Dan Peterson At Fairmormon: "a Secular Argument For The Gospel"

[Scott Lloyd]

As always, Daniel Peterson gave a superb presentation at the FairMormon Conference on Aug. 7. I haven't seen a transcription of it yet on the FairMormon website, and I haven't seen any other reference to it, so I'm linking here to my Church News report of it that went online a short while ago and will appear in print this Saturday.

 

An excerpt:

 

“I’m not going to argue that you can prove religious claims — or specifically Latter-day Saint claims — true, but I am going to argue that they are reasonable,” said Brother Peterson, who titled his talk “The Reasonable Leap into Light: A Barebones Secular Argument for the Gospel.”

“What do I mean by secular argument? I mean an argument that is not going to call upon the Spirit to witness the testimony,” he said. “That is a different thing. That can’t be delivered to you by a lecture or by reading a book by itself. You can get that yourself from God. That’s personal and individual to you.

“What I want to argue, though, is that there are arguments that can be made for the rationality of the gospel, of belief in God, in Christianity and specifically in Mormonism.”

 

I could only give a relatively brief report. I recommend reading the whole thing when the transcript goes up.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Avatar4321]

I want to read this one.

[Jude2]

wish I could have gone, hope they get the transcription done soon, I'll be waiting for my FAIR new letter

[Gervin]

[From the link, above]

 

Brother Peterson bore testimony that the gospel is true. “It does make logical sense,” he said. “We don’t have to say, ‘I know it’s irrational, but I choose to believe.’ It is not an irrational choice. It may not be one you can prove to the satisfaction of an indifferent public, but it’s not irrational. It’s a rational choice under conditions of limited and indecisive public evidence. It’s a rational way to go.” (my emphasis)

 

Perhaps the quote is wrong - or I think he meant limited evidence and an indecisive public, but either way, it doesn't make sense.  There are no "conditions" applied to Book of Mormon scrutiny that wouldn't apply to any other book making similar claims.  That's just the way it is in this barebone bareback backbone bbq secular world we live in.

[jkwilliams]

Reading the summary and quotes in Scott's article, I'm struck that Dan could have given the same talk as a secular argument in favor of the Voree plates.

Edited August 21, 2015 by jkwilliams

[Russell C McGregor]

Reading the summary and quotes in Scott's article, I'm struck that Dan could have given the same talk as a secular argument in favor of the Vorhees plates.

I presume you mean the "Voree" plates. (A non-parallel, and favourite talking point of anti-Mormons like, ummm, some around here.) Vorhees (or Voras) was the name of one of the acquitted murderers of Joseph and Hyrum.

You're welcome.

[jkwilliams]

I presume you mean the "Voree" plates. (A non-parallel, and favourite talking point of anti-Mormons like, ummm, some around here.) Vorhees (or Voras) was the name of one of the acquitted murderers of Joseph and Hyrum.

You're welcome.

 

Thanks, Russell. That's what happens when you type too fast.

[Five Solas]

I presume you mean the "Voree" plates. (A non-parallel, and favourite talking point of anti-Mormons like, ummm, some around here.) Vorhees (or Voras) was the name of one of the acquitted murderers of Joseph and Hyrum.

You're welcome.

You jump on a spelling error.  Next, you implicitly indict the person named in the example because he was acquitted (how's that for irony?).  Meanwhile, none of what you typed makes any difference whatsoever to the solid point jkwilliams made. 

 

I don't think you give enough credit to your readers, Russell.  We're "welcome"--for what?

 

--Erik

[TheSkepticChristian]

“I’m not going to argue that you can prove religious claims — or specifically Latter-day Saint claims — true, but I am going to argue that they are reasonable,”

 

There are many reasonable religious beliefs, especially Mormonism and transhumanism. 

There are many reasonable naturalistic views too, especially agnosticism. 

[Kenngo1969]

Reading the summary and quotes in Scott's article, I'm struck that Dan could have given the same talk as a secular argument in favor of the Voree plates.

