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

[Kenngo1969]

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

See my reply to Canard78, above.

[Kenngo1969]

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.

It's not necessarily possible at all times and under all circumstances, to draw a nice, neat, clear line between the sacred/spiritual and the secular.  And, although in my paradigm and in that of many other faithful Mormons and believers in general, a spiritual witness of some kind at some point is essential to the maintenance of faith, many people (reasonably, in my mind) aver that a good part of the appeal of their faith is how it simply makes sense to them.  And God works on and through the mind, as well as on and through the heart.  (See Doctrine and Covenants 9:8 (the Lord communicates to the mind as well as to the heart) and 6:23 (He spoke peace to Oliver Cowdery's mind)).  And, as I pointed out earlier, the utility of such arguments in the face of society's increasing secularism and antipathy toward religion will become more and more evident the more time passes, even to simply make room or to allow for religious belief, as religious convictions and positions move from society's mainstream to its margins.

[jkwilliams]

See my reply to Canard78, above.

 

I appreciate what you wrote. I am fully on board with the idea that we must choose our own spiritual path in this life. I'd even go so far as to say that whatever you find spiritually fulfilling is good for you, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. 

 

My comments here were about the quality of this "secular argument" for the Book of Mormon. If we're going to say that there is a rational argument for believing in Mormonism (and I think there is), Dan's presentation doesn't really supply that argument. 

[Senator]

Hmm...

 

An interesting topic. I guess some discussion would need to take place as to the meaning of "rational".

 

For instance, is it rational to believe that an individual received a book from an angelic being and then proceeded to translate it's inscriptions (without actually looking at them) by a supernatural power?

[cynth]

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.

Well, thank you for the threat, I mean, warning, Scott, that really promotes open discussion.

 

Note that you admitted to setting up a strawman in your summary?  why would you set up a strawman in your synopsis if it didn't exist in the full length Peterson presentation? 

 

My problem with his presentation is that he is arguing that it is "rational" to believe something, as long as you have a way to completely and totally PROVE that you cannot assign a zero probability to something.  In other words, anything is rational if you can argue a non-zero probability of occuring.  So Peterson's standard is very, very loose for "rationality," but if someone would like to disagree with him, they must follow the most rigorous levels of proof.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

I appreciate what you wrote. I am fully on board with the idea that we must choose our own spiritual path in this life. I'd even go so far as to say that whatever you find spiritually fulfilling is good for you, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. 

 

My comments here were about the quality of this "secular argument" for the Book of Mormon. If we're going to say that there is a rational argument for believing in Mormonism (and I think there is), Dan's presentation doesn't really supply that argument. 

So you've read or heard Dan's presentation, then?

[jkwilliams]

So you've read or heard Dan's presentation, then?

 

I'm sincerely hoping there's more to it than what you published. Perhaps I assumed incorrectly that you published the highlights, as it were. I shall refrain from further comment until I can read the whole thing. Of course, I am prepared to be blown away or disappointed in equal measure.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, thank you for the threat, I mean, warning, Scott, that really promotes open discussion.

Note that you admitted to setting up a strawman in your summary? why would you set up a strawman in your synopsis if it didn't exist in the full length Peterson presentation?

My problem with his presentation is that he is arguing that it is "rational" to believe something, as long as you have a way to completely and totally PROVE that you cannot assign a zero probability to something. In other words, anything is rational if you can argue a non-zero probability of occuring. So Peterson's standard is very, very loose for "rationality," but if someone would like to disagree with him, they must follow the most rigorous levels of proof.

If you want to completely shut the door on any possibility that it is true, well, yes, you must be quite rigorous in order to do that.

The thing is, neither Dan, nor I, nor the Church, nor its leaders, nor anyone I know purports to conclusively prove the Church true through secular argumentation by itself.

What we say, in effect, is what Christ's disciple said: "Come and see." Consider it, ask God in faith and humility if it is true, and wait for Him to manifest it to you by the power of the Holy Ghost.

The Church's adversaries are thus at a disadvantage because, whether they realize it or not, they have set for themselves the larger burden. I submit it's an impossible burden.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm sincerely hoping there's more to it than what you published.

Well of course there is. I have already acknowledged that I summarized in a few hundred words a presentation of an hour or more. Do you sincerely believe there  might not be more -- substantially more -- to it than what I wrote?

 

Perhaps I assumed incorrectly that you published the highlights, as it were.

 

Even after you have viewed "the highlights," as it were, I don't see how you could competently argue against it without considering the treatise in its entirety.

 

For the record, I don't purport to have provided anything close to a comprehensive summary of what was said. The best I could hope to do in the allotted space was provide a very brief presentation of some of the high points and thus draw attention to what I trust will be a verbatim rendition on the FairMormon website.

 

I shall refrain from further comment until I can read the whole thing.

 

That's up to you, of course. But I think that might be wise.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[trim]

I heard Dan Peterson's presentation and I understood his approach to be to offer reasons to consider religious or spiritual belief by pointing to things that were very difficult for science to explain e.g. near death experiences that produce knowledge that the person could not have known as part of their normal mortal experience.  A second approach seemed to be identifying the extreme coincidences and/or precision of universal constants that had to be in place for life and the universe to exist.  Dan spent a fair amount of time on the fine-tuning argument and I personally find that part of his approach fairly weak.  I hope he doesn't put too much effort into the fine-tuning argument by the time his book, or books, on this subject take their final form.

