Some Responses to the New Atheists

[WalkerW]

Really? According to Abraham 3:3, God told Abraham that Kolob is near Him. What do non-fundamentalist Mormons think God meant by that?

See John Gee, William J. Hamblin, Daniel C. Peterson, "And I Saw the Stars - The Book of Abraham and Ancient Geocentric Astronomy."

[WalkerW]

*By the way, I really wasn't impressed with Hart's critique of Dennett at all. I found myself objecting all the way through the review.

Well, if

all it it takes...

[WalkerW]

It seems to me that he would have an even easier time with the Mormon God ( a hyper-literal vision of God as a glorified primate complete with teeth, hair, toenails, nipples, rectum etc. ). The number of absurdities that such a vision engenders when brought into proximity with evolutionary explanations of the body plan of homosapiens is quite high in my opinion.

Indeed, I don't understand the way Mormons like DCP bring up Aquinas and/or complain that Dawkins doesn't treat serious modern theology (God as the totally incorporeal genderless "ground of being"). As far as theology, Mormonism is in many ways more fundamentalist than the fundamentalists and is a very easy target. So much so, that people, don't even bother bringing Mormonism up much is such discussions.

What makes a physical, rather literal anthropomorphic God intriguing is that Joseph Smith claimed it was revelation. Given the current biblical scholarship regarding the Hebrew conception of God, the distinction between El and Yahweh, the procreative powers of deity, the divine council, the ability to literally see God, etc., I'd say that makes Smith's claims worth examining. If by "fundamentalist," you mean that Mormon doctrine fits fairly well into the temple worldview of the ancients, then I guess so. I was using it to describe a fairly new movement beginning in the early 20th century.

[Pahoran]

Do you think merely laughing something off over and over is interesting or valid?

The fact that no one has even come close to cogently addressing the various mentioned absurdities is by itself interesting.

Do you think that mere adolescent jeering requires a cogent response?

It takes no talent at all to create "absurdities" such as your one-note chorus; as witnessed by the fact that it wasn't beyond you. All anyone needs to do is rip little snippets of someone else's beliefs out of their context, and express them in terms of your own paradigm.

An infallible formula for success.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

As far as saying something new, well it only takes one crack to make an edifice fall and what we have here is more than a mere crack.

Oh, a "crack" is exactly what it is.

Beside, you and I both know that I haven't brought this up in any detail for a while and there are all sorts of new people here that could benefit from hearing them for the first time.

Bringing these things up is also effective in that more than one of the exmos that used to be a marginal apologist has privately credited these points I make as playing a major role in their transformation.

"Transformation" into what, precisely?

I can think of a couple of possible candidates for your description; both of them are quite active on Traitors and Haters, and both of them are seething with bitterness and anger at the best of times. Is that what you are taking credit for, Tarski?

And is this your idea of a good work? To sucker the weak, to drag on the hands that hang down and weaken the feeble knees?

The only problem is that Mormons are just already so used to living with these incongruities that the absurd doesn't seem absurd and some people just don't have any philosophical circumspection in the first place. They will be immune and I am fine with that.

So the only way to be "immune" to your sophomoric sophistries is to lack "philosophical circumspection?" Are you really that impressed with yourself?

I put it to you, sir, that there is in fact another way: to see through the jeering. That is sufficient inoculation.

Also, a heads up for you: The ploy of pointing at a good skeptical point and yawning only works with some people. The rest realize it is a form of intellectual bullying. The points I make are great and they aren't getting old. Sorry.

Thank you for answering my question: you really are that impressed with yourself.

The "points" you make are idiotic and were old before you thought of them. Sorry.

The only way anyone could take them seriously is if they had a completely mediocre mind.

Which would not necessarily detract from the fact that such a person might be good at doing his sums.

You know what would really make the point? Well, it would be fun to have a debate with some theologians and philosophers are judges. The question would be something like "does traditional Mormon theology as initiated especially in the King Follet discourses lead to absurdities in light of modern evolutionary biology?"

What do you think? Would it be a piece of cake for you since my points are just boring?

Of course it is necessary for you to set the terms of the debate in this way, in order to beg the more important question. I have an alternative debate topic. The question would be something like "Can speculative science, such as evolutionary biology, be seriously taken to shed any light on the supernatural claims of LDS theology?"

Might that be a little bit less cake-like for you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Tarski]

What makes a physical, rather literal anthropomorphic God intriguing is that Joseph Smith claimed it was revelation.

