SLT does article on Don Bradley

[_EAllusion]

Since I'm on the topic, here's what I find so odd about Don's FT comments:

Don has mentioned that he thought the a multiverse theory was a reasonable route to rejecting the fine-tuning argument. But when he discovered that he found multiverse theories unpersuasive, the force of the argument came rushing back.

The idea that you need to actively believe in a multiverse theory in order to reject the force of the fine tuning argument is usually not found outside of fundamentalist boilerplate. That's not what the multiverse objection is. Rather, it argues than in order to say the existence of this universe with this combination of physical constants is actually unlikely, then it has to be the only universe (or one of a small group) in existence. Otherwise, if lots of universes with different combinations exist, then the existence of this one isn't unlikely. It's not surprising that someone, somewhere has gotten a royal flush because so many card combinations have been dealt out. So you have to have reason to think that mulitiverses in principle are less likely than a singular universe in order for the argument to function. You don't need to actively believe Lee Smolin's theory or the many worlds hypothesis of quantum mechanics or another multiverse theory to reject fine-tuning. You just need to not rule out multiverses or consider them inherently more unlikely. Swinburne would argue that the existence of one universe is more parsimonious than multiple ones and therefore more likely. Don would likely follow this, but I don't think this is a valid use of the concept of parsimony. More to the point, it's not about failing to believe a particular multiverse theory, but accepting some sort of argument that all multiverse theories, known and unknown, are inherently less likely than the alternative. And this is on the physical possibility version of the argument. Multiverses are logically possible and stand as a strong objection to that variation of the argument.

More importantly, though, is that when it comes to reasons to reject the fine-tuning argument, this is way down the list. It's usually presented as a side-show argument or afterthought in academic criticism. For that to the basis for which Don was rejecting the fine-tuning argument is just strange to me. He's well read and interested in academic criticism. It'd be like rejecting Hoyle-style abiogenesis arguments to design because you are into the RNA world hypothesis. Why? Even if it is a good refutation, that's not the main failings of the argument. The main problem is fallacious argument from ignorance probabilistic reasoning underlying the project.

[_consiglieri]

Just wanted to drive-by post that I have had the good fortune to come to know Don over the past several years, and will second the opinion that he is a very good guy.

Although he is decidedly brilliant, I think his goodness is his most important attribute.

I liked Don when he was out of the church.

I like Don now that he is in the church.

He's just that kind of guy.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Kishkumen]

Just wanted to drive-by post that I have had the good fortune to come to know Don over the past several years, and will second the opinion that he is a very good guy.

Although he is decidedly brilliant, I think his goodness is his most important attribute.

I liked Don when he was out of the church.

I like Don now that he is in the church.

He's just that kind of guy.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Well said, consig. I agree.

[_Equality]

Unfortunately, what the believe they know often doesn't correspond with the facts or history.

Tobin, you are an irony factory.

[_Equality]

Digging EA's posts in this thread.

[_dblagent007]

Kevin is referring to a person with a history of waffling back and forth with different approaches to belief.

When the article was originally printed, someone in the Mormon groups on Facebook said Don was in his mission and behaved like this back then. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out in the end.

[_Kevin Graham]

Yes, that was my impression of Don Bradley. "Here's another disturbed, raving lunatic....just like Darrick Evenson," I said to myself.

I'm fairly confident you know that wasn't my point or suggestion. My point is Don has a history of waffling back and forth. We don't really know where he'll end up in ten years, or five. If he is half as intelligent and half as interested in evidence as they say, then there is every reason to believe he'll find his way out of the Church again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaith ... r.html.csp

http://www.religionnews.com/2013/02/15/ ... r-is-hard/

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

Seriously? None of those examples fit the description I provided. In the first example Fletcher refers to Mormons who struggle due to "Misinformation." Gee, that kinda begs the question doesn't it? It was a one page piece that didn't detail any individuals who've struggled intellectually and arrived to the intellectual conclusion that the Church isn't what it claims to be.

In your second example, she quickly comments on an ex-Mormon politician, again refusing to go into any details about why this person left the faith. But she was sure to mention that this person was a bi-sexual, which would obviously make any LDS reader say to themselves, "well of course she left!" I mean isn't sin the number one reason why people leave?

In your third example, she discusses the difficulty married couples have when they are members of different churches. It covers the measures taken to cope with the problem, but never was there any detailed analysis for the reasons why anyone had left. No examples of people becoming better people after leaving the Church. None.

In your last example, again there is no individual story line covering the intellectual journey or an apostate who found happiness and intellectual freedom after leaving the Church. The article itself seemed to be written by Church media spokespersons who were trying to explain how the Church can better avoid these problems by allowing the sticky issues to be discussed more openly, etc.

So I stand by my statement. Unless you or anyone else can show me an article like the piece on Don, where a critic's intellectual journey led him out of the Church and into a world of happiness.

[_Darth J]

never was there any detailed analysis for the reasons why anyone had left

There was not a detailed analysis for the reasons why Don Bradley went back, either. That's because all of these things are newspaper columns.

You've also decided on different metrics of what Peggy Fletcher Stack apparently has to do to prove she's not in the tank for the LDS Church. You original rhetorical question was, "Why isn't Peggy Fletcher writing about those folks who came into Mormonism flying high on cloud nine, who then dropped it like a bad habit once they found out it was a fraud? Are their experiences less valid, less genuine, etc? No, but it doesn't exactly play to the Utah audience."

P.S. You're the one who chose your comparison, and most people would infer that Darrick Evenson's issues with Mormonism are more than just "waffling back and forth."

[_Kevin Graham]

(posted to wrong thread)

[_Mayan Elephant]

I guess what I am saying is this: it seems like Don could love the Book of Mormon and really dig Joseph Smith, and live his life along Book of Mormon principles without assimilating with the Monsonites.

that is exactly how i would describe john hamer. that dude seems to be the only guy out there doing real original Mormon historical research.