Scottie wrote:It sounds like Dr Peterson is simply holding firm to the true purpose of apologetics, which is not to prove the church is true, but rather to make sure it can't be proven false.
He is setting up a scenario where one cannot falsify the church. If you were to plug any given religion into his essay, could you prove it false?
I think Dan gives just enough to work with to show why a rejection of Mormonism can be very thoughtful, and not just a rejection of the Book of Mormon or pointing out the ugly parts of Church history, but to show that even if you take Mormonism at face value, it comes up short.
EAllusion wrote:Yeah, good luck interacting with that.
I'm just using the essay as a springboard. Dan asks the kinda questions that takes Philosophy to it's very limits, and in any event, they should be answered. I don't expect anything from Dan.
Doctor Scratch wrote:EAllusion is right, as is Scottie. DCP's talk isn't really meant to do anything beyond reassure the flock. I tried on several occasions to get Dr. P. to respond to Bob McCue's criticism, and DCP's response was always (A) that he hadn't even bothered to read the remarks, despite claiming that they were "distortions", and (B) that he just didn't feel like addressing the criticism.
Yes, they are probably right. What I hope to accomplish is not getting anything from Dan, but giving a series of "substantive posts" here in Shady Acres. Something beyond, " God doesn't exist" to "The LDS Church and Mormon Theology are unprepared to even answer the biggest questions we humans face."
I've been enjoying the contributions on this thread. I encourage Dr. Stak to continue with his posts. Very nice move checking into the Camus material, the result of his inquiry is satisfying though hardly surprising. Dr. Stak will need to take a number, however, on DCP's objections to materialism, a few of us have been in line for a while waiting on an answer to this one. Consider, the view of Mormons as materialists is a rather standard position amongst some of DCP's apologist buddies. But as Doctor Scratch notes, he's playing very skillfully with cliches, he may actually not even care much at all about any of this beyond gratifying the prejudices of his readership.
I do disagree with Dr. Stak on one matter. Though I found his explanation of the difference between an internal and an external critique important, I think he gives the author too much credit for making a "reasonable" request. Now, it's a huge stretch for me to agree at all that the fundamentalist Christian TAG which DCP apparently thoroughly embraces is worth discussing at all. Though I can imagine a hypothetical situation where one is looking for entertainment, and decides to go down this path for whatever non-serious reasons s/he has for doing so. But going from "external" critique to "internal" is what I call "turtling" and I find it a cowardly tactic in debate; it is in fact a favorite tactic of the apologists.
prosecution: We've found the knife with the defendant's fingerprints all over, we have 27 eye witnesses, and we have footage from a security camera....
defense: Interesting all that, but isn't it true that after thousands of years of venting our spleens, we humans have not yet adequately defined knowledge? We are no more sure that this man is guilty than the sun will rise tomorrow, all we can do is draw inferences that are demonstrably unjustifiable. Unless the prosecution can solve the problem of induction within the next half hour, I'm afraid they've sawed off the limb upon which they are sitting and my client can't be said to be guilty of anything.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
DCP tends to conflate naturalism, materialism, and atheism. When I think of the most famous atheist philosopher, the first one that pops into my mind is Bertrand Russell. And he wasn't a materialist at all. And on the flip side, important figures in early Mormon theology clearly were materialists. The question of theism is independent of whether one is materialist, idealist, or dualist. Then on top of that, he tends to confuse materialism and atheism further with determinism. It's not a mistake you would expect from someone with an undergrad degree in philosophy. However, that confusion of DCP's aside, I think he wants to critique the determinist physicalists. Physicalism, after all, does dominate atheists just as it does philosophy in general. I think when engaging his, um, argument I think the best approach is to just address whether physicalist determinism has the implications he thinks it does. The way he states it, he seems to be offering a TAG-like case, but if you go after that he might say that's not what he meant. So what did he mean? Is he interested in Plantinga's EAAN*? And how does theism help us make sense of these problems? Good luck figuring it out. It's hard to address someone's argument when it's just a moving target.