Do you know what I would tell someone if he were to tell me that the Voree plates have made a difference in his life tantamount (or heck, not even tantamount, but in any way akin) to the difference the Book of Mormon has made in my life: "Great!  More power to you!" And, I might add something that an official from Regent University who was attempting to persuade me to apply to law school there told me when I asked him if the fact that I'm a devout Mormon changed his mind: "I'm delighted that your faith [he used the phrase "your faith in Christ"] plays a central role in your life."  

 

If someone asks me why I believe [x] over [y] (for this example, insert "the Book of Mormon" and "the Voree plates") I'd certainly like to think I'd be prepared and able to offer a cogent answer.  But I see no reason to try to convince someone else who tells me he has been blessed with good fruit, bread, and fish that God actually gave him thorns, thistles, stones, and serpents (or even "fruit" that's kinda thorny and thistly, "bread" that's kinda stony, and "fish" that's kinda "serpenty.")

 

One good thing I hope comes out of secular attacks on religion and on the religiously devout is that religious people and institutions that heretofore considered Mormons and Mormonism to be their enemies might finally start figuring out that, "Hey, doctrinal differences aside, perhaps we really ought to hang together, lest we all hang separately," and, "The enemy of my enemy [speaking metaphorically] is my friend."

[Scott Lloyd]

You jump on a spelling error. Next, you implicitly indict the person named in the example because he was acquitted (how's that for irony?). Meanwhile, none of what you typed makes any difference whatsoever to the solid point jkwilliams made.

I don't think you give enough credit to your readers, Russell. We're "welcome"--for what?

--Erik

So in your world, people who commit murder never get away with it and judges and juries always make the right decision and are never influenced by ambient and pervasive bigotry? Edited August 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

Do you know what I would tell someone if he were to tell me that the Voree plates have made a difference in his life tantamount (or heck, not even tantamount, but in any way akin) to the difference the Book of Mormon has made in my life: "Great! More power to you!" And, I might add something that an official from Regent University who was attempting to persuade me to apply to law school there told me when I asked him if the fact that I'm a devout Mormon changed his mind: "I'm delighted that your faith [he used the phrase "your faith in Christ"] plays a central role in your life."

If someone asks me why I believe [x] over [y] (for this example, insert "the Book of Mormon" and "the Voree plates") I'd certainly like to think I'd be prepared and able to offer a cogent answer. But I see no reason to try to convince someone else who tells me he has been blessed with good fruit, bread, and fish that God actually gave him thorns, thistles, stones, and serpents (or even "fruit" that's kinda thorny and thistly, "bread" that's kinda stony, and "fish" that's kinda "serpenty.")

One good thing I hope comes out of secular attacks on religion and on the religiously devout is that religious people and institutions that heretofore considered Mormons and Mormonism to be their enemies might finally start figuring out that, "Hey, doctrinal differences aside, perhaps we really ought to hang together, lest we all hang separately," and, "The enemy of my enemy [speaking metaphorically] is my friend."

But none of that is a secular argument. That's an argument from utility. Which is also a good reason to hold a religious view (as Mfbukowski will probably point out at some point in this thread ).

[canard78]

As always, Daniel Peterson gave a superb presentation at the FairMormon Conference on Aug. 7. I haven't seen a transcription of it yet on the FairMormon website, and I haven't seen any other reference to it, so I'm linking here to my Church News report of it that went online a short while ago and will appear in print this Saturday.

An excerpt:

I could only give a relatively brief report. I recommend reading the whole thing when the transcript goes up.

Thanks for sharing the report. I look forward to the full transcript too.

Out of interest, do you remember if he touched on other secular evidences? I appreciate that the plates are a compelling one, but they alone are clearly not enough.

There are equally secular arguments for Mormonism not being true. Dan Vogel has a whole library of them. As an atheist (I think??) he can only make secular arguments.

I'm not an atheist, but I would also love to see a convincing secular argument for Mormonism. The plates alone isn't one in my view.

This statement was interesting:

"What I want to argue, though, is that there are arguments that can be made for the rationality of the gospel, of belief in God, in Christianity and specifically in Mormonism."

When he says one can make a secular argument for Christianity, does he only mean the early Christian church up to the point of the apostasy? If he means Christianity more generally or certain Christian denominations more specifically (e.g. Catholicism), doesn't that undermine his point about Mormonism? They can't both be "true."