Well if that's all it takes...

[WalkerW]

Well if that's all it takes...

Given the context of my comment, this response doesn't even make sense.

[Tarski]

Oh, a "crack" is exactly what it is.

"Transformation" into what, precisely?

I can think of a couple of possible candidates for your description; both of them are quite active on Traitors and Haters, and both of them are seething with bitterness and anger at the best of times. Is that what you are taking credit for, Tarski?

And is this your idea of a good work? To sucker the weak, to drag on the hands that hang down and weaken the feeble knees?

So the only way to be "immune" to your sophomoric sophistries is to lack "philosophical circumspection?" Are you really that impressed with yourself?

I put it to you, sir, that there is in fact another way: to see through the jeering. That is sufficient inoculation.

Thank you for answering my question: you really are that impressed with yourself.

The "points" you make are idiotic and were old before you thought of them. Sorry.

The only way anyone could take them seriously is if they had a completely mediocre mind.

Which would not necessarily detract from the fact that such a person might be good at doing his sums.

Of course it is necessary for you to set the terms of the debate in this way, in order to beg the more important question. I have an alternative debate topic. The question would be something like "Can speculative science, such as evolutionary biology, be seriously taken to shed any light on the supernatural claims of LDS theology?"

Might that be a little bit less cake-like for you?

Regards,

Pahoran

Would you be up for a public debate on this topic if the judges where a mix of non-Mormon theologians and philosophers?

Look I have talked in person with many LDS and many others about this and quite a few who are PhDs and many others generally thought to be exceptionly intelligent (it is those with whom I am most naturally drawn to talk with), one of which is actually an LDS philosopher (I won't drag him into this). They considered the points made to be very substantial. In almost every case it resulted in the other person making at least a slight retreat from their previous viewpoint and in other cases it was just put on the shelf as a mystery.

It was remarked to me by Dan Peterson that the point (or points) is nontrivial and that he has some ideas regarding it (to be saved for a serious journal if I recall correctly). In private he has also acknowledged the general intelligence of my approach while of course maintaining his point of view (in short, he doesn't share your opinion that I am of substandard intelligence).

But why should I care what you think? Well, I don't. Anyone and everyone can see that your only contribution is to basically shout critics down by calling them bigots and haters every chance you get. You talk about angry exmos and yet you are all about anger basically every time and are more or less famous for it. I am sure you have the power to shut me up too. Will it come to that?

Compare yourself to LDS posters like Asbestosman or Nofear who show that they get the points basically every time and then discuss it from all kinds of angles for pages. Compare that to your post. If you want to know why I bother to simply (or arrogantly) assert that my ideas are good, it is because Hamblin shows up and contributes a no content post arrogantly asserting the reverse without argument. It bothers you that I don't cower and retreat.

If Hamblin or yourself made a serious argument or appraoched me and or the topic with the respect that other LDS thinkers do then I would have never simply asserted that my ideas a good (and they are!).

But maybe I am being to hard on you. Maybe your reactionary anger has prevented you from pondering my points sufficiently. Maybe you havn't caught on.

Of course, there is always guys like "The Dude" who understood quite well. Of course he is just another stupid PhD biologist.

Isn't it amazing how many educated people don't see how stupid I am like you do. What an amazing guy you are. Of course, you can always just apply the axiom that the church is true so anyone who sees it otherwise is stupid. That's a short cut that eliminates the need to think much about anything. This is a short cut I think you take regularly.

Finally, by calling evolutionary biology a "speculative science" you reveal much about yourself and your understanding. Are you leaning to the Hovind side of the fence or have you been there all along?

As for your proposed topic, "Can speculative [LOL] science, such as evolutionary biology, be seriously taken to shed any light on the supernatural claims of LDS theology?", I would still be willing to do the debate as long as the panel of judges is not padded with religionists rather than academic philosophers, scientists and theologians. My answer would be "yes it can and here is why...".

I would welcome the opportunity to get into this on a level that I have not been able to in a forum such as this.

I have discussed this stuff with the best minds I could find for years. Your reaction is not the reaction of someone willing to think seriously. By now I know the difference.

[Tarski]

What makes a physical, rather literal anthropomorphic God intriguing is that Joseph Smith claimed it was revelation. Given the current biblical scholarship regarding the Hebrew conception of God, the distinction between El and Yahweh, the procreative powers of deity, the divine council, the ability to literally see God, etc., I'd say that makes Smith's claims worth examining. If by "fundamentalist," you mean that Mormon doctrine fits fairly well into the temple worldview of the ancients, then I guess so. I was using it to describe a fairly new movement beginning in the early 20th century.