But, there is a caveat here. While DCP seems to be awfully busy and above reply if you have technical knowledge of the issues in question, he does seem to have a great deal of free time to respond to people who appear ignorant and/or dunderheaded. So if for some reason you happen to come across that way at first blush, he might *ahem* find the time to get in a conversation at first.
*My personal vote for the stupidest argument only a very well-educated, very smart person could come up with.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Jul 23, 2010 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gadianton wrote:I've been enjoying the contributions on this thread. I encourage Dr. Stak to continue with his posts. Very nice move checking into the Camus material, the result of his inquiry is satisfying though hardly surprising. Dr. Stak will need to take a number, however, on DCP's objections to materialism, a few of us have been in line for a while waiting on an answer to this one. Consider, the view of Mormons as materialists is a rather standard position amongst some of DCP's apologist buddies. But as Doctor Scratch notes, he's playing very skillfully with cliches, he may actually not even care much at all about any of this beyond gratifying the prejudices of his readership.
I do disagree with Dr. Stak on one matter. Though I found his explanation of the difference between an internal and an external critique important, I think he gives the author too much credit for making a "reasonable" request. Now, it's a huge stretch for me to agree at all that the fundamentalist Christian TAG which DCP apparently thoroughly embraces is worth discussing at all. Though I can imagine a hypothetical situation where one is looking for entertainment, and decides to go down this path for whatever non-serious reasons s/he has for doing so. But going from "external" critique to "internal" is what I call "turtling" and I find it a cowardly tactic in debate; it is in fact a favorite tactic of the apologists.
prosecution: We've found the knife with the defendant's fingerprints all over, we have 27 eye witnesses, and we have footage from a security camera....
defense: Interesting all that, but isn't it true that after thousands of years of venting our spleens, we humans have not yet adequately defined knowledge? We are no more sure that this man is guilty than the sun will rise tomorrow, all we can do is draw inferences that are demonstrably unjustifiable. Unless the prosecution can solve the problem of induction within the next half hour, I'm afraid they've sawed off the limb upon which they are sitting and my client can't be said to be guilty of anything.
Well said. It always strikes me odd when apologists revert to stances that would make the vast majority of church members shudder.
Although, if we get right down to it, we understand nothing about reality, and this may all be a Matrix-induced dream, it’s reasonable to talk in a manner that ignores this discomfiting aspect of human limitations. It’s reasonable to talk about the sun rising tomorrow, and the sunset last night. Otherwise, we wouldn’t function.
So if the best apologetic defense to charges such as: Joseph Smith married other mens’ wives is: well, but what is reality? then that is truly a sad state of affairs.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Gadianton wrote:defense: Interesting all that, but isn't it true that after thousands of years of venting our spleens, we humans have not yet adequately defined knowledge? We are no more sure that this man is guilty than the sun will rise tomorrow, all we can do is draw inferences that are demonstrably unjustifiable. Unless the prosecution can solve the problem of induction within the next half hour, I'm afraid they've sawed off the limb upon which they are sitting and my client can't be said to be guilty of anything.
There's an old saying in law that when the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the facts aren't on your side, pound the law. When the law isn't on your side, pound the table. I think that describes too many of my interactions with conservative Christian apologists.
Still, I'd love to see a court case where the defense brings up some famous problems in epistemology and concludes therefore knowledge isn't possible, and therefore we can't know the client did it. That would be awesome.
Still, I'd love to see a court case where the defense brings up some famous problems in epistemology and concludes therefore knowledge isn't possible, and therefore we can't know the client did it. That would be awesome.
You gotta be kidding!!! He would be laughed out of the courtroom.
Huckelberry said: I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.
From everything I have read on these and other LDS related sites I am getting ready to admit many LDS Leaders are inspired. This is shown in their description of Peterson and others as "so-called intellectuals".
"This is how INGORNAT these fools are!" - darricktevenson
Bow your head and mutter, what in hell am I doing here?
infaymos wrote: "Peterson is the defacto king ping of the Mormon Apologetic world."
Joseph wrote:From everything I have read on these and other LDS related sites I am getting ready to admit many LDS Leaders are inspired. This is shown in their description of Peterson and others as "so-called intellectuals".
Now that's funny.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.