[Thinking]

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.

 

Isn't this what Mormon apologetics is all about already?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

e.g. near death experiences that produce knowledge that the person could not have known as part of their normal mortal experience.  

I'd love to read some examples of this if anyone has a handy link or two...

[Avatar4321]

Shouldn't those who haven't seen the presentation read it before making any decisions about it

[jkwilliams]

Shouldn't those who haven't seen the presentation read it before making any decisions about it

 

I trusted Scott to give us a high-level overview and the highlights. Apparently, I was wrong.

[Scott Lloyd]

I trusted Scott to give us a high-level overview and the highlights. Apparently, I was wrong.

Good grief!

[cynth]

Good grief!

Why good grief? My assessment of your overview is similar- i thought you would give a legitimate review, but instead you led with a fake strawman- why? I have no clue. Even shortened reviews attempt to capture the main point, did you feel you couldn't do that for some reason

 

We call this board nannying. Contribute to the discussion rather than criticizing the poster.

[Sanpitch]

This is something I copied from another poster somewhere long ago, I hope they don't mind me using it.  It makes me think of DCP's  arguments for the BoM in this thread and elsewhere:

 

"It's fairly easy for an intelligent person to select the few facts that support a false idea, and to seem convincing, especially to people who are predisposed to believe the idea anyway. This assertion assumes no dishonesty or insincerity on the part of the scholar. In fact, it is a very common mistake when one is set on a particular conclusion before examining the evidence. People naturally see what they want to see, making it easy to ignore the 95% of the data that refutes the desired conclusion. It happens to the best of us. Cheers,Cc"

Edited August 21, 2015 by Sanpitch

[Thinking]

The Church's adversaries are thus at a disadvantage because, whether they realize it or not, they have set for themselves the larger burden. I submit it's an impossible burden.

 

This is where you are in error. It is the Church that has made the fantastic claims of restoration. Evidence of inconsistencies reduce the probability of the truth claims of the Church. When inconsistencies are pointed out a common justification is that old "mistakes of men" disclaimer. How many appeals to that disclaimer need to happen before we say there is a small probability to accept the Church's truth claims as valid?

[Thinking]

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.

 

I'm not going to argue that you can disprove LDS truth claims, but I am going to argue that it's reasonable to not believe the truth claims of the LDS Church.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Thinking

[PeterPear]

Interesting claim by Dr. Peterson, from Scott Lloyd's Deseret News Article:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865634966/Speaker-gives-barebones-secular-argument-for-the-gospel.html

"“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."

"Many of Joseph’s visions were shared with other people, Brother Peterson noted. “So if he’s a conscious fraud, he’s also inducing other people, or he’s got conscious frauds associated with him. And there are lots of them: his mother, his sister, the Three Witnesses, the Eight Witnesses, Sidney Rigdon — the list goes on and on.”

Yet,when it came for Joseph Smith to share his knowledge of BoM Geography, Dr. Peterson defends this statement:

"..most of what Joseph Smith said or implied about geography indicates that he did not understand or was ambiguous about the fact, as it turns out, that Mesoamerica was the particular setting for Nephite history.” http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41&chapid=196

And this statement by Ken Godfrey discounting or pooh-poohing the account of Zelph in Church Histroy:

"If the history of the church were to be revised today using modern historical standards, readers would be informed that Joseph Smith wrote nothing about the discovery of Zelph, and that the account of uncovering the skeleton in Pike County is based on the diaries of seven members of Zion’s Camp, some [Page 171]of which were written long after the event took place. We would be assured that the members of Zion’s Camp dug up a skeleton near the Illinois River in early June 1834. Equally sure is that Joseph Smith made statements about the deceased person and his historical setting. We would learn that it is unclear which statements attributed to him derived from his vision, as opposed to being implied or surmised either by him or by others. Nothing in the diaries suggests that the mound itself was discovered by revelation."

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-treason-of-the-geographers-mythical-mesoamerican-conspiracy-and-the-book-of-mormon/#more-7472

So out of Dr. Peterson's own mouth, he's attributing those associated with Joseph Smith to whom Joseph Smith shared his visions and his opinions based on his visions, as being frauds regarding Book of Mormon geography.

"Joseph Smith didn't understand."

"He was ambigious."

"The men in Zions Camp were unclear in their writings of statements attributed to Joseph's vision as opposed to being implied or surmised either by him or others...

"..the list goes on and on..."

This is LDS Apologetics: Defend the Prophet Joseph Smith's and his associates' statements as not being fraudulent. It's logical. They can be understood in a secular setting, meaning without calling upon the Spirit to provide a testimony.

Except for statements made by Joseph Smith and his associates that deal with Book of Mormon geography outside of Mesoamerica. Then they're not logical and you don't the need the Spirit to witness that they're not logical.

Scribes, Pharisees, LDS Apologists...

