Why I think Thomas Riskas Is A Joke

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

So, I went back and took a look at the post that caused quite a stir with Mr. Benson, the regular poster at RFM, who is also a cartoonist which is nice:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?5,897642

Mr. Stak leads off a little pugnaciously, but asks, from my perspective, an interesting and debate-provoking request from Mr. Riskas:

Given the inordinate amount of citations of and lengthy quotations attributed to Kai Nielsen, I’d like to ask Mr. Riskas to list the top 5 most relevant and substantive critics of Kai Nielsen’s unique brand of philosophy, and offer a brief review of each critic’s contribution to the debate on those subjects.

I think that was a reasonable request, and I'm not sure why Mr. Riskas didn't accept it. Also, if he didn't feel up to the challenge he should've simply stated he wasn't interested in debating Mr. Nielsen's philosophies instead of whipping out the victim card (helped in no large part by his friend and fan Mr. Benson, who is a cartoonist). Not being familitar with Mr. Nielsen's credentials, history, literary works, etc... I went to Wikipedia and read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kai_Nielsen_(philosopher)

Kai Nielsen (born 1926) is professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Calgary. Before moving to Canada, Nielsen taught at New York University (NYU). He specializes in metaphilosophy, ethics, and social and political philosophy. Nielsen has also written about philosophy of religion, and is a advocate of contemporary atheism. He is also known for his defense of utilitarianism, writing in response to Bernard Williams's criticism of it.

Nielsen got his B.A. at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and his Ph.D. at Duke University. He is the author of some 32 books and 415 articles. Member of the Royal Society of Canada, and past president of the Canadian Philosophical Association. Nielsen is also one of the founding members of the Canadian Journal of Philosophy.

Wow. Not bad. Pretty impressive stuff! So, still not sure why Mr. Stak would be adversarial toward Mr. Nielsen, and apparently why Mr. Riskas would be overly attached to him I did the typical Internetting that one would do and found this debate between Mr. Nielsen and a theist:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god ... sen-debate

I'll break it down thusly:

- Evil exists because it does (no need for metaphysics)

- You don't need God to have morals or a purpose in life

- Morality is based in Humanism

I have a feeling most of Mr. Nielsen's works pretty much echo that basic thought process. So. In essence, why wouldn't Mr. Riskas simply address the criticisms of the problems of evil, values, morality, and death? What's the problem with debating someone; why take offense because someone says you quote Mr. Nielsen a lot? It's silly. He should've taken Mr. Stak up on the invitation, and had a substantive conversation on RFM. I believe he hurt himself more by not addressing Mr. Stak's request rather than running from it and seeking cover from his friend, Mr. Benson, who is a cartoonist (which is nice).

ETA: TL;DR I think he could've re-directed Mr. Staks questions to the topic of his book, and tied them together to further his position on Mormonism.

- Doc C

[_Samantabhadra]

Cam, I'm glad to see you went back and read the exchange. As for Stak's motives, I think what you're witnessing is something that it's very difficult for people outside of the academy to understand--namely, that for a true scholar pointing out the deficiencies in the arguments of someone who fundamentally agrees with you is usually if not always more important than defending the point at stake. In academic literature, as expressly opposed to apologetics (whether theist or atheist), methodology trumps conclusions.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
RFM attracts people who serious and prone to secular humanism. I can't relate to that board at all. Threads devoted to the protocols of serious, rational discussion etc.

The welcoming (and protective) reception that Mr. Riskas received
there is more understandable if we at least make an attempt to
relate to that board's evident membership.

So far as I can determine, the vast majority of participants and
supporters over there are former Mormons who feel that they have
been victims of institutional abuse. Generally speaking, the board
atmosphere is about what we might expect were a large number
of RCC priestly abuse victims to leave that church and start
up a message board.

A great many RfM members were successfully indoctrinated into
the mindset that all religions other than Mormonism are both
false and potentially harmful. When these former LDS leave the
Church, the one belief they seem to retain is that mindset.

So, serious? Usually so, with minor exceptions. Many of these
folks are looking for ways to bring their parents, children or
siblings out of a church that encourages and facilitates family
breakup, rather than letting go of its members.

Secular? Those ex-Mormons who leave the Church and find a life
of fellowship among the Evangelical Christians generally do not
need a support group like RfM -- and they typically do not fare
well when they stop by to try and converse with the RfMers.
The LDS doctrine of two churches, the Mormon Church and the
Church of the Devil merges into a single conclusion for the
folks at RfM: all churches are of the Devil, and the Devil is their
creation. ALL religion is suspect -- the atheistic ones as well as
the theistic ones.

Given that message board atmosphere, it is not surprising that a
new voice -- one that has been advertised as successful -- is
welcomed and inquired of, regarding such topics as victimhood,
the falsity of religion, the uselessness of myth, and the means
by which family and friends still remaining within the Church can
be effectively de-converted.

Add to that the possibility of RfM people gaining further justification
in leaving the Church and in abandoning beliefs wholesale, and we
can begin to see why the author of a book promoting such stuff is
sought after and solicited for the smallest crumbs of advice.

I could have walked through a village of starving displaced people
in my old South Asian haunts and there invoked the same reaction,
had I been carrying what looked like a bag of food and was followed by
even one satisfied looking fellow who was pointing at the bag.

It would not have mattered if my bag contained any actual edibles --
at least for a while it would not have mattered.

UD

[_Turkey]

Cam, I'm glad to see you went back and read the exchange. As for Stak's motives, I think what you're witnessing is something that it's very difficult for people outside of the academy to understand--namely, that for a true scholar pointing out the deficiencies in the arguments of someone who fundamentally agrees with you is usually if not always more important than defending the point at stake. In academic literature, as expressly opposed to apologetics (whether theist or atheist), methodology trumps conclusions.

