Do Mormon Scholars Ever Debate Secular Scholars?

[Makarios]

There are a lot of debates between Evangelical Scholars and atheist scholars available on the Internet (WL Craig vs. Hector Avalos, Mike Licona vs. Richard Carrier, etc), but I don't know of any debates between Mormon scholars and atheists. Are there any, or if not why is that?

[livy111us]

Dan Peterson debated the evangelical James White:

Edited March 27, 2012 by livy111us

[Evergrow]

There are a lot of debates between Evangelical Scholars and atheist scholars available on the Internet (WL Craig vs. Hector Avalos, Mike Licona vs. Richard Carrier, etc), but I don't know of any debates between Mormon scholars and atheists. Are there any, or if not why is that?

Don't recall any off hand. As to the reason, I would say it's because Mormonism is still not "big" out there, so the big Atheists go to the bigger people for debate. I think another reason is that big Atheists don't really focus on Mormonism, so we really don't have a "need" to talk to them. Mormonism in relation to apologetics is more about defending the Faith, rather than attacking other Faiths, including Atheism, thus we don't have a need to fight against them as others do. Although, I'm sure a debate might happen on rare occasion eventually or may have already.

[blooit]

Not sure on the biggest, but Idaho State University held a "Religious Debate" including many denominations. The Muslims expected to get attacked, but loved watching the EVs attack the Mormons instead.

ahhh.... good times

[Kenngo1969]

Mormon scholars ...all of them ... positively cower in terror at the thought of debating their secular/atheist counterparts!

[kolipoki09]

Not sure on the biggest, but Idaho State University held a "Religious Debate" including many denominations. The Muslims expected to get attacked, but loved watching the EVs attack the Mormons instead.

ahhh.... good times

Do you by chance remember when that was? Or if there will be a similar discussion/debate in the future?

I only ask because I'm going to grad school at ISU and this type of thing interests me immensely.

I know that Daniel Peterson debated a Muslim scholar in Pocatello several years ago, though I couldn't tell you when.

As for the original question, there have been a few examples of LDS scholars responding to secular scholars through various outlets, thought I'm unaware of any actual formal debates. Those I can remember off the top of my head are listed here:

Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism (Peterson)

The Most Misunderstood Book: christopher hitchens on the Bible (Hamblin)

Editor's Introduction: God and Mr. Hitchens (Peterson)

The Most Dangerous Atheism (Faulconer)

[Bob Oliverio]

I don't think a debate is any real litmus test for either side participating in it.  Each respective fan club will claim victory and virtually no audience, I'm guessing will ever have seen the debate.

I think the greater litmus test for LDS Scholarship with respect to LDS claims, particularly to legitimacy, will be when we generate scholarship that is accepted, given interest and formally presented as such in our secular archaeological and historical academic and professional forums.

[volgadon]

I don't think a debate is any real litmus test for either side participating in it. Each respective fan club will claim victory and virtually no audience, I'm guessing will ever have seen the debate.

I think the greater litmus test for LDS Scholarship with respect to LDS claims, particularly to legitimacy, will be when we generate scholarship that is accepted, given interest and formally presented as such in our secular archaeological and historical academic and professional forums.

What are your thoughts on football?

[Bob Oliverio]

What are your thoughts on football?

If, by previous insults, I thought you had either the ability or knowledge to understand football I would engage you.  But feel free to express your knowledge on the subject.

[volgadon]

If, by previous insults, I thought you had either the ability or knowledge to understand football I would engage you. But feel free to express your knowledge on the subject.

I rather suspect you mean this. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/47214-a-followup-thread-for-dangb/page__hl__dangb__fromsearch__1

[Jeff K.]

Hard to play football when they keep moving the goal posts.

[Mariner]

Resolved: The pre-Columbian history, language, culture, archeology and genetics of the New World is better described by the 19th century writings of a uneducated glass-looker and farm boy from New England than by the work of all of the mainstream archeologists, anthropologists, geneticists, linguists, and historians who have studied in this area and published their findings in their respective disciplines over the last two centuries.