[Scott Lloyd]

Interesting claim by Dr. Peterson, from Scott Lloyd's Deseret News Article:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865634966/Speaker-gives-barebones-secular-argument-for-the-gospel.html

"“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."

"Many of Joseph’s visions were shared with other people, Brother Peterson noted. “So if he’s a conscious fraud, he’s also inducing other people, or he’s got conscious frauds associated with him. And there are lots of them: his mother, his sister, the Three Witnesses, the Eight Witnesses, Sidney Rigdon — the list goes on and on.”

Yet,when it came for Joseph Smith to share his knowledge of BoM Geography, Dr. Peterson defends this statement:

"..most of what Joseph Smith said or implied about geography indicates that he did not understand or was ambiguous about the fact, as it turns out, that Mesoamerica was the particular setting for Nephite history.” http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41&chapid=196

And this statement by Ken Godfrey discounting or pooh-poohing the account of Zelph in Church Histroy:

"If the history of the church were to be revised today using modern historical standards, readers would be informed that Joseph Smith wrote nothing about the discovery of Zelph, and that the account of uncovering the skeleton in Pike County is based on the diaries of seven members of Zion’s Camp, some [Page 171]of which were written long after the event took place. We would be assured that the members of Zion’s Camp dug up a skeleton near the Illinois River in early June 1834. Equally sure is that Joseph Smith made statements about the deceased person and his historical setting. We would learn that it is unclear which statements attributed to him derived from his vision, as opposed to being implied or surmised either by him or by others. Nothing in the diaries suggests that the mound itself was discovered by revelation."

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-treason-of-the-geographers-mythical-mesoamerican-conspiracy-and-the-book-of-mormon/#more-7472

So out of Dr. Peterson's own mouth, he's attributing those associated with Joseph Smith to whom Joseph Smith shared his visions and his opinions based on his visions, as being frauds regarding Book of Mormon geography.

"Joseph Smith didn't understand."

"He was ambigious."

"The men in Zions Camp were unclear in their writings of statements attributed to Joseph's vision as opposed to being implied or surmised either by him or others...

"..the list goes on and on..."

This is LDS Apologetics: Defend the Prophet Joseph Smith's and his associates' statements as not being fraudulent. It's logical. They can be understood in a secular setting, meaning without calling upon the Spirit to provide a testimony.

Except for statements made by Joseph Smith and his associates that deal with Book of Mormon geography outside of Mesoamerica. Then they're not logical and you don't the need the Spirit to witness that they're not logical.

Scribes, Pharisees, LDS Apologists...

This post is off-topic. This is not a thread about the so-called "heartlander" theory of Book of Mormon geography.

 

If you desire to discuss that subject, start a thread of your own for that purpose. I doubt I'll be interested in it, but you might get some takers.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not going to argue that you can disprove LDS truth claims, but I am going to argue that it's reasonable to not believe the truth claims of the LDS Church.

As I saw Dr. Peterson say to a respondent on his blog the other day on another topic: You've beaten that straw man to a bloody pulp. Good job.

[Scott Lloyd]

This is where you are in error. It is the Church that has made the fantastic claims of restoration. Evidence of inconsistencies reduce the probability of the truth claims of the Church. When inconsistencies are pointed out a common justification is that old "mistakes of men" disclaimer. How many appeals to that disclaimer need to happen before we say there is a small probability to accept the Church's truth claims as valid?

Obviously, I quite disagree with you and have already explained my reasoning, which you apparently intend to ignore.

[canard78]

I trusted Scott to give us a high-level overview and the highlights. Apparently, I was wrong.

 

 

Good grief!

 

 

Why good grief? My assessment of your overview is similar- i thought you would give a legitimate review, but instead you led with a fake strawman- why? I have no clue. Even shortened reviews attempt to capture the main point, did you feel you couldn't do that for some reason

 

While Scott and I usually only agree in threads that deal with grammar (and occasionally seer stones) I'm going to side with him on this one. It's a news report of a few hundred words. Scott has summarised, in his article, the premise of Peterson's talk and gave an example of what he meant.

 

“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.”

As an example, Brother Peterson took up the matter of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865634966/Speaker-gives-barebones-secular-argument-for-the-gospel.html?clear_cache=1

I certainly think there's enough in the article to discuss here as a broad topic but I think it's unreasonable to say Scott's setting up a straw man in his OP.

[Scott Lloyd]

Why good grief? My assessment of your overview is similar- i thought you would give a legitimate review, but instead you led with a fake strawman- why? I have no clue. Even shortened reviews attempt to capture the main point, did you feel you couldn't do that for some reason

I don't know why you're calling it a "review," as though I were giving commentary on a play or a movie or a music concert or a book.

 

I wrote a relatively brief news story about a presentation that was an hour in length or more. I feel I did summarize the main idea, but I didn't do an exhaustive and detailed treatment of it, which is what you seem to be demanding.

 

In fact, as it seems some here are determined to argue with me as though my brief story were such an exhaustive and detailed treatment, I am going to close this thread for the time being. I will reopen it at such time as I become aware of a transcript of Dr. Peterson's FairMormon talk being posted online to which I can provide a link.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd