Review of Dehlin's "Truth Claims" Essays

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I agree.  I think it is really bad form to post an essay and not list the author(s).  

 

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I think that depends on the purpose of the essay.  There are tons of government info pages out there and authors aren't listed.  When someone is functioning as a representative of an organization rather than an individual, I don't see a need.

It’s not bad form. It is done all the time and is quite acceptable. Newspapers routinely publish what are known in the profession as “house editorials,” or editorials that have no by-line. These are intended to be regarded as expressing the institutional position of the publication that published them. If they had one or more writers’ by-lines, then they would be regarded as expressing the views not of the publication itself but of the writer or writers whose authorship is specified. 

Edited February 15, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If not the author, then arguably the publisher. As such he might appropriately be regarded as having ownership of them; ergo they are his essays as much as the author’s. 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71583-review-of-dehlins-truth-claims-essays/?do=findComment&comment=1209888116

 

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I agree.  I think it is really bad form to post an essay and not list the author(s).  

I think it's only a problem if the person who paid for the creation of and published the essays doesn't want to be affiliated with them.   If the person or group expects the essays to represent them and their thoughts/beliefs then I don't see a need to know the specific author.  

If they don't expect that then yeah, that's really bad form.

[bluebell]

18 hours ago, Gray said:

It's not too hard to demonstrate that Christianity started in the mid-first century, rather than hundreds of years earlier.

But not in a way that will prove anything to anyone.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

But not in a way that will prove anything to anyone.

Sure, it's fairly easy to reject a historical view in that regard in favor of a faith-based view.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Sure, it's fairly easy to reject a historical view in that regard in favor of a faith-based view.

Almost as easy as it is to frame a person's position in as unreasonable words as possible to make it seem like your position is the only reasonable one.  

No one has to reject a historical view in favor of a 100% faith-based view.  A person just has to acknowledge how shoddy the historical record is for all but a tiny sliver in the middle east in the last couple thousand of years and take that into consideration.  History can demonstrate that there were no followers who called themselves Christians in the middle east until the first century AD.  It can't demonstrate much more than that though, and what it can demonstrate, as far as the world goes during the thousands of years before first century AD, is so insignificant that it's not very helpful when trying to weigh doctrinal claims.

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Almost as easy as it is to frame a person's position in as unreasonable words as possible to make it seem like your position is the only reasonable one.  

No one has to reject a historical view in favor of a 100% faith-based view.  A person just has to acknowledge how shoddy the historical record is for all but a tiny sliver in the middle east in the last couple thousand of years and take that into consideration.  History can demonstrate that there were no followers who called themselves Christians in the middle east until the first century AD.  It can't demonstrate much more than that though, and what it can demonstrate, as far as the world goes during the thousands of years before first century AD, is so insignificant that it's not very helpful when trying to weigh doctrinal claims.

History can't demonstrate that Punk Rock didn't exist in the year 427 BCE, but to assert that it did would not be a historical argument, but at most a faith-based argument. From a historical perspective that would be so speculative and devoid of supporting evidence that it wouldn't merit serious consideration. Therefore it's not a historical view, just as many of Mormonism's faith-based tenets are not historical.

Of course what's reasonable is a different question. It's reasonable to believe in something ahistorical if it improves your life in some way, arguably.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Gray

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

History can't demonstrate that Punk Rock didn't exist in the year 427 BCE, but to assert that it did would not be a historical argument, but at most a faith-based argument. From a historical perspective that would be so speculative and devoid of supporting evidence that it wouldn't merit serious consideration. Therefore it's not a historical view, just as many of Mormonism's faith-based tenets are not historical.

Of course what's reasonable is a different question. It's reasonable to believe in something ahistorical if it improves your life in some way, arguably.

Historical arguments are important, but just like science, the study of history has it's limits.  Like I said before, history can serve as evidence of different things, but it can't prove anything to anyone.  That's true even for those people who don't reject the historical view.

When I was getting my degree in history my history professors enjoyed telling us stories about the different fights that historians would get into at conferences where they would argue their conclusions based on the evidence that was presented.  One said that the fights over whether or not the feudal system ever existed or if it was a historical construct were legendary, for example.  Another popular fighting topic was the existence of Troy. 

History rarely, if ever, produces proof.  Historical arguments are often at best hypotheses that some historians agree with and others don't. 

[cdowis]

On 2/13/2019 at 6:51 PM, bluebell said:

It looks more like a typing error than a spelling error, but I agree that it would have been nice if their spell check had caught it.  Was that the only spelling error in the piece?  

Someone compaing abt your Spelling erors??
I am vurious if she knows how to spell "anal_retentive"

Edited February 16, 2019 by cdowis

[Calm]

Having an obvious error in the very first sentence jumps out at me as well, even if I wouldn’t be bothered much elsewhere 

 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

Someone compaing abt your Spelling erors??
I am vurious if she knows how to spell "anal_retentive"

Yes, and constipated as well!!

[JulieM]

8 hours ago, cdowis said:

Someone compaing abt your Spelling erors??
I am vurious if she knows how to spell "anal_retentive"

Wow.  What a rude thing to post!  And not at all funny.

[Gray]

On 2/15/2019 at 3:13 PM, bluebell said:

Historical arguments are important, but just like science, the study of history has it's limits.  Like I said before, history can serve as evidence of different things, but it can't prove anything to anyone.  That's true even for those people who don't reject the historical view.

When I was getting my degree in history my history professors enjoyed telling us stories about the different fights that historians would get into at conferences where they would argue their conclusions based on the evidence that was presented.  One said that the fights over whether or not the feudal system ever existed or if it was a historical construct were legendary, for example.  Another popular fighting topic was the existence of Troy. 

History rarely, if ever, produces proof.  Historical arguments are often at best hypotheses that some historians agree with and others don't. 

I wouldn't use "proof" really outside of mathematics. Science and history are about theories and the weight of evidence, but not proof.

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, Gray said:

I wouldn't use "proof" really outside of mathematics. Science and history are about theories and the weight of evidence, but not proof.

So you agree with my original statement where I said that historical data doesn't "prove anything to anyone."

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So you agree with my original statement where I said that historical data doesn't "prove anything to anyone."

Sure, but it is convincing to people who value historical data and analysis.

Edited February 18, 2019 by Gray

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

Sure, but it is convincing to people who value historical data and analysis.

Like I said before, even people who value historical data and analysis can still disagree and come to different conclusions.  It's a false dilemma to say that either people value historical data and analysis or they disagree with my conclusions.  

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Like I said before, even people who value historical data and analysis can still disagree and come to different conclusions.  It's a false dilemma to say that either people value historical data and analysis or they disagree with my conclusions.  

I think people who seek out fringe sources of information to validate their theology don't really value historical data and analysis. They're simply looking to cherry pick information that confirms what they already believe. One can find the same thing in areas like climate change denial, young earth creationism, the anti-vax movement. etc. Cherry picking isn't really what history (as an academic discipline) is about, and certainly not science either.

Edited February 18, 2019 by Gray

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think people who seek out fringe sources of information to validate their theology don't really value historical data and analysis. They're simply looking to cherry pick information that confirms what they already believe. One can find the same thing in areas like climate change denial, young earth creationism, the anti-vax movement. etc. Cherry picking isn't really what history (as an academic discipline) is about, and certainly not science either.

I agree.