For the Affirmative: Mormon Apologists.

For the Negative: Mainstream Science.

Let the debate begin.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Mariner

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Dan Peterson debated the evangelical James White:

Wow, never heard of James White mentioned in Conference.

[cdowis]

Resolved: The pre-Columbian history, language, culture, archeology and genetics of the New World is better described by the 19th century writings of a uneducated glass-looker and farm boy from New England than by the work of all of the mainstream archeologists, anthropologists, geneticists, linguists, and historians who have studied in this area and published their findings in their respective disciplines over the last two centuries.

1.This is based on the false premise that these two views contradict each other.

2. There is insufficient information to describe pre-Classic mesoamerica. At the present time, there are virtually no written records extant from that time period, the actual names of cities and geographic are unknown with the exception of Lamanai, which corresponds to the BOM name. There is no way at present to identify an artifact's identity, whether it is from the Nephites, Lamanites, or some other group.

3. There is insufficient information in the BOM text to describe the history and culture of BOM society. It is primarily a religious text, and most of those details are found in texts which are not extant (e.g. the large plates of Nephi).

Some information from the BOM include:

• human sacrifice,
  extensive wars,
  multiple groups (tribes),
  a hierarchy of kings (for the Lamanites),
  written records -- the codex,
  multiple languages,
  sophisticated calendar,
  towers used for religious purposes,
  the use of cement for buildings, extensive trade including maritime trade,
  similar burial customs, etc,

each of which is found in mesoamerica and within the text of the BOM.

To use a trite phrase, this would be an apples vs oranges comparison. There is simply not enough information from either side to make a comparison.

Edited March 28, 2012 by cdowis

[Bob Oliverio]

I rather suspect you mean this. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/47214-a-followup-thread-for-dangb/page__hl__dangb__fromsearch__1

???? Have no idea where you are going.

My question on academic interest and acceptance was serious and, I really believe, important to the furtherance of Church credibility if we want to have greater success in our missionary efforts.  IMO, we can either continue to lower the level on standards of  rationalizations or raise our standards of scholarship to a level of interest and acceptance outside of the Church.   We may have great great scholarship for internal purposes.  But I'm just asking, when do we want it respected within the secular world and what will that take other than rationalizations that haven't moved the needle on interest or acceptance?

[Daniel Peterson]

Resolved: The pre-Columbian history, language, culture, archeology and genetics of the New World is better described by the 19th century writings of a uneducated glass-looker and farm boy from New England than by the work of all of the mainstream archeologists, anthropologists, geneticists, linguists, and historians who have studied in this area and published their findings in their respective disciplines over the last two centuries.

For the Affirmative: Mormon Apologists.

For the Negative: Mainstream Science.

Let the debate begin.

What a caricature.

Good debaters know that debates are often won or lost in the sheer formulation of the question to be discussed.

The formulation above is a good illustration of the problem. It's so skewed, so utterly question-begging in so very many ways, that I would never, ever, agree to a debate on the basis of it.

I've got to run, but here's a hint regarding just one of the many deficiencies in it: Does the Book of Mormon really purport to "describe the genetics of the New World"? Seriously? (Professor Michael Whiting, a believing Latter-day Saint and an internationally respected geneticist, addressed that very question some years back.)

As to Latter-day Saint scholars debating secular scholars: I'm not sure that people recognize just how rare it is -- it seldom happens -- for scholars to engage in formal public debates. In mainstream academia, I think, off the top of my head, that I remember seeing one such debate. Perhaps two. In my entire academic career. It's simply not a very common occurrence in ordinary scholarship. It's not the way scholarship is done.

[Makarios]

As to Latter-day Saint scholars debating secular scholars: I'm not sure that people recognize just how rare it is -- it seldom happens -- for scholars to engage in formal public debates. In mainstream academia, I think, off the top of my head, that I remember seeing one such debate. Perhaps two. In my entire academic career. It's simply not a very common occurrence in ordinary scholarship. It's not the way scholarship is done.

