Some Responses to the New Atheists

[Tarski]

Perhaps these grinning philosophers can teach us something.

Tell us precisely their experience with deity.

It varied with the person. Too many to recount but they had in common the realization that a primate God was more than just problematic.

1. Do these grinning philosophers believe in God?

Some. But before I answer the rest of your questions, I want to point out that the only thing I was trying to counter was Pahoran's absurd claim that only a mediocre mind could take my points seriously.

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

I suppose it varies. But since personal experience seems to have led to an uncontrolled variety of tightly held opinions about the nature of God, I wouldn't be too quick to elevate this method (which has problems right from the get go).

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.

More people have claimed to have had experiences with God only to emphasize that God is wholly unlike a man.

Finally, how do I judge the grin of a philosopher with the heart-felt testimony of one who claims personal revelation.

See above.

Do I accept the grinning and smirking as a revelant fact, or do I accept the sincere testimony.

Like I said, it is relevant to the question of whether only an unintelligent person would see problems with the notion of a glorified primate God. Apparently plenty of very intelligent and educated people do see a problem.

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

I am not impressed with the grinning but I know what it says about the rudely assumed relationship of stupidity with the ideas I bring up.

You need to focus on what point i am making and what point I am not making.

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

You haven't even begun to establish that personal experience of sort so commonly talked about in Mormonism is a reliable way to come to know the nature or even existence of a deity.

Recall that this was all about those things that the New Atheists ignore theologically.

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.

Oh, oops! Should I go back and delete my response?

[Pahoran]

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

Yep.

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.

Ah. Not only an appeal to authority, but an appeal to anonymous authority.

I am suitably awed.

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).

Again, I am suitably awed.

But the fact remains that sceptics have been smugly congratulating themselves on being too smart and sophisticated to believe in anything as crass or vulgar as an anthropomorphic deity for at least two millennia before you came along and had your moment of "originality."

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.

Are you as "sure" about that as you are about the brilliance of your adolescent jeering?

Because I assure you that they are both equally valid.

Will it come to that?

As surely as I have that power.

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!).

In your opinion. In mine, if your recycles were really any good, they wouldn't need you to spruik for them.

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.

That's it. Your self-congratulatory "cracks" are so self-evidently true that it's just not possible for anyone who understands them to not admire them.

Is that what you really think?

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.

Call for references, please. If you think I take it regularly, there really ought to be at least some examples of it somewhere.

(Hint: this is where you get to tell me that you don't like my "tone" so you won't be responding to me any more.)

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?

You're right; the phrase "speculative science" is a redundancy, since all science is necessarily speculative.

Nice attempt at smearing by association, BTW. I was going with Popper; I had to google Hovind to find out who you were talking about.

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...".

And I would be happy to go with it as long as the panel is not stacked with devotees of Ditchkins. My answer would be "Of course not."

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.

So do I: "Think seriously" <> "Uncritically swallow Tarski's moments of adolescent cleverness."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Tarski]

Yep.

Ah. Not only an appeal to authority, but an appeal to anonymous authority.

I am suitably awed.

This bodes well for me in the upcoming debate. You apparently do not realize when referring to opinions of experts constitutes a fallacy. For example, if I were to defend the notion that 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Crest tooth paste then it is perfectly relevant what dentists say on the matter.

Similarly, if my goal is to defend against the idea that no one except someone with mediocre intelligence would react favorably to Tarski's points about biology and Mormon theology, then bringing up examples of people with high intelligence that reacted otherwise would be quite relevant. The anonymity is a simple consequence of my anonymity. You either believe me or consider me a liar. That will have to be your choice. However, others are reading the thread and will have different opinions on that.

But the fact remains that sceptics have been smugly congratulating themselves on being too smart and sophisticated to believe in anything as crass or vulgar as an anthropomorphic deity for at least two millennia before you came along and had your moment of "originality."

Hint: Adding in words like "smugly" can't really serve to convince-especially given who that would include (Aquinas?). Those who have thought negatively about an anthropomorphic deity include quite a few theologians normally revered by those who wish to discredit the new atheists.

But in if you think it is merely the notion of an anthropomorphic God that is at issue, you are mistaken. The Mormon God is a far more specific sort of being. He procreates spirit bodies for example. The spirit bodies also have anthropomorphic form and are yet somehow not physical. He was once a man for another. He has actual flesh and bones.

These things bring much greater poignancy to the issue and when considered against what we know about the relationship between evolution and body plans, we come face to face with conceptual problems than wouldn't have been imagined by medieval theologians who rejected a merely anthropomorphic God (anthropomorphic in a possibly weaker sense than the biological).

Are you as "sure" about that as you are about the brilliance of your adolescent jeering?

I think it is reasonable that I expect you to stop the insults if there is going to be a debate. These insults are ironically quite adolescent. Virtually no one thinks of me in those terms so I don't know who you think you are pandering to.

Your self-congratulatory "cracks" are so self-evidently true that it's just not possible for anyone who understands them to not admire them.