And this is more or less a version of the kind of thing Dawkins is criticised for! They say, in effect, "of course no one takes the silly anthropomorphic gods of the ancients seriously! Theology has progressed beyond that! Dawkins sets up a silly strawman by focusing on the old man in the sky type of god."

Well, not with the Mormons. The Mormon notion of God is not progressive in this sense. In a way it is rather atavistic. It is hard to imagine that even Paul would have thought of God as a glorified flesh and bone animal (but then of course he did not have the advantage of our modern view of the tree of life and man's oneness with the animal kingdom).

I do have the chance quite often to talk to academic philosophers and a couple of theologians to boot. I have yet to see anyone reacting with anything but a grin when I ask about the Mormon anthropomorphic God. Now I know that apologists have found one or two who will say something superficially supportive (maybe occasionally more than that the OT God really was approached anthropomorphically) but these are excpetions.

Now if I bring up any of my points to such people, the points that helped me decide against Mormon theology and the same ones you think are stupic, how do you think they react? Well, again a knowing grin and some added points of their own along the same lines.

Stupid people all over I guess.

In fact, I have spent far more time trying to see how to make sense of it than it deserves. Others might just say it need not be taken seriously. In my youth I went so far as to find (with a little help from James Faulconer) Heideggarian rationalizations for an athropomorphic God. My brother studied under Faulconer a bit and majored in philosophy. He became an author among other things. He used to angrily spend hours telling me my objections were ill conceived. He sounded like you.

Of course, I eventually convinced the lad and he is happily out of Mormonism--and I do mean happy. His family situation is the best of all the siblings the rest of which are still in the church (for what it is worth).

My point is, I have though about this a lot and faced many who at first though they could hammer me on this but ultimately could not sustain their arguments.

Of course, it is not as if this were the only problem with Mormonism. There are some things that no amount of supposed witnesses can make plausible.

There is no doubt that Mormonism answers to deep needs. It is in that sense like a work of genius. It has many things to recomend it from a practical, social and emotional point of veiw. This may be enough for some but I don't work that way.

[Tarski]

Given the context of my comment, this response doesn't even make sense.

I don't think your quip made sense either. I told you I didn't agree with Hart. The fact that I left it at that doesn't imply that I don't have detailed arguments of rebuttal. I only has so much time.

Joseph Smith claiming that it was a revelation is certainly not enough to make it interesting unless as a window into his psychology maybe. Perhaps his revelations on polygamy are interesting only in the same sense.

****You know Walker, I get the sense that you are walking a path that I have travelled myself. You have steeped yourself in philosophy, probably continental philosophy, and feel you have all sorts of interesting ways to "sophisticate" Mormonism. Mormon intellectuals tend to remake the ultimately simple minded semi-occult religion in the image of the things they learn in academia. They rework it. Then some publish in Dialoge and so on and a whole culture is created. None of these sophistications seem to have originated with the seers and revelators and these days if anything, some of the apostle seem to look to outfits like FARMS to do their deep thinking for them --to answer question like what is the symbolic meaning of the astrology in the BoA etc. The flow seems to go the wrong way. Yes I do have some evidence that this happens. ***

[Tarski]

And is this your idea of a good work? To sucker the weak, to drag on the hands that hang down and weaken the feeble knees?

LOL, I really should have highlighted this comment of yours before. "Drag on the hands that hang down"? LOL

Besides being humorously melodramatic, the subtext is that only the weak suckers could possibly question your belief system and find it wanting.

And you talk of arrogance?? The people of which I spoke are dynamic successful intelligent people--more than I am in some cases. It took strength for then to question and act. Oh and spare me the mini-lecture about clich

[Analytics]

Look I have talked in person with many LDS and many others about this and quite a few who are PhDs and many others generally thought to be exceptionly intelligent (it is those with whom I am most naturally drawn to talk with), one of which is actually an LDS phiexceptionallylosopher (I won't drag him into this). They considered the points made to be very substantial.

I

[elguanteloko]

I don't think your quip made sense either. I told you I didn't agree with Hart. The fact that I left it at that doesn't imply that I don't have detailed arguments of rebuttal. I only has so much time.