Dr. Peterson, thanks for that insight. Perhaps you might be able to help me find what I looking for. I really enjoyed listening to your conversion with John Dehlin on the Mormon Stories podcast. I think Dehlin is great at being polite and courteous, but he also asks intelligent and difficult questions a lot of people are thinking about. Of course, he is not a scholar. Are you aware of any other recorded conversations like that between scholars such as yourself and atheist/agnostic scholars? I know there are such discussions with Evangelical academics, but they bring different assumptions to the table than an atheist would. I know there are written resources, but a genuine oral conversation helps me personally to better understand the differing perspectives.

[Rivers]

Dr. Peterson, thanks for that insight. Perhaps you might be able to help me find what I looking for. I really enjoyed listening to your conversion with John Dehlin on the Mormon Stories podcast. I think Dehlin is great at being polite and courteous, but he also asks intelligent and difficult questions a lot of people are thinking about. Of course, he is not a scholar. Are you aware of any other recorded conversations like that between scholars such as yourself and atheist/agnostic scholars? I know there are such discussions with Evangelical academics, but they bring different assumptions to the table than an atheist would. I know there are written resources, but a genuine oral conversation helps me personally to better understand the differing perspectives.

It was actually Dan Witherspoon that interviewed brother Peterson on that podcast IIRC.

[Makarios]

It was actually Dan Witherspoon that interviewed brother Peterson on that podcast IIRC.

Ah, yes. I stand corrected. He did a great job.

[Mariner]

What a caricature.

Good debaters know that debates are often won or lost in the sheer formulation of the question to be discussed.

The formulation above is a good illustration of the problem. It's so skewed, so utterly question-begging in so very many ways, that I would never, ever, agree to a debate on the basis of it.

I've got to run, but here's a hint regarding just one of the many deficiencies in it: Does the Book of Mormon really purport to "describe the genetics of the New World"? Seriously? (Professor Michael Whiting, a believing Latter-day Saint and an internationally respected geneticist, addressed that very question some years back.)

As to Latter-day Saint scholars debating secular scholars: I'm not sure that people recognize just how rare it is -- it seldom happens -- for scholars to engage in formal public debates. In mainstream academia, I think, off the top of my head, that I remember seeing one such debate. Perhaps two. In my entire academic career. It's simply not a very common occurrence in ordinary scholarship. It's not the way scholarship is done.

Dr. Peterson,

When Joseph Smith and his associates wrote the Book of Mormon, they made a number of claims that were not falsifiable in 1830, but are falsifiable today and have, in fact, been falsified.

Claims in the Book of Mormon that have been falsified are numerous and include the existence of horses and wheeled chariots in the pre-Columbian New World, as well as the claim that the principal ancestors (now those among the principal ancestors) of the American Indians came to the New World by way of a transoceanic voyage from the Middle East.

Notwithstanding the great discomfort it creates for apologists, the latter claim is falsifiable and has been falsified by several methods of genetic analysis at the molecular level. As I have described in other posts on this board, the mainstream science is very strong in this area and has concluded that there is no evidence whatsoever for any contribution to the pre-Columbian Mesoamerican genome by transoceanic migration. If such a debate as was alluded to in the OP were to be held, this issue would certainly come up. And it is but one of many for which apologists have no defensible position.

This is one of a number of reasons that Mormon apologists (or Book of Mormon "scholars") would never (and could never) prevail in such a debate.

It is to the credit of Mormon apologists and Book of Mormon scholars that they have the good sense not to engage in debates (or any kind of pubic discussion) with mainstream scientists on subjects related to the Book of Mormon.

Edited March 31, 2012 by Mariner

[Jeff K.]

Haven't a number of the issues you raised been addressed, now you may not interpret them as the answer "you" particularly want, but they have been addressed. If they have been addressed (even as you disagree with the conclusion), then the best you can say is you disagree with the conclusion.

