Engaging Mormon Apologetics

[_EAllusion]

P.S. I'm convinced at some point those historical arguments are going to be pushed by fundamentalists into public school history classes ala the creation/evolution wars.

You're already seeing initially successful attempts to incorporate David Barton style "Christian Nation" pseudo-history into public schools. This is a logical next step.

[_mfbukowski]

Probably because that is not what he believes.

Obviously not. He rejects nihilism, justifiably so. He seems to have logically bound himself into a corner where that is the unacceptable other alternative.

Ethical behavior to please God is better than nothingness.

Huh?

[_cksalmon]

I knew DCP was enamored with the Craig/Habermas style of argument for the historicity of the resurrection, but I didn't realize he was working on a book (?) defending it.

I may be remembering incorrectly. I've done some searching on MADB. Here's what I found.

DCP:
"As for outlining my reasons for believing in the historicity of Christ, I intend to wait until I can state them in a formal publication. They will rely, to a large extent, on a close reading of the New Testament. I'm impressed, too, by N.T. Wright, Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, Stephen Davis, and a host of writers on the historical Jesus, as well as by the fact that such a minuscule proportion of those who have given the subject serious attention doubt his historicity."

So, provisionally, I retract my earlier statement that DCP plans to publish any work on the resurrection. Certainly, he is interested in evidencing the historical existence of Jesus based on the work of Wright, Habermas, Craig, Davis.

That's obviously not as interesting, at least to me. Much as like I Price (and I actually, really do), I don't see any need whatsoever for DCP to publish a defense of the existence of the historical Jesus from a Mormon perspective. What would be the point?

Price is, self-admittedly and quite happily, quite beyond the pale of consensus scholarship re: the historical Jesus. That's sort of his schtick.

[_Gadianton]

That's obviously not as interesting, at least to me. Much as like I Price (and I actually, really do), I don't see any need whatsoever for DCP to publish a defense of the existence of the historical Jesus from a Mormon perspective. What would be the point?

For one, it will show Mormons standing shoulder to shoulder as fellow Christians with other believers, so it seems at first glance like a veiled PR move and indeed works on this level. But it's in reality more like a sneak attack; his proof of Jesus being resurrected is based on eye witness accounts, and his real intention will be to show that once the Christian is embolden with proof of Jesus, she will then be forced to accept by the eye-witness logic he's employed for Jesus, in defense of the gold plates per the accounts of the witnesses. He's even admitted on this board that he plans to "turn" his argument for Jesus to a defense of the gold plates.

In other words, it's a complex and protracted crack-pipe ploy to further the cause of Mopologetics.

[_MrStakhanovite]

DCP buys into contemporary fundamentalist apologetics almost to a t with the exception of where traditional Mormon thought diverges with evangelical thought.

You just stated exactly what I couldn't put into words about what bugged me. I mean honestly, I've managed to collect a little cache of books that were written in response to the "New Atheists" and they are all like reading the same book.

My GF bought this for me a few days ago, and there was something about the cover that bothered me...



And you just reminded me of what it was!

Thus, truly consistent secularist critics of Mormonism may have sawed off the limb on which they were sitting.

[_honorentheos]

I may be remembering incorrectly. I've done some searching on MADB. Here's what I found.

DCP:
"As for outlining my reasons for believing in the historicity of Christ, I intend to wait until I can state them in a formal publication. They will rely, to a large extent, on a close reading of the New Testament. I'm impressed, too, by N.T. Wright, Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, Stephen Davis, and a host of writers on the historical Jesus, as well as by the fact that such a minuscule proportion of those who have given the subject serious attention doubt his historicity."

So, provisionally, I retract my earlier statement that DCP plans to publish any work on the resurrection. Certainly, he is interested in evidencing the historical existence of Jesus based on the work of Wright, Habermas, Craig, Davis.

Hi Cksalmon,

I recalled the same conversation that you appear to have remembered. I think I was able to find it here - http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/41697-on-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus/page__p__1208608391__hl__%2Bresurrection+%2Bfireside__fromsearch__1#entry1208608391

Post 8 specifically mentions DCP's intentions to write something, if not a book exactly.

I remembered the context for the post was that he was giving a fireside on the topic, which made the search on MAD much easier.

[_MCB]

Obviously not. He rejects nihilism, justifiably so. He seems to have logically bound himself into a corner where that is the unacceptable other alternative.

Ethical behavior to please God is better than nothingness.

Huh?

If you believe that without your LDS community you would have no ethical standards to live by, by all means, stay with your LDS community.

[_EAllusion]

Huh. Based on blurbs I just read about that book, I assume it makes a presuppositionalist* argument. There was a Catholic named David Waltz on ZLMB who endorsed the TAG. That was the only other Catholic I've ever known to do such a thing. They might as well be writing that against Thomas Aquinas as much as atheists. Presuppositionalists are usually Christian Reconstructionists or something close to it.


*Sometimes pressuppositionalism is broken up into weak presuppositionalism which merely argues that it is rational to presuppose the existence of God/a religion and strong presuppostionalism which argues that it is irrational not to presuppose the existence of God/a religion. I mean the latter.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I think the book is more of the evidentary apologetic. I'd say almost a third of the book is dedicated to how Atheism inspired communionism in Russia and other parts in the east and how Hitler was inspired by Neitzsche to do what he did. Then it's off to Atheism brings about moral relativism and that they can't really argue rape is bad. Next is that atheism can't explain the mind, origin of life and fine tuning. Naturalistic fallacy. Western Culture wouldn't be so great if it wasn't for the Catholic Church. Dawkins. Without God life is meaningless. Dawkins. Here is how to share your Catholic faith with atheists you know. The end.

[_EAllusion]

I think the book is more of the evidentary apologetic. I'd say almost a third of the book is dedicated to how Atheism inspired communionism in Russia and other parts in the east and how Hitler was inspired by Neitzsche to do what he did. Then it's off to Atheism brings about moral relativism and that they can't really argue rape is bad. Next is that atheism can't explain the mind, origin of life and fine tuning. Naturalistic fallacy. Western Culture wouldn't be so great if it wasn't for the Catholic Church. Dawkins. Without God life is meaningless. Dawkins. Here is how to share your Catholic faith with atheists you know. The end.

Well there you go. That makes those blurbs I read misleading.

(Still, it goes against Aquinas then, doesn't it? So at least that part of my post holds up.)