Faith Vs. Science

[44Foxtrot]

According to Dan, among other things, "you've pronounced theists irrational fantasists", you have "insinuated that our moral positions ought not be expressed in the democratic public square", you have "suggested that religious thinkers aren't really thinkers at all", you have "advocated discrimination", and you have accused them of being "psychologically and intellectually handicapped."

Those are outrageous fighting words, even if you didn't actually say them.

Go figure.

[thesometimesaint]

44Foxtrot:

I'm sure the EEOC would be very interested in your claims.

[TAO]

As I said. (You asked.)

No, I'm saying you know why stating that statistic doesn't actually mean what you were using it for - because Mormon attendance at Berkley is not as high as it is at other schools.

[44Foxtrot]

No, I'm saying you know why stating that statistic doesn't actually mean what you were using it for - because Mormon attendance at Berkley is not as high as it is at other schools.

TAO,

I am agreeing with you. That is why I made the statement in the original post on this subject that the audience members were probably Democrats.

Still, a standing ovation for an ex-Mormon singer before a note is played is something one does not see every day.

[44Foxtrot]

44Foxtrot:

I'm sure the EEOC would be very interested in your claims.

We have both in-house and external counsel who are very comfortable with our hiring policies and practices.

We also have some substantial losses that were generated for us by an overzealous religionist. Clients in other countries often do not have the tolerance for overt religious behavior that folks have come to expect here in the US.

[Bill Hamblin]

Good grief. Are you serious?

Your posts, from the moment that I first encountered them, have been insulting, contemptuous, and dismissive.

You haven't noticed the astonished reactions of many here to what they termed your "arrogance" and "hubris," and have missed the fact that several simply decline to interact with you any more?

I am one of those. It is impossible to have a civil discussion with Foxtrot, who arrogance is overweening, and his dismissive attitude to those with whom he disagrees is quite astonishing. The fact that he doesn't recognize these characteristics in himself makes it all the more absurd to try to have a reasoned discussion with him. I, for one, refuse to try to carry on a rational conversation with someone who thinks I am fundamentally immoral, dishonest, irrational and delusional. But I'm funny that way.

[44Foxtrot]

I am one of those. It is impossible to have a civil discussion with Foxtrot, who arrogance is overweening, and his dismissive attitude to those with whom he disagrees is quite astonishing. The fact that he doesn't recognize these characteristics in himself makes it all the more absurd to try to have a reasoned discussion with him. I, for one, refuse to try to carry on a rational conversation with someone who thinks I am fundamentally immoral, dishonest, irrational and delusional. But I'm funny that way.

And this from an individual with an avatar tag line that reads, "Kicking anti-Mormon Butt since 1984."

[44Foxtrot]

Dr. Peterson,

Apparently you have quite a following among the unwashed. (But you probably knew that.) I received an e-mail from a colleague who is not a member of MD&D, but apparently lurks here religiously.

She asked me to pose to you the following question regarding your statement that you were not an apologetics "slave".

"What do you think would happen to your position at BYU if you were to find fault with Church doctrine and policies and make your concerns public?"

She pointed out that she could return to Mormonism any time without affecting her employment. She doubted that your employment at BYU would be safe if you were to be seen turning away from Mormonism. In that respect, she doubts your claim about not being a "slave" (your words, not mine).

How would you respond to this?

[ERayR]

Not what I heard. Recent anecdotal evidence that all may not be as well as it seems includes a standing ovation given to a relatively unknown performer at a recent concert in California merely on the announcement that he had recently left the Mormon Church. These accolades were offered before he ever sang a note. Of course, those attending the concert were probably liberal Democrats, but still.

Not very scientific. Would you mind coming in now with the scientific studies that back up your antecdotal evidence?

[Bob Crockett]

Not what I heard. Recent anecdotal evidence that all may not be as well as it seems includes a standing ovation given to a relatively unknown performer at a recent concert in California merely on the announcement that he had recently left the Mormon Church. These accolades were offered before he ever sang a note. Of course, those attending the concert were probably liberal Democrats, but still.

Sadly that is the state of things among a certain kind of California intelligentsia. Of course, you'll find the same sort of mocking approbation at a Sunstone conference.

Where Prop 8 passed with a 52 percent margin you'll probably find more anecdotes approving the Church's support for Prop 8 than disapproving it. They might come from the masses you might not want to hire -- the religious Hispanics and black churches. In addition, my conservative Islamic and Jewish clients privately pat me on the back for the Church's role in Prop 8 and say they wish they could have been more vocal.

It just goes to show that the commentary about polling on this issue in advance of the election proved to be true -- when polled folks would oppose Prop 8 but when they voted they'd support it.