[Chris Smith]

I wouldn't want to "debate" anyone, per se, but I'd totally be up for a friendly Mormon-on-secular fireside chat with the likes of kolipoki sometime. Maybe John Larsen would be interested.

[volgadon]

I wouldn't want to "debate" anyone, per se, but I'd totally be up for a friendly Mormon-on-secular fireside chat with the likes of kolipoki sometime.

Having met him in real life, that would be something well worth attending.

[Mariner]

Haven't a number of the issues you raised been addressed, now you may not interpret them as the answer "you" particularly want, but they have been addressed. If they have been addressed (even as you disagree with the conclusion), then the best you can say is you disagree with the conclusion.

You are confusing answers with responses. Mormon apologists have tried respond to (address) many of problems with the Book of Mormon. Their job here is to provide some reason (no matter how illogical) or some possibility (no matter how remote) which would allow the faithful, such as you, to hang on to some hope, no matter how vanishingly small, that the fantastical and impossible claims made in the Book of Mormon might arise from more than just a tall tale from the 19th century.

For the faithful consumers of their product, again such as you, many apologists have apparently become pretty good at this calling. However, as I stated above, there are very good reasons why Mormon apologists and Book of Mormon scholars to not venture out into the real world with their weak excuses and unsupported claims.

If you think that Mormon apologists have adequately addressed the immense problems of logic and fact with the Book of Mormon, perhaps you should ask yourself why they are not invited to participate in discussions with mainstream scientists on these issues, or why such public discussions never take place overall.

[selek1]

You are confusing answers with responses.

In other words, yes- your pet issues have been addressed- you simply don't agree with the responses.

Of course, it is the height of narcissicism to redefine "answer" as "a response meeting my predetermined, arbitrary, and immutable assumptions".

The dictionary (which is widely considered to be more authoritative on the meaning of words than you are) defines "answer" thusly:

1. a spoken or written reply or response to a question, request, letter, etc.: He sent an answer to my letter promptly.

2. a correct response to a question asked to test one's knowledge.

3. an equivalent or approximation: a singing group that tried to be the French answer to the Beatles.

4. an action serving as a reply or response: The answer was a volley of fire.

5. a solution to a problem, especially in mathematics.

Mormon apologists have responded to each of the issues you raised. Their responses (good, bad, indifferent, profound, or absurd) qualify as "answers" under all of the above definitions.

Your only hope to disqualify them relies on a very narrow and tendentious reading of the second definition- but that is inherently problematic because such an approach relies on a subjective and arbitrary standard of what is, in fact, "correct".

That in turn begs the question, "Who are YOU to determine what is 'correct'?"

Any standard you can offer is predicated on your own subjective interpretation of the evidence- and is therefore a matter of opinion, not fact.

That you disagree with- or simply don't like- the answers does not automatically or inherently render them incorrect.

Contrary to the presumption and posturing inherent to your post, your ideas are not automagically correct simply because YOU hold them.

Despite the self-congratulatory nature of your position and posts, your own world-view is every bit as predicated on assumption and estimation as is the "fantastical" worldview of the devout Mormon.

Ultimately, inescably, and objectively, your worldview is no more demonstrably "real" or rational than that of the believer. Objectively, your excuses are every bit as "weak" and your claims are every bit as "unsupported".

If you think that Mormon apologists have adequately addressed the immense problems of logic and fact with the Book of Mormon, perhaps you should ask yourself why they are not invited to participate in discussions with mainstream scientists on these issues, or why such public discussions never take place overall.

In addition to being a self-serving tautology, this is both a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, and factually incorrect.

This thread exists to answer the question, "Do Mormon Scholars Ever Debate Secular Scholars?"

Depending upon what one considers a "proper" venue- and what one would consider a "secular scholar", Mormons are routinely engaged in such debates.

Moreover, despite holding the "magical" worldview you dismiss with a sneer and snarl- Mormons are well represented in both science and engineering- the hardest of the empirical sciences- and in archeological and paleological science as well.

Edited March 31, 2012 by selek1