Joseph Smith claiming that it was a revelation is certainly not enough to make it interesting unless as a window into his psychology maybe. Perhaps his revelations on polygamy are interesting only in the same sense.

****You know Walker, I get the sense that you are walking a path that I have travelled myself. You have steeped yourself in philosophy, probably continental philosophy, and feel you have all sorts of interesting ways to "sophisticate" Mormonism. Mormon intellectuals tend to remake the ultimately simple minded semi-occult religion in the image of the things they learn in academia. They rework it. Then some publish in Dialoge and so on and a whole culture is created. None of these sophistications seem to have originated with the seers and revelators and these days if anything, some of the apostles looks to outfits like FARMS to do their deep thinking for them --to answer question like what is the symbolic meaning of the astrology in the BoA etc. The flow seems to go the wrong way. Yes I do have some evidence that this happens. ***

I would like to see an example or evidence of this, Tarski.

[Tarski]

I

[elguanteloko]

That's only half true. The "scientific racism" on which eugenics was founded was indeed "a case of well-thought secular values gone wrong."

This is absolutely incredible, Chris. If you think Hitler and his buddies arrived at the conclusion of racial 'cleansing' and murdering millions of Jews through well-thought (secular) methods, then you are either quite naive or you just don't know how secular ethics works or both.

[Tarski]

I would like to see an example or evidence of this, Tarski.

Thanks for asking. Actually my best personal evidence of this would just be hearsay if I posted it and it may embarrass someone whom I have nothing against. I would rather retract than have to do that (so I guess I will).

However, I can at least mention Steven Benson's story of his meeting with Dallan Oaks. Are you aware of that?

Also, a hint might be to ask how it comes to pass that Kolob and all that stuff in the BoA is symbolic of something to do with Christ etc. Who thought of that and which if any GA's gladly buy into it? Do the GAs offer a competing interpretation of that troublesome astrology? Why or why not?

To be clear, I do not claim that apostles teach FARMS material in conference or anything (though maybe they have taught Nibley's stuff in bits and pieces). It is just that they (the GAs) aren't the one's doing the interpreting in many if not most cases.

Another partial example is "Ancient America Speaks". On what basis did that become standard part of our missionary effort in the 70s? Where did that info come from? (Mostly discredited as poor scholarship by now as I recall). Can we assume that the GAs bought into it since they certainly knew about it and bore the final responsibility for what the missionaries should be teaching? Was this part of the truth going out into the world?

I wish I could give you a better example that is public knowledge but based on what I experienced it occurs to me that there may be. I will do a little research to see if I can find written public evidence.

[Bill Hamblin]

Compare yourself to LDS posters like Asbestosman or Nofear who show that they get the points basically every time and then discuss it from all kinds of angles for pages. Compare that to your post. If you want to know why I bother to simply (or arrogantly) assert that my ideas are good, it is because Hamblin shows up and contributes a no content post arrogantly asserting the reverse without argument. It bothers you that I don't cower and retreat.

If Hamblin or yourself made a serious argument or appraoched me and or the topic with the respect that other LDS thinkers do then I would have never simply asserted that my ideas a good (and they are!).

I wasn't making an argument. Just an observation.

But, putting aside being rude to Tarski for a moment, I have a question for you. My son is interested in majoring in physics/astrophysics in college. Do you have a suggested book or two at an introductory/popular level for him to get his feet wet on the subject? He's has high school physics and calculus, but nothing in college yet.

[Tarski]

I wasn't making an argument. Just an observation.

But, putting aside being rude to Tarski for a moment, I have a question for you. My son is interested in majoring in physics/astrophysics in college. Do you have a suggested book or two at an introductory/popular level for him to get his feet wet on the subject? He's has high school physics and calculus, but nothing in college yet.

Hmm. That is a hard question.

In retrospect I wish I had gone through Feynman's 3 volume lectures on physics much sooner than I did. I thought they were just basic physics (and they are) but the insights are fantastic and I still go back to them sometimes for fun. Everyone should work their way through these very seriously. The choice to do that could be life changing in my opinion. The 3rd volume is much more sophisticated than the first and the second volume goes about as far into electromagnetism as I have seen in an undergraduate text--including the fully covariant relativistic version of the theory.

For something quicker there is Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics also by Richard Feynman. These are short and very basic. They form a good review but also you get a taste of Feynman's writing and basic insights. After that there is "Six Not so Easy Pieces" which covers relativity and quantum theory.