I live in California and circulate among some pretty smart folks. I wouldn't agree that the Church has taken it on the chin here over Prop 8. If anything, I think we've built some fine bridges. When I stood on a grimy street corner in my lawyer suit before work one day holding a pro-Prop 8 sign, I had members of the local Catholic Church come up, ask to hold signs with me and converse for an hour or so about our common values.

[ERayR]

As I see it, it boils down to facts and evidence.

Of which in your arrogance and haste to dismiss you wouldn't know if it sneaked up behind you and bit you.

[Bob Crockett]

"What do you think would happen to your position at BYU if you were to find fault with Church doctrine and policies and make your concerns public?"

This not a good question.

If I went on a web site and posted critical things about my law firm's policies and practices, I'd be voted out of the partnership.

Of course, I could do what lots of folks do here and elsewhere; just post anonymously. That's courageous. See Mark Willes' discussion of this phenomenon in Farms Review, 22:2 (2010) at p. 9.

[Bill Hamblin]

And this from an individual with an avatar tag line that reads, "Kicking anti-Mormon Butt since 1984."

Yes, but you seen, my tag line is a joke.

You, on the other hand, are completely serious.

[44Foxtrot]

This not a good question.

If I went on a web site and posted critical things about my law firm's policies and practices, I'd be voted out of the partnership.

Of course, I could do what lots of folks do here and elsewhere; just post anonymously. That's courageous. See Mark Willes' discussion of this phenomenon in Farms Review, 22:2 (2010) at p. 9.

It was not my question, exactly. But I do see your point. Not a good question.

She is an academic. Her point, I'm sure, was that she has academic freedom to follow the data. She doubts that the same freedom is accorded to LDS scholars who work for BYU. She apparently knows of individuals who have been dismissed from teaching positions either at BYU or BYUI for following the data.

Would still like to hear Dr. Peterson's response.

[Bill Hamblin]

Dr. Peterson,

Apparently you have quite a following among the unwashed. (But you probably knew that.) I received an e-mail from a colleague who is not a member of MD&D, but apparently lurks here religiously.

She asked me to pose to you the following question regarding your statement that you were not an apologetics "slave".

"What do you think would happen to your position at BYU if you were to find fault with Church doctrine and policies and make your concerns public?"

She pointed out that she could return to Mormonism any time without affecting her employment. She doubted that your employment at BYU would be safe if you were to be seen turning away from Mormonism. In that respect, she doubts your claim about not being a "slave" (your words, not mine).

How would you respond to this?

Can't you see how condescending and insulting such a claim is? I know you can't, but I'm astonished that you can't. The assumption here is that Dan is simply craven, venal and dishonest. He does what he does because he wants to keep his job, not because he actually believes. When you start with a position that is so fundamentally grotesquely insulting and demeaning, why do are you surprised when people refuse to converse with you?

[Bill Hamblin]

It was not my question, exactly. But I do see your point. Not a good question.

She is an academic. Her point, I'm sure, was that she has academic freedom to follow the data. She doubts that the same freedom is accorded to LDS scholars who work for BYU. She apparently knows of individuals who have been dismissed from teaching positions either at BYU or BYUI for following the data.

Would still like to hear Dr. Peterson's response.

If you think people aren't dismissed from secularly universities for failure to follow the PC party line (on, for example feminisim, homosexuality, race, gender, politics, theism, "diversity" and "tolerance") then you have no idea of how academia really works.

[44Foxtrot]

Yes, but you seen, my tag line is a joke.

You, on the other hand, are completely serious.

Bill,

Your tag line may be a "joke" But it reflects an attitude, which is apparently what you find so offensive about my posts.

One big difference between what you do and what I do is that you seem to deal in possibilities and plausible deniability. As an example, you claim it is possible that the Jaredites build semi-submersible barges, had them lit with glowing stones, and came from the Middle East to the New World in 344 days with no fire allowed on board, in winds that blew without ceasing and waves that often buried these powerless barges in the depths of the sea. You feel that this possibility affords you plausible deniability to the assertion that the Book of Ether is fiction.

In my line of work we deal in probabilities. We use probabilities derived from mathematical models, which are verified with actual data where possible, to assess financial risk, determine what weather conditions are likely to be, model pollutants that will be released to the air from plants not yet built, and so forth. With the proper skepticism, scientists, and engineers have become very good at this. We bet hundreds of millions of dollars each year based mainly on probabilities derived from mathematical models populated with data from past experience. We never make a decision based on a possibility unless we can make some reasonable assessment of the associated probability.

When we look at your assertions and many of your beliefs under the harsh light of skepticism, counting on physical evidence instead of belief, and assigning probability instead of possibility, we find that on balance, most of what you believe, or want to believe, about the Book of Mormon just doesn't wash. The aggregate probability for the BoM to be what Joseph Smith claimed is vanishingly small. In fact, as we use the term, the probability is so vanishingly small as to warrant no further consideration.

