A Blistering Account of DCP's Scholarship

[_Doctor Scratch]

Readers may remember a thread some time ago, entitled "Questions for Dan Peterson," in which Mr. Stakhanovite unearthed what appeared to be a serious flaw in one of DCP's FARMS essays. Well, at last, Mr. Stak has gifted us with a fuller study of the problem in question:

http://servileconformist.typepad.com/se ... onformist/

The pair of blog articles persuasively argue that Dr. Peterson seriously misrepresented the French philosopher and author Albert Camus's views on life and religion. The articles are throrough and incisive, and I highly recommend them to anyone who is interested in philosophy, textual citation, accuracy, and truth. Next to John Gee's "two inks" claims, this may very well rank near the top of Worst Mopologetic Misrepresentations of All Time.

My sincere hope is that Mr. Stak's analysis prompts the MI team to issue a retraction in the next issue of the Review.

[_Morley]

Thank you for posting this, Scratch.

[_Chap]

Readers may remember a thread some time ago, entitled "Questions for Dan Peterson," in which Mr. Stakhanovite unearthed what appeared to be a serious flaw in one of DCP's FARMS essays. Well, at last, Mr. Stak has gifted us with a fuller study of the problem in question:

http://servileconformist.typepad.com/se ... onformist/

The pair of blog articles persuasively argue that Dr. Peterson seriously misrepresented the French philosopher and author Albert Camus's views on life and religion. The articles are throrough and incisive, and I highly recommend them to anyone who is interested in philosophy, textual citation, accuracy, and truth. Next to John Gee's "two inks" claims, this may very well rank near the top of Worst Mopologetic Misrepresentations of All Time.

My sincere hope is that Mr. Stak's analysis prompts the MI team to issue a retraction in the next issue of the Review.

Please, stemelbow - read the blog post referred to before you go into autotext mode. Pretty please?

[_Buffalo]

DCP's abuse of Camus seems to be akin to someone taking the anti-Christ dialogue from the Book of Mormon and presenting that as if it were the actual message of the Book of Mormon. Very dishonest, indeed.

[_lulu]

Next to John Gee's "two inks" claims, this may very well rank near the top of Worst Mopologetic Misrepresentations of All Time.

Any links on this or other information apprreciated.

[_harmony]

My sincere hope is that Mr. Stak's analysis prompts the MI team to issue a retraction in the next issue of the Review.

When pigs fly.

[_Fence Sitter]

Next to John Gee's "two inks" claims, this may very well rank near the top of Worst Mopologetic Misrepresentations of All Time.

Any links on this or other information apprreciated.

If you are asking about the "Two Inks" claims by Gee see here.
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=89262

[_Kishkumen]

Congratulations to Stak. It was a good read and should serve as a model for future critiques of slapdash apologetic critiques of secularism and atheism.

[_Fifth Columnist]

This is such a perfect representation of Mopologetics. They dazzle you with BS dressed in scholarly robes so that it is hard for most people to cut their way through. The faithful embrace it as a reason to believe without really understanding it. The skeptical recognize it for what it is, but don't want to expend the effort to expose it.

Every now and then, someone who is truly an expert in the area grabs their BS with both hands and throws it right back in their faces. That's what you've done Stak. Great job.

[_Kishkumen]

This is such a perfect representation of Mopologetics. They dazzle you with b***s*** dressed in scholarly robes so that it is hard for most people to cut their way through. The faithful embrace it as a reason to believe without really understanding it. The skeptical recognize it for what it is, but don't want to expend the effort to expose it.

Every now and then, someone who is truly an expert in the area grabs their b***s*** with both hands and throws it right back in their faces. That's what you've done Stak. Great job.

Well said.