No, young Stak is merely sharpening his teeth on Tom's bones.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Here are Mr. Riskas new rules for engaging him ref his work:

Re: Re-boot


Hello All,

I have read all the postings above, and have reflected and considered thoughtfully how I would like to proceed, if there is still sufficient interest in my doing so, which there seems to be.

When those interested in proceeding with informed dialogue and discussion about the book have confirmed that they have in fact completed reading the Introduction, FP and Chs. 1 and 2 of the book, inclusive of all footnotes, and I have been notified of that fact by Susan or Steve, I will issue a summary statement in a new thread ("DM Forum Opening Remarks and Discussion") within the dedicated DM Forum.

In this new thread I will first summarize the philosophical premises of, and rationale for, the underlying approach used in the book to deconstruct Mormonism and other forms of theism. This summary statement will also include a brief preemptive treatment of those published and other "P"hilosophical (cap. P) criticisms of this approach that I am presently aware of. Finally, it will include a statement of what I consider to be the purpose and boundaries of our ongoing engagement.

After my opening statement I will open the thread to questions, comments, suggestions and reactions in an effort to reach some reasonable consensus on the proposed or amended purpose and boundaries, including what we might consider to be relevant and irrelevant postings in any given thread(s) pertaining to designated portions of the book.

When this new opening thread is closed I suggest we then proceed to open a series of separate threads within the DM Forum, for Chs. 3-8, the Epilogue, the PPS and Appendix A, respectively.

These threads would, again, be attended "only" by those who have read the designated chapter or section of the book, inclusive of footnotes, and those interested in relevant dialogue and discussion.

Please let me be clear, so you can decide if you want to proceed or participate. I am only willing to participate in this dedicated forum with those who are serious about understanding this book and contributing to mine and others' understanding. I am NOT interested in litigating the book, defending the book or its resources or, again, engaging in argument or debate; something that can be done in other forums within RfM.

This does not mean, as has been implied, that I am only looking for "praise" or agreement. Nothing could be farther from the case.

Nor should it imply or be taken to mean that am I closed to the possibility that my thinking and work is anything like "the last word" on the deconstruction of Mormonism or theism, as I use the term, or that my views, interpretations, understandings, commitments or approach cannot or will not evolve through the process of serious and civil inquiry and discussion we engage in; inquiry that not only confirms, establishes and expands understading of the book itself, as it has been written, but explores alternative possibilities, understandings or perspectives. Such learning and development on my part will most certainly be the case, and I expect and welcome it.

The principle idea here is that we cannot credibly react to, modify, argue against or accept that which we do not adequately understand. The book is of no value to anyone, and opinions about it are of no value to me or anyone else, until and unless we have individually and collectively exercised due diligence (done the heavy lifting) of first understading, as best we can, its underlying assumptions, foundational premises, demonstrated practice, and fundamental arguments, along with the stated premises and support for such arguments.

Everything else that would go on in this dedicated forum would be, from my perspective, merely a side slow, and a waste of time, and anything said about the book, pro et con, would be, to me, and in the words of Bob Dylan, nothing more than "idiot wind". (by the way, this is why Kerry Shirt's review of this book was so impressive to me and others. At least he read -- and reread -- and struggled with the damn thing!)

In closing, while I don't agree with all that my former colleague Stephen R. Covey wrote or taught on the topic of personal integrity and effectiveness, much I do agree with, at least in principle. One of his suggested "habits of effectiveness" that I happen to agree with (though I regrettably don't practice as much or as well as I could and should) is to "seek first to understand, then to be understood." Another, related "habit" would be the value of creating "synergy" in pursuit of "third solutions" (not either/or, but both/and) in getting to meaninful change. The point not to be missed here is that to create synergy in amending or taking this work to the next level, whatever that might look like, we must first seek to understand.

This forum is dedicated to that endeavor. By endeavoring to "seek first to understand, then to be understood" by respectfully playing back our understanding of the shared views, feelings and stated assumptions of the author and others, and listening as well to one's own reactions and assumptions to what has been shared and confirmed, mutually respectful and informed dialoge and discussion ensues, and we create the conditions for synergy required to learn and, in turn, enlarge our understanding and "circle of influence" as we engage with others.

I will await notifaction from Susan or Steve re: if and when you would like to proceed, if at all, and as specified above, or as modified by consensus.

Thanks for your continues interest and participation.

Tom

I'm sure he'll sell a dozen or so more books for those interested in abiding by his rules. Frankly, I'm not sure what he wants other than to talk about his book, on his terms, protected by people who agree with him. Fair enough... I guess...

- Doc

[_malkie]

Here are Mr. Riskas new rules for engaging him ref his work:

...

I'm sure he'll sell a dozen or so more books for those interested in abiding by his rules. Frankly, I'm not sure what he wants other than to talk about his book, on his terms, protected by people who agree with him. Fair enough... I guess...

- Doc

I don't think that any significant part of Riskas' motivation is selling books to the RfM crowd (if that's what you are suggesting) - it seems that he gave away quite a few when people started to express interest.

[_Fence Sitter]

I don't think that any significant part of Riskas' motivation is selling books to the RfM crowd (if that's what you are suggesting) - it seems that he gave away quite a few when people started to express interest.

I agree that he does not seem to have a financial motive here.
But if he wants to draw attention to his book, this seems very counterproductive. I was initially interested in his participation there but I have since decided it isn't worth much time.

(Not to mention that their board format really sucks!!!)

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, clearly. There needs to be a snarky emoticon...

- Doc

[_malkie]

Well, clearly. There needs to be a snarky emoticon...

- Doc

Hey Doc.

If you're referring to my post, sorry if it came off that way. It was only an observation, not a snark.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Nah, I was being snarky ref the book sales.

= DOC