Most people in the world who have considered the claims of the Book of Mormon can readily see this. Yet when I point this out to you and ask for physical evidence for your claims instead of possibilities and beliefs, you accuse me of being dismissive, arrogant, and an all around nasty and unpleasant fellow. (Okay, so you didn't really say the last part) .

So perhaps we just need to agree to disagree.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

Your tag line may be a "joke" But it reflects an attitude, which is apparently what you find so offensive about my posts.

One big difference between what you do and what I do is that you seem to deal in possibilities and plausible deniability. As an example, you claim it is possible that the Jaredites build semi-submersible barges, had them lit with glowing stones, and came from the Middle East to the New World in 344 days with no fire allowed on board, in winds that blew without ceasing and waves that often buried these powerless barges in the depths of the sea. You feel that this possibility affords you plausible deniability to the assertion that the Book of Ether is fiction.

In my line of work we deal in probabilities. We use probabilities derived from mathematical models, which are verified with actual data where possible, to assess financial risk, determine what weather conditions are likely to be, model pollutants that will be released to the air from plants not yet built, and so forth. With the proper skepticism, scientists, and engineers have become very good at this. We bet hundreds of millions of dollars each year based mainly on probabilities derived from mathematical models populated with data from past experience. We never make a decision based on a possibility unless we can make some reasonable assessment of the associated probability.

When we look at your assertions and many of your beliefs under the harsh light of skepticism, counting on physical evidence instead of belief, and assigning probability instead of possibility, we find that on balance, most of what you believe, or want to believe, about the Book of Mormon just doesn't wash. The aggregate probability for the BoM to be what Joseph Smith claimed is vanishingly small. In fact, as we use the term, the probability is so vanishingly small as to warrant no further consideration.

Most people in the world who have considered the claims of the Book of Mormon can readily see this. Yet when I point this out to you and ask for physical evidence for your claims instead of possibilities and beliefs, you accuse me of being dismissive, arrogant, and an all around nasty and unpleasant fellow. (Okay, so you didn't really say the last part) .

So perhaps we just need to agree to disagree.

Well you can fantasize all you want about my beliefs and methodologies all you want, but, alas, you've got it all wrong. Perhaps you should actually read what I've written and see what methods I use and what conclusions I make. (Oh, I forgot, you don't read pro-Mormon scholarship. Sorry to bother you.) At any rate, history is not science, nor business. The methodologies are quite different, as is the epistemology. But I see no point trying to have a discussion with you. When you've read Sorenson and Gardner, and Isaiah in the BOM, and Warfare in the BOM, etc. then we can talk.

[44Foxtrot]

Well you can fantasize all you want about my beliefs and methodologies all you want, but, alas, you've got it all wrong. Perhaps you should actually read what I've written and see what methods I use and what conclusions I make. (Oh, I forgot, you don't read pro-Mormon scholarship. Sorry to bother you.) At any rate, history is not science, nor business. The methodologies are quite different, as is the epistemology. But I see no point trying to have a discussion with you. When you've read Sorenson and Gardner, and Isaiah in the BOM, and Warfare in the BOM, etc. then we can talk.

I have read the BoM several times. To me, as to most of the people who have read it or know of it, it is a transparent work of fiction. I have read some of what Sorensen has done, and some of Gardner's work and some of your work.

However, as you might imagine, scholarship that is based on the assumption that the Book of Mormon is fact, when most in the world who know about it consider it fiction, is not high on my reading priority list.

So again, it appears that we agree to disagree.

[Bill Hamblin]

I have read the BoM several times. To me, as to most of the people who have read it or know of it, it is a transparent work of fiction. I have read some of what Sorensen has done, and some of Gardner's work and some of your work.

However, as you might imagine, scholarship that is based on the assumption that the Book of Mormon is fact, when most in the world who know about it consider it fiction, is not high on my reading priority list.

So again, it appears that we agree to disagree.

It is, of course, just possible that you are wrong about the BOM.

Feel free to disagree all you want. But please don't fantasize about the motives, intelligence, honesty, methodologies, etc. etc. of those with whom you disagree when you manifestly don't know what you're talking about, since you haven't actually bothered to read their books. Your several paragraph discourse on my imagined beliefs, character and methods is preposterous bull-pucky.

Also, feel free to not waste your time reading BOM scholarship. But the price you have to pay for that refusal is that you should have the integrity to shut up about a topic on which you are admittedly uninformed.