There is a book I like which would be quite challenging. Is it Roger Penrose's "Road to Reality". In it he tries to take anyone and their grandmother right from basic rational arithmetic and algebra to the most sophisticated mathematical physics such as gauge field theory and strings. He tries to teach all the math as he goes including tensor analysis, fiber bundle topology, Hilbert Space theory and Riemannian geometry. It is an impossible task but certain talented individuals could really get a feel for the real deal from that book. I think it is fantastic.

Penrose is also a bit theism friendly though not overtly. His exudes a sort of spiritual sensibility through the whole book.

And thanks for the tension breaker.

[elguanteloko]

Hmm. That is a hard question.

In retrospect I wish I had gone through Feynman's 3 volume lectures on physics much sooner than I did. I thought they were just basic physics (and they are) but the insights are fantastic and I still go back to them sometimes for fun. Everyone should work their way through these very seriously. The choice to do that could be life changing in my opinion. The 3rd volume is much more sophisticated than the first and the second volume goes about as far into electromagnetism as I have seen in an undergraduate text--including the fully covariant relativistic version of the theory.

For something quicker there is Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics also by Richard Feynman. These are short and very basic. They form a good review but also you get a taste of Feynman's writing and basic insights. After that there is "Six Not so Easy Pieces" which covers relativity and quantum theory.

There is a book I like which would be quite challenging. Is it Roger Penrose's "Road to Reality". In it he tries to take anyone and their grandmother right from basic rational arithmetic and algebra to the most sophisticated mathematical physics such as gauge field theory and strings. He tries to teach all the math as he goes including tensor analysis, fiber bundle topology, Hilbert Space theory and Riemannian geometry. It is an impossible task but certain talented individuals could really get a feel for the real deal from that book. I think it is fantastic.

Penrose is also a bit theism friendly though not overtly. His exudes a sort of spiritual sensibility through the whole book.

And thanks for the tension breaker.

Now I know what I want for Christmas.

[elguanteloko]

Thanks for asking. Actually my best personal evidence of this would just be hearsay if I posted it and it may embarrass someone whom I have nothing against. I would rather retract than have to do that (so I guess I will).

However, I can at least mention Steven Benson's story of his meeting with Dallan Oaks. Are you aware of that?

Also, a hint might be to ask how it comes to pass that Kolob and all that stuff in the BoA is symbolic of something to do with Christ etc. Who thought of that and which if any GA's gladly buy into it? Do the GAs offer a competing interpretation of that troublesome astrology? Why or why not?

To be clear, I do not claim that apostles teach FARMS material in conference or anything (though maybe they have taught Nibley's stuff in bits and pieces). It is just that they (the GAs) aren't the one's doing the interpreting in many if not most cases.

Another partial example is "Ancient America Speaks". On what basis did that become standard part of our missionary effort in the 70s? Where did that info come from? (Mostly discredited as poor scholarship by now as I recall). Can we assume that the GAs bought into it since they certainly knew about it and bore the final responsibility for what the missionaries should be teaching? Was this part of the truth going out into the world?

I wish I could give you a better example that is public knowledge but based on what I experienced it occurs to me that there may be. I will do a little research to see if I can find written public evidence.

I haven't heard of the "Ancient America Speaks" or the Benson-Oaks story. At the risk of making you feel old, these stories seem pretty old and definitely not part of my generation. lol

[WalkerW]

the same ones you think are stupic, how do you think they react? Well, again a knowing grin and some added points of their own along the same lines.

Stupid people all over I guess...He sounded like you.

Tarski, what on earth are you talking about? I just went over my past posts in this thread to see what you could possibly be referring to and I admit that I'm clueless. My first one commented on Hart and referenced Lindberg. I suggested Peterson's paper, made mention of Feser for clarification on Aquinas's philosophy and a review of Dennett. Suggested a review by Hart. Made a comment about religious and secular both being guilty of evils. Talked about reading Stenger's book and Dawkin's opening that often does not apply because of the unique version of Mormonism's God. You said that you objected to Hart. I made a sarcastic quip about it. I then explained that Joseph's descriptions of God make more sense now given modern biblical scholarship. In other words, in many cases, he beat them to it. I think that requires evaluation. So what exactly are you talking about when you say "I'm angry" and "think people are stupid"? If anything, I'm only now becoming angered by your thoughtless and baseless accusation.

Joseph Smith claiming that it was a revelation is certainly not enough to make it interesting unless as a window into his psychology maybe

I think it makes it fairly interesting mainly because he claimed it to be from a divine source and a restoration of ancient ideas, particularly the temple. Many of the concepts I listed taught by Joseph Smith have been (for me at least) enriched by current biblical scholarship. The more I learn, the more I think he was on to something. I would expect it to work the other way around (it has for others), but it hasn't done that for me.

interesting ways to "sophisticate" Mormonism

I'm very sophisticated. [spoken with British accent before putting pipe into mouth]

Yes I do have some evidence that this happens

As do I. The revelation on the priesthood most likely was influenced by Lester Bush's Dialogue article.

I've never said that I don't have questions or struggle to understand things or think some things are just plain nonsense. I don't know why you are trying to paint me as if I have.

[Tarski]

Tarski, what on earth are you talking about? I just went over my past posts in this thread to see what you could possibly be referring to and I admit that I'm clueless. My first one commented on Hart and referenced Lindberg. I suggested Peterson's paper, made mention of Feser for clarification on Aquinas's philosophy and a review of Dennett. Suggested a review by Hart. Made a comment about religious and secular both being guilty of evils. Talked about reading Stenger's book and Dawkin's opening that often does not apply because of the unique version of Mormonism's God. You said that you objected to Hart. I made a sarcastic quip about it. I then explained that Joseph's descriptions of God make more sense now given modern biblical scholarship. In other words, in many cases, he beat them to it. I think that requires evaluation. So what exactly are you talking about when you say "I'm angry" and "think people are stupid"? If anything, I'm only now becoming angered by your thoughtless and baseless accusation.

You left out the part where you tried to destroy me. LOL

I admit that for some of that I had Pahoran in mind. My bad.

[WalkerW]

You left out the part where you tried destroy me. LOL

I admit that for some of that I had Pahoran in mind. My bad.

No problem. Just glad we cleared that up.

[Chris Smith]

This is absolutely incredible, Chris. If you think Hitler and his buddies arrived at the conclusion of racial 'cleansing' and murdering millions of Jews through well-thought (secular) methods, then you are either quite naive or you just don't know how secular ethics works or both.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "well-thought". If you're assuming that the only "well-thought secular values" are anti-genocidal ones, then the claim that "well-thought secular values" had nothing to do with the Holocaust is trivially true. But if "well-thought secular values" are merely those rooted in extensive scientific, historical, and philosophical inquiry, then I think one would be hard-pressed to argue that "well-thought secular values" had nothing to do with Nazi ideology. The proponents of eugenics and social Darwinism were no intellectual slouches, and "scientific racism" and the Aryan myth were all the more insidious because they seemed to be supported by "objective" empirical investigation.

Note: I say this as a secular person who fully embraces an ethic rooted in secular philosophy. I am a secular person not because I believe secular values are inherently peaceful or religious ones are inherently violent, but because none of the religious systems I've encountered seem to accurately describe the world I perceive around me. Although I am secular, I think it is incredibly naive to assume that secular ideologies are somehow immune to the kinds of violent attitudes and behaviors in which religious ideologies have been complicit. I'm no believer in the "original sin" of Adam, but I do believe that we are all born with biological and psychological predispositions and susceptibilities to all kinds of nasty behavior. Ideologies and groups organized around "secular" logics can manipulate and poison us just as effectively as those organized around religious logics. To forget this is to let one's guard down and to engage in precisely the kind of demonization of the Other that could be used by a tyrant or propagandist to legitimize violence.

[cdowis]

I do have the chance quite often to talk to academic philosophers and a couple of theologians to boot. I have yet to see anyone reacting with anything but a grin when I ask about the Mormon anthropomorphic God.

Perhaps these grinning philosophers can teach us something.

Tell us precisely their experience with deity.

1. Do these grinning philosophers believe in God?

2. Where do *their* concept of God come from -- personal experience?

I want to compare their knowledge of God with someone who at the very least claims that he had a personal experience with deity -- God personally appeared to him, and he relates that experience.

Finally, how do I judge the grin of a philosopher with the heart-felt testimony of one who claims personal revelation. Do I accept the grinning and smirking as a revelant fact, or do I accept the sincere testimony.

You are impressed with the grinning, so help us... educate us. HELP ME PLEASE!!!!

Tell us what these grinning philosophers can teach us about God from their personal knowlege of deity since this is a critical point in this theoretical debate that you are so willing to participate in.

Tarski, I will assume that you will ignore this post as you have done in the past == I guess you are just too busy laughing and grinning.