[drumdude]

Tarik D LaCour gave an excellent summary of modern atheist thinking in his 2022 FAIRMormon talk entitled “ Taking the Best Arguments for Atheism Seriously.”


Good luck finding it. FAIRMormon apparently decided it was not faith promoting enough to archive, and let it go down the memory hole. A real shame too since he is one of the few non-white speakers at a very very white conference.

[Everybody Wang Chung]