Tal Bachman wrote:Hi Wade
I understand not wishing to spend time conversing with people who don't seem to have any ability to reason; but isn't it true that in our case, it rather seemed like you were the one unable to reason?
I can accept that is how you imagined it. And, given how resistant you seemed to me to be in having your imagination changed, I deemed it no longer reasonable or valuable to continue the "interviews".
I think I showed that your defenses of Mormonism rely on a rejection of how Mormonism's most authoritative voices (its scriptures and prophets and apostles) describe Mormonism.
I can accept that is how you imagined it. And, given how resistant you seemed to me to be in having your imagination changed, I deemed it no longer reasonable or valuable to continue the "interviews".
As I said, this is analogous to trying to eat oneself to keep from dying of starvation...that's not very reasonable, is it? And ignoring that when it's pointed out to you isn't either, is it?
Again, I can accept that is how you imagined it. And, given how resistant you seemed to me to be in having your imagination changed, I deemed it no longer reasonable or valuable to continue the "interviews".
Beyond that, I think I showed that not even you yourself believe what you claim to believe about the (in)ability to know something - to confirm this, I asked you two simple questions, which (as I predicted) you simply refused to acknowledge.
Again, I can accept that is how you imagined it. And, given how resistant you seemed to me to be in having your imagination changed, I deemed it no longer reasonable or valuable to continue the "interviews".
And I predicted that because not just you, but so many of us at least as members, and even our loved ones now, deal with seemingly nightmarish possiblilities (like being wrong about everything most important to us in life) in just that way - we just shut them out.
And, because you seem to have been doing just that during the "interviews", I deemed it no longer reasonable or valuable to continue the "interviews".
But to try to maintain a plausible defense of a belief in something, which has as its basis a willful ignorance, seems as unreasonable as it does counterproductive, doesn't it?
I am not sure about "wilful" ignorance, but for those of us who aren't omniscient, it is a reasonable acknowledgement. To suggest otherwise, or to fail to understand this unavoidable condition of finite and fallible humans, is unreasoanble and counterproductive. Since you seemed to suggest otherwise and have evidently failed to understand this basic principle, that is, in part, why I deemed it no longer reasonable or valuable to continue the "interviews".
And I might add, that willful ignorance just can't be obscured by you lashing out at me, or anyone else, who calls you on it. You just can't remake reality with a few snide comments or personal insults, Wade. The world just doesn't work that way.
I can accept that is how you imagined it. And, given how resistant you seemed to me to be in having your imagination changed, I deemed it no longer reasonable or valuable to continue the "interviews".
By the way, it was you who claimed to be a Kantian,
True.
...and it was also you who then almost immediately thereafter demonstrated that you knew very little about Kant.
I can accept that is how you imagined it. And, given how resistant you seemed to me to be in having your imagination changed, I deemed it no longer reasonable or valuable to continue the "interviews".
The three second Google search I performed to find a link to a good introductory article on the man you claimed to be a disciple of, but of whose philosophy you evidently know so little, I did with charitable motives for your benefit - that is, mostly since you would stop embarrassing yourself (not because my understanding of Kant's [failed] attempt at coming up with some respectable version of Berkeleyan idealism itself was derived from a Google search). What I'm trying to say is, you accuse me of having a Google understanding of Kant - but even if that were the case, it would still be far more than what you yourself already have of him, as you yourself have shown. That's why I sent you a link!
Again, I can accept that is how you imagined it. And, given how resistant you seemed to me to be in having your imagination changed, I deemed it no longer reasonable or valuable to continue the "interviews".
And in fact, now that I think about this all, I don't even know why I'm typing this. How dumb I must sound trying to explain what you yourself have already made so obvious...
I can accept that is how you imagined it. And, given how resistant you seemed to me to be in having your imagination changed, I deemed it no longer reasonable or valuable to continue the "interviews".
For what it's worth, here is the excerpt from the other interview thread, in which I asked you those two simple questions. I post it here so you can ignore it again, just in case it is still unclear to anyone reading this what defending Mormonism really always comes down to in the end:
You asked me quite a few questions during my interview with you. Let me ask you a couple here then:
1.) True of false - the earth is shaped like a square block, twenty miles by twenty miles by twenty miles, but with a 10,000 foot protruding triangular appendage emerging from just below equatorial Guinea.
False--or, in other words, I am highly confident, though not having absolute or definitive knowledge, that this is not the case.
2.) True or false - two plus two equals seven.
False--or in other words, I terms of my understanding the man-made tool of math, I accept the axioms associated therewith.
Since you seem sensitive to "anti-Mormon traps" or whatever, let me explain how my questions work.
I accept that you think I am sensative to "anti-Mormon traps", but that is news to me.
If you choose "false" for either question, you show everyone that you in fact do believe you can know something with certainty, contrary to what you have said in your post. This would reveal that you are in a very confused state.
I can accept that is how you imagined it. And, given how resistant you seemed to me to be in having your imagination changed, I deemed it no longer reasonable or valuable to continue the "interviews".
If, however, you choose "true" for either of these questions, you reveal that you are indistinguishable from any common madman, and so ought to considered one. If you begin qualifying by saying "it depends on what we mean by 'mile' and 'square' and 'earth' and 'foot', you also reveal yourself to be very much confused, or just plain nuts. And if you ignore the question altogether (I'm betting on this last option), you reveal that you indeed have enough of your wits about you to recognize that you are sunk if you dare give any answer (whew - you're not nuts!) - but of course, that awareness (evidenced by your refusal to answer) also just confirms that your statements on the impossibility of knowledge (or "absolute knowledge" if you'd like) are wrong, and that even you at some level know that.
Two simple questions, that any normal person would have no trouble answering. But will you answer? I doubt it.
Will you now admit you were wrong...just as you were wrong about me know answering you hypotheticals and wrong about why I supposedly wouldn't answer your hypotheticals?
If I may make a suggestion here:
Simply ignoring this again will make you look nuts, as will answering "true", or lashing out at me again. I think the best option then is to answer "false", since all that would mean is that you'd have to acknowledge that your views on the possibility of knowledge need revising, and really, this is no big deal at all. We could even try to come up with a good theory of knowledge together...Just a suggestion.[/color]
I answered "false" because it fits consistently with my world view. But, I you imagine that it is my understanding of knowledge that need revising, rather than your own. And, given how resistant you seemed to me to be in having your imagination changed, I yert again deem it no longer reasonable or valuable to continue the "interviews".
Thanks, -Wade Englund-