Is that what you really think?

Almost. I don't think they are self-congratulatory cracks. (Exactly who do you think this kind of insulting language impresses? It doesn't make an argument.)

"Uncritically swallow Tarski's moments of adolescent cleverness."

adolescent? Again, who do imagine is moved by this kind of talk? Only a mediocre mind I would think

Several issues much be addressed for the debate.

1. Timing and location.

2. Venue.

3. Choice of judges and the logistics of obtaining their participation.

4. Possible payment of judges (it seems to me only inappropriately invested experts would agree to this without an honorarium)

5. Clarification of the sense to be understood by the main question to be debated.

6. Number of turns for each debater and length of each turn. If this is to be done by writing or online, then page number limits and so forth would have to be discussed.

7. I would need you word of honor that you would not seek help from other but only use your own words and your own research etc.

[Pahoran]

Several issues much be addressed for the debate.

1. Timing and location.

2. Venue.

I live in New Zealand and work normal hours. This isn't my project and I'm not terribly invested in it. You work it out. If it works for me, I'll participate.

3. Choice of judges and the logistics of obtaining their participation.

4. Possible payment of judges (it seems to me only inappropriately invested experts would agree to this without an honorarium)

Eh?

5. Clarification of the sense to be understood by the main question to be debated.

Cool.

6. Number of turns for each debater and length of each turn. If this is to be done by writing or online, then page number limits and so forth would have to be discussed.

7. I would need you word of honor that you would not seek help from other but only use your own words and your own research etc.

Oh -- okay. So it's not about testing the validity of ideas, but working out who's the smartest debater.

Got it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Tarski]

I live in New Zealand and work normal hours. This isn't my project and I'm not terribly invested in it. You work it out. If it works for me, I'll participate.

I should not have to do more than half the work. I think I see a hint of you weaseling out of it but we shall see.

Oh -- okay. So it's not about testing the validity of ideas, but working out who's the smartest debater.

Well, this is often implicitly a secondary question that is addressed in most debates of this kind and it would be nice to kill two birds with one stone. I say this because you have repeatedly called my intelligence into question.

Since another question I hope this will settle is whether only mediocre minds could see validity in my points, we shall have to agree that the judges chosen are not only not inappropriately invested in Mormonism but also clearly not describable as possessing mediocre minds (an insult that you have now implicitly pinned on everyone who has already taken my points as being serious).

[Pahoran]

I should not have to do more than half the work. I think I see a hint of you weaseling out of it but we shall see.

This is your idea; you're the one who wants it. If I had drawn up a list of priorities yesterday morning and were reviewing it now, I doubt that a throwaway suggestion from someone I never met would suddenly leap to the top thereof. If you want to call that "weaseling out" of something I never thought I had committed myself to in the first place, so be it.

Snipped the rest as mere venting.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Tarski]

This is your idea; you're the one who wants it. If I had drawn up a list of priorities yesterday morning and were reviewing it now, I doubt that a throwaway suggestion from someone I never met would suddenly leap to the top thereof. If you want to call that "weaseling out" of something I never thought I had committed myself to in the first place, so be it.

Snipped the rest as mere venting.

Regards,

Pahoran

Come on. Why no enthusiasm? Don't you care about those hands that hang down? Wouldn't it be noble to disarm me?

Will you be stateside soon?

[elguanteloko]

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.

I take as a bad (and dishonest) method cases similar to the following example: prejudge ---> finding (only) reasons to confirm the prejudge ---> conclusions.

That's what the Nazi leaders did and that's why I said thinking they somehow arrived at their murderous conclusions through honest reasoning is quite naive. They weren't looking for the best values whatever those values happened to be supported by the best reasoning they could get. They wanted power and impose whatever measures they wanted and bad science and worst philosophy were useful excuses for that.

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.

We agree there!

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.

We are in common ground for the most part. The thing for me is, and we seem to disagree here, that I don't see "biological and psychological predispositions and susceptibilities to all kinds of nasty behavior" as part of either a secular or religious ethics that at least try to be honest in their methods. Hating my neighbor and looking for more reasons to hate him for (on purpose) are not what I would call a system of ethics; Nazi crap doesn't deserve that label... at least for reasons other than scorn. Their trying to persuade wasn't trying to be reasonable.

[Pahoran]

Come on. Why no enthusiasm? Don't you care about those hands that hang down? Wouldn't it be noble to disarm me?

Ah. Taunting.

How very -- mature. Or something.

Will you be stateside soon?

Possibly sometime in the next two years.

Regards,

Pahoran

[asbestosman]

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.

Perhaps I should point out that I often try to discuss things from the opposing point of view because I find such discussions more fruitful, not necessarily because I accept the opposing argument as being basically correct (although I might).

[Tarski]

Perhaps I should point out that I often try to discuss things from the opposing point of view because I find such discussions more fruitful, not necessarily because I accept the opposing argument as being basically correct (although I might).

Yes, that has always been clear.