I wonder what his view on the secular argument for Islam is?

[Scott Lloyd]

I think some here are missing the point in Dr. Peterson's message, which is that a rational argument can be made for believing in religion in general and Mormonism in particular, that one doesn't have to say, "I know it's irrational, but I believe anyway." There are plenty of rational reasons to believe. His talk wasn't about pitting one Church against another, as jkwilliams seems intent on doing. Nor is it about conclusively proving a religious faith true through secular argument. Dr. Peterson acknowledges that isn't possible and that belief established through that means is not stable or adequate.

It's about keeping the question open so that one has a reason to seek spiritual answers through divine and personal revelation.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks for sharing the report. I look forward to the full transcript too.

Out of interest, do you remember if he touched on other secular evidences? I appreciate that the plates are a compelling one, but they alone are clearly not enough.

There are equally secular arguments for Mormonism not being true. Dan Vogel has a whole library of them. As an atheist (I think??) he can only make secular arguments.

I'm not an atheist, but I would also love to see a convincing secular argument for Mormonism. The plates alone isn't one in my view.

This statement was interesting:

"What I want to argue, though, is that there are arguments that can be made for the rationality of the gospel, of belief in God, in Christianity and specifically in Mormonism."

When he says one can make a secular argument for Christianity, does he only mean the early Christian church up to the point of the apostasy? If he means Christianity more generally or certain Christian denominations more specifically (e.g. Catholicism), doesn't that undermine his point about Mormonism? They can't both be "true."

I wonder what his view on the secular argument for Islam is?

Suffice it to say that I summarized in a few hundred words a presentation that occupied an hour or more. Obviously, there was much content that I lacked the space to touch on, let alone report adequately.

Your intention to read the transcript when it appears is a good one.

And let everyone be warned about the folly of attacking his treatise based on my extremely abbreviated summary of it, lest you be found to have embarrassingly beaten a straw man to a pulp.

Edited to add one thing. You said early Christianity and Mormonism can't both be true. To the extent they share common elements, they can indeed both be true. I suppose the same goes for other faiths.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

Suffice it to say that I summarized in a few hundred words a presentation that occupied an hour or more. Obviously, there was much content that I lacked the space to touch on, let alone report adequately.

Your intention to read the transcript when it appears is a good one.

And let everyone be warned about the folly of attacking his treatise based on my extremely abbreviated summary of it, lest you be found to have embarrassingly beaten a straw man to a pulp.

Of course. I was just curious to know what other areas he included. It wasn't a criticism of your report at all and I'm sure a keynote speech covered lots of other ground.

I still think the central premise, which your article adequately summarises is still possible to discuss with the information available.

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course. I was just curious to know what other areas he included. It wasn't a criticism of your report at all and I'm sure a keynote speech covered lots of other ground.

I still think the central premise, which your article adequately summarises is still possible to discuss with the information available.

Not if you're getting the impression his talk was on comparing and contrasting different religious faiths. That wasn't his point at all.

[canard78]

I think some here are missing the point in Dr. Peterson's message, which is that a rational argument can be made for believing in religion in general and Mormonism in particular, that one doesn't have to say, "I know it's irrational, but I believe anyway." There are plenty of rational reasons to believe. His talk wasn't about pitting one Church against another, as jkwilliams seems intent on doing. Nor is it about conclusively proving a religious faith true through secular argument. Dr. Peterson acknowledges that isn't possible and that belief established through that means is not stable or adequate.

It's about keeping the question open so that one has a reason to seek spiritual answers through divine and personal revelation.

But then how are they useful.

I agree that if believing a given teaching or attending a certain church were wholly irrational then that church would struggle to keep going.

If a secular, rational argument can be made for Islam, Baha'i, Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses and even (as jkwilliams has suggested) the Strangites... then what use is it? It doesn't get anywhere. Unless you can establish that faith in all those other perspectives are irrational then your rational argument and their rational argument become nothing more than a personal reassurance. It goes back to utilitarianism I mentioned earlier. If the secular argument for Mormonism is no better than all other faiths' arguments then we've got nowhere.

[canard78]

Not if you're getting the impression his talk was on comparing and contrasting different religious faiths. That wasn't his point at all.

No, I'm not saying he was making that point. I'm taking his central point (that belief in Mormonism is rational) and putting it in the context of the same argument being made by many other religions.

[Scott Lloyd]

No, I'm not saying he was making that point. I'm taking his central point (that belief in Mormonism is rational) and putting it in the context of the same argument being made by many other religions.

I'm going to repeat something I added to my prior post which you may have missed and then be done with this for now. It's very late at night on this side of the Atlantic, and I need to be in bed.

Edited to add one thing. You said early Christianity and Mormonism can't both be true. To the extent they share common elements, they can indeed both be true. I suppose the same goes for other faiths.

[TheSkepticChristian]

There are plenty of rational reasons to believe

 

I agree Mormonism is a rational worldview, I like how it solves the problem of evil. 

There are other rational worldviews too, like transhumanism, agnosticism, cryonics.

 

So your point is?

 

It's about keeping the question open so that one has a reason to seek spiritual answers through divine and personal revelation.

 

and I have been doing that for years. Most LDS didn't need rational arguments to look for spiritual answers. 

No LDS church leader or manual presents rational arguments before inviting people to pray. 

 

So his point was? 

Edited August 21, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[canard78]

I'm going to repeat something I added to my prior post which you may have missed and then be done with this for now. It's very late at night on this side of the Atlantic, and I need to be in bed.

I was about to make an observation about that too. No worries, I know I often get involved when (most of) the rest of you are heading off to bed.

[canard78]

Edited to add one thing. You said early Christianity and Mormonism can't both be true. To the extent they share common elements, they can indeed both be true. I suppose the same goes for other faiths.

Thanks for drawing attention to this in a later post. I has indeed missed it.

As a universalist I find this idea appealing. Perhaps the only truth is in the overlap. Once you've layered on a few faiths though, that overlap shrinks to a fairly basic: we are not alone,

a greater being is our creator and that being instructs us to "be excellent to each other."

On the other hand, simply saying that it is rational to believe other religions are true when and if they overlap with your own is essentially to ignore the secular arguments being made by those religions. The rational reasons for believing in Catholocism and Islam are not limited to the areas where there is overlap with Mormonism. They, like Mormonism, tend to focus on their whole faith, not limited parts.

So if many religions can make a secular argument for their belief it still leaves me wondering what use a secular argument for any of them is.

[jkwilliams]

Do you know what I would tell someone if he were to tell me that the Voree plates have made a difference in his life tantamount (or heck, not even tantamount, but in any way akin) to the difference the Book of Mormon has made in my life: "Great!  More power to you!" And, I might add something that an official from Regent University who was attempting to persuade me to apply to law school there told me when I asked him if the fact that I'm a devout Mormon changed his mind: "I'm delighted that your faith [he used the phrase "your faith in Christ"] plays a central role in your life."  

 

If someone asks me why I believe [x] over [y] (for this example, insert "the Book of Mormon" and "the Voree plates") I'd certainly like to think I'd be prepared and able to offer a cogent answer.  But I see no reason to try to convince someone else who tells me he has been blessed with good fruit, bread, and fish that God actually gave him thorns, thistles, stones, and serpents (or even "fruit" that's kinda thorny and thistly, "bread" that's kinda stony, and "fish" that's kinda "serpenty.")

 

One good thing I hope comes out of secular attacks on religion and on the religiously devout is that religious people and institutions that heretofore considered Mormons and Mormonism to be their enemies might finally start figuring out that, "Hey, doctrinal differences aside, perhaps we really ought to hang together, lest we all hang separately," and, "The enemy of my enemy [speaking metaphorically] is my friend."

 

My point was not about the value of the plates but about the quality of Dan's "secular argument."

[Kenngo1969]

But none of that is a secular argument. That's an argument from utility. Which is also a good reason to hold a religious view (as Mfbukowski will probably point out at some point in this thread ).

I appreciate your acknowledgment that someone need not be Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs in order to recognize that, on some level, my argument is sound.  However, I think you'll also agree that, on some level, utility and rationality are not (or at least they need not be) completely divorced.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Kenngo1969