Richard Bushman excerpts of his musings about God.

[Kishkumen]

The least Mormon thing about me is my rejection of LDS theology regarding the supreme divinity. Mormonism technically does not have one, it seems to me. My opinion. An endless patriarchal chain of divinities is not the same as having a supreme deity. I think there is something valuable to the doctrinal ideas Bushman discusses, and they are very Mormon. But, honestly, when it comes to capital G God, I don't think Mormonism has satisfying ideas there, whereas Christianity does address important theological issues in a more satisfactory way. What Christianity does not do so well, to my way of thinking, at least, is address the human end of the equation. Mormonism provides me more sense of purpose in working for a better life and a better world. So, I read what Bushman has to say, and I think, cool, yeah, I can see this, but the big missing element is God. I don't believe the supreme being is some dude who went through a life similar to mine. I just don't see that. Honestly, I think Classical Theism is much better for conceptualizing the supreme being.

Oh, and I am very heretical in not accepting the standard ideas about Satan, demons, etc.

[Rivendale]

The least Mormon thing about me is my rejection of LDS theology regarding the supreme divinity. Mormonism technically does not have one, it seems to me. My opinion. An endless patriarchal chain of divinities is not the same as having a supreme deity. I think there is something valuable to the doctrinal ideas Bushman discusses, and they are very Mormon. But, honestly, when it comes to capital G God, I don't think Mormonism has satisfying ideas there, whereas Christianity does address important theological issues in a more satisfactory way. What Christianity does not do so well, to my way of thinking, at least, is address the human end of the equation. Mormonism provides me more sense of purpose in working for a better life and a better world. So, I read what Bushman has to say, and I think, cool, yeah, I can see this, but the big missing element is God. I don't believe the supreme being is some dude who went through a life similar to mine. I just don't see that. Honestly, I think Classical Theism is much better for conceptualizing the supreme being.

Oh, and I am very heretical in not accepting the standard ideas about Satan, demons, etc.

Great points. Reducing Jesus's divinity is a bone in the throat moment for other Christian factions. He is merely one player in a infinite regression of demigods.

[Physics Guy]

[Peterson] can't know all the critiques. Therefore making the blanket statement that there can't be valid criticism seems impossible.

There's a mathematical theorem which says that any jigsaw puzzle can have its pieces coloured in just four different colours, and no two pieces of the same color will touch. You can design examples which prove that three colours may not be enough, but the proof that four always are enough is notoriously hard to understand.

It's a tricky theorem because it says that there always exists a way of colouring the jigsaw puzzle with four different colours so that no pieces with the same colour touch. By no means does the theorem suggest that any random way of colouring the pieces is going to have that nice feature. It just says that there will always be a clever way to do it. And it doesn't tell you how to find this clever way of assigning colours.

At any rate, I don't understand the Four Colour Theorem. I can state its result, but I can't explain why we know that it's true. In the past I've messed around with trying to disprove it, just to play Devil's Advocate. Nonetheless I believe that it's a theorem, ultimately because I trust the authority of mathematicians.

If somebody thinks they have a clever counterexample to the theorem, I'm prepared to listen and consider it. I know it's a tricky theorem, so I can well believe that there might be an interesting argument against it, an argument that has some good ideas in it. Nevertheless I don't believe that any such argument is actually going to be valid. The theorem is really a theorem. No supposed counterexamples will actually work.

And I'm confident of that, even though I definitely haven't seen all critiques of the Four Colour Theorem.

[Marcus]

In my opinion, there is not a generalized theorem that Peterson is relying on in order to argue his statement can't be disproven. He is assuming his own personal conclusion based on his own personal feelings, which is not the same as assuming a well-known theorem holds.

In a Universe composed only of Peterson, where Peterson assumes that by definition Peterson's beliefs are unquestionably and logically valid theorems, this may work. But only if no one else ever enters Peterson's Universe, thereby guaranteeing no disagreement, and only if Peterson assumes that what Peterson says is true. And that nothing in this imagined universe ever runs into anything from reality. And, most particularly, that Peterson gets to conclude what will happen in this imaginary Universe.

In the actual universe, Peterson assuming his beliefs and then concluding his beliefs can in no way be compared to assuming a generally accepted theorem and then concluding a logical outcome. Peterson's argument works for him in his own head, and that's it. It is based on beliefs and not a logical thinking process.

[MG 2.0]

The least Mormon thing about me is my rejection of LDS theology regarding the supreme divinity. Mormonism technically does not have one, it seems to me. My opinion. An endless patriarchal chain of divinities is not the same as having a supreme deity. I think there is something valuable to the doctrinal ideas Bushman discusses, and they are very Mormon. But, honestly, when it comes to capital G God, I don't think Mormonism has satisfying ideas there, whereas Christianity does address important theological issues in a more satisfactory way. What Christianity does not do so well, to my way of thinking, at least, is address the human end of the equation. Mormonism provides me more sense of purpose in working for a better life and a better world. So, I read what Bushman has to say, and I think, cool, yeah, I can see this, but the big missing element is God. I don't believe the supreme being is some dude who went through a life similar to mine. I just don't see that. Honestly, I think Classical Theism is much better for conceptualizing the supreme being.

Oh, and I am very heretical in not accepting the standard ideas about Satan, demons, etc.

The thing is, God the Father is God the Father...to us. Functionally, He is God.

"But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them."
Moses 1:35

The idea that there is an "endless patriarchal chain" seems to point towards a God that is willing to share what He has rather than hoarding it. The classical theism of God seems to be almost too abstract. Difficult to even wrap your mind around at all.

Though many have tried.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

I only thought Peterson said that his beliefs could not have valid objections because they were true. That isn’t a crazy claim. Nothing which is true can have a valid disproof, so believing that something is true necessarily means believing that it can’t be disproven.

I don’t blame Peterson for stating this obvious point, even though it could go without saying. If he wants to concede that some critique of Mormonism isn’t just totally stupid, then it’s fair enough to remind his faithful readers that he still isn’t admitting defeat.

He spent a thousand words essentially expressing a tautology.

The issue of course is the reasoning behind holding the beliefs that he does, so it doesn’t really mean much in my opinion.

I could have a real visceral delusion that Elvis was standing in front of me. I could choose to create a religion around it, or I could think I might be under some sort of delusion.

[Rivendale]

In my opinion, there is not a generalized theorem that Peterson is relying on in order to argue his statement can't be disproven. He is assuming his own personal conclusion based on his own personal feelings, which is not the same as assuming a well-known theorem holds.

In a Universe composed only of Peterson, where Peterson assumes that by definition Peterson's beliefs are unquestionably and logically valid theorems, this may work. But only if no one else ever enters Peterson's Universe, thereby guaranteeing no disagreement, and only if Peterson assumes that what Peterson says is true. And that nothing in this imagined universe ever runs into anything from reality. And, most particularly, that Peterson gets to conclude what will happen in this imaginary Universe.

In the actual universe, Peterson assuming his beliefs and then concluding his beliefs can in no way be compared to assuming a generally accepted theorem and then concluding a logical outcome. Peterson's argument works for him in his own head, and that's it. It is based on beliefs and not a logical thinking process.

Very well stated. Logical processes such as mathematics are based on empericism which at some point had to involve a type of interaction with the physical world that has been verified by others and can make novel predictions. Peterson ( as you stated) is in a Mormon hyperbaric chamber that can't undergo independent verification and he has been systematically trained to ignore logic and constrained by faith which is by definition irrational.

[Physics Guy]

What I’m saying is, I don’t think Peterson was making an argument at all, good or bad. He was indeed just referring to the tautology that a true statement can’t have a disproof. So, if anyone believes something, they must be believing that any purported disproofs of it all have some kind of flaw.

I don’t think he was defending his beliefs in any way by saying that they could not be disproven because they were true. I think it’s only charitable to assume that if someone asserts something that is obviously unprovable then what they mean to assert is that they believe it. So all Peterson was saying, or intending to say, was that he believed his beliefs.

That could go without saying, because indeed it’s a tautology, but I think it could be worth a thousand words now and then to rehearse the tautology just to remind people not to fear critiques. If their beliefs are true, no critiques can disprove them, and if they’re not true, then the sooner they’re challenged, the better.

I don’t think everyone appreciates that enough, even though it’s a tautology. I think that some people don’t trust their own judgement and are afraid that a devious argument might induce them to reject the truth. So they’re afraid even to consider alternatives.

[drumdude]

I only thought Peterson said that his beliefs could not have valid objections because they were true. That isn’t a crazy claim. Nothing which is true can have a valid disproof, so believing that something is true necessarily means believing that it can’t be disproven.

I don’t blame Peterson for stating this obvious point, even though it could go without saying. If he wants to concede that some critique of Mormonism isn’t just totally stupid, then it’s fair enough to remind his faithful readers that he still isn’t admitting defeat.

He can't know all the critiques. Therefore making the blanket statement that there can't be valid criticism seems impossible.

His highest axiom is “the modern-day Brighamite branch of the Mormon church is true.” It doesn’t follow from any propositions or other axioms that can be proven false. He’s just defined it to be true.

It’s a very strange way to live one’s life.

[Rivendale]

I only thought Peterson said that his beliefs could not have valid objections because they were true. That isn’t a crazy claim. Nothing which is true can have a valid disproof, so believing that something is true necessarily means believing that it can’t be disproven.

I don’t blame Peterson for stating this obvious point, even though it could go without saying. If he wants to concede that some critique of Mormonism isn’t just totally stupid, then it’s fair enough to remind his faithful readers that he still isn’t admitting defeat.

He spent a thousand words essentially expressing a tautology.

The issue of course is the reasoning behind holding the beliefs that he does, so it doesn’t really mean much in my opinion.

I could have a real visceral delusion that Elvis was standing in front of me. I could choose to create a religion around it, or I could think I might be under some sort of delusion.

The Bible is true because it says it's true. Same thing with Dan. Except Dan leans heavy on the collective witness model. People believe things because they are convinced however people also become unconvinced. They become unconvinced because of valid criticisms that alter their belief system. I agree that a true thing cannot have a valid criticism as PG suggested but this isn't the same. Dan's good reasons are seen in the many conversations with Gemli where he offered volumes of mainly parallelomania times.