I know this may come as a surprise, but everyone who disagrees with you about God and religion and Mormonism is not necessarily an idiot, a moral reprobate, a liar, delusional or a mercenary hack. Sometime intelligent and informed people of good will just happen to disagree on all sorts of things. Although it may be foreign to your experience, it really does happen.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff,

You were not paying attention. We do not deny people jobs based on religion. We elect not to hire people based on certain exhibited behaviors that we know from experience to be detrimental to our business. To do so is our right and our responsibility to our customers and shareholders.

The fact that certain of these behaviors may be associated with religiousity should be no more noteworthy than the fact that some of them are associated with drug use or alcoholism.

I have explained this several times. I would have thought you would have gotten it by now.

I am paying attention, you exhibit the same type of banal evil that seems to fit your personality. What you do is illegal and against the constitution and it is unethical. The very fact that someone has a belief system you disagree with means they automatically become disqualified for certain jobs, regardless of their ability.

But what you exhibit in your posts and the method you use attempting to justify it echoes from so many of your type in the past. Your lack of ethics is continually reflected in your posts. And yes, disturbing people like you were the ones who helped build camps. The fact that Jews share some of those behaviors, well it should be no more noteworthy thatn the fact that Jews and Mormons are like drug use and alcoholism.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff,

This has to be one of your most thoughtful and brilliant posts yet.

You are correct about the quality of the schools in Florida. We raised and educated our children in the Boston area or in Washington State when we lived in the US, and why most of my children attended the University of Washington (the others attended BYU). Unfortunately that is about all you got right.

Because I co-own a company that provides products and services internationally, I could live about anywhere I choose. I live in Florida now because of the climate and proximity to tropical oceans for sailing. My wife and I also own a home in Washington State, most of my children live there and our company has a laboratory facility there.

Far from being a failed rationalist, my ex-Mormon business partner and I are doing quite well.

As I have stated on this board before, nobody in our company that I know of sips alcohol of any kind, including Margaritas, and we live nowhere close to Jacksonville.

BTW: What possessed you to write something like this? Did you really think you were correct in assuming that I lived in Jacksonville and that I sipped Margaritas ? Were you just trying to insult me? Do you understand that you have just provided a prime example of the kind of thinking that Dr. Peterson claims is not typical of Mormons?

Which goes to prove just how dumb and backwards people can be in Boston and DC. I lived in the area of DC for several years (in Alexandria). Your kind tended to be failed academics who took refuge in various extremist groups. Nor do I necessarily believe you own a company. Your story seems to change from being the person hiring for someone else to having to check things out when you hired them, to now being a "co-owner" (not the terminology used by people in business). So I find your story less than credible, you have presented no facts and hang your hat on the flimsiest of excuses.

I think you are a prejudiced angry little man with an ax to grind and you are making up a quick and faulty cover story in order to enhance your own failing credibility.

So tell us, what products do you make and what do you sell them for and what market are you involved in. Go ahead, its usually the detail that exposes your kind rather quickly.

[theresa11]

I believe Henry Eyring said it best:

[theresa11]

I had a bishop who was a science Teacher , God is the best scientist in the universe , think about that.

[caudicus]

Jeff K.

Nice transition into pure ad hominem. It is a fine example you set. I am sure the rest of the LDS community is pleased that they have you to represent them on the www.

Mr. Hamblin

Don't you think Dr. Peterson should answer for himself? Perhaps his silence can be accepted as a form of answer? For various reasons, he is a lightning rod for criticism. I'm sure he can handle it, by now.

"Most" people? Kind of hard to believe when Mormons are so successful in science, business, law and other enterprises that require a great deal of rational thought and expertise and when their co-workers hold them in such high esteem for their successes.

Well we shouldn't paint all southerners with foxy's stripe. The fact is that Latter Day Saints seem to be in more leadership positions, industrial positions, education positions in the south than ever before. They continue to grow in the South. It may be that foxy was once fired from a company and has decided on a personal vendetta which he cloaks with a veneer of faux objectivism. But it doesn't work when you make irrational statements Fox, you should know that.

I understand the impulse to rush to to the defense of your religion this way, but the reality is that *most* people find the beliefs on the LDS church to be ridiculous... worthy of ridicule. While people who know Mormons are often quick to say things like, "they are nice people," and no matter how they feel about how hard working or intelligent a Mormon is, they still laugh at their beliefs. The more they know about the specifics, the more they laugh.

People just find the details of the religion to be too far-fetched. I am not suggesting that other religions are undeserving of ridicule, Mormons just happen to be in a position where, not only are atheists happy to take a jab, adherents to Christianity, at large, can find common ground with the utterly godless when it comes to poking fun at Mormons. I think Fox may be right that their openly meddlesome ways drew some fire, but I think it was more anger that was created in recent circumstances. Before that, South Park was the guiding light for many people's opinions.

Edit: I am still curious about the significance of mainstream science ignoring LDS scholarship. What is the perceived significance of this?