Dan Peterson: "Why I Can't Manage To Disbelieve"

[Teancum]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Eh? Tough to deal with? Not "dealing with what he has to say"? It appears to me he has been dealt with quite handily here on this thread.

 

Hardly but then beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  We all seek things to confirm our bias.  Most or your contribution here is simply hip hip hoorah for those you think confirm your view point.

The amazing thing to me about this thread is the defenders of the BoM hold out that a fantastical supernatural claim for the BoM has to be dis-proven by those who don't believe it.  Really?  Why is that?  The burden of proof is on those who make the claim.  There are many explanations non believers in the BoM make that are as plausible as the explanations made by believers.  Just because you or Dan Petersen find them lacking does not mean they are and thus the default is the official LDS position and the accounts Joseph Smith and those surrounding him made. For me the best proof is not in the story but in whether the book that claims to be historical can be shown as such.  On that front there is really not much to help.

And what is further amazing to me is I highly doubt you or others would give the same benefit to believers in say the Koran.  Do you simply accept the Islamic position as the correct one for how their scripture came to be because competing theories seem lacking to them?   If yes I assume you and Dan Peterson accept it as scripture with the same authority as the BoM or you simply use different standards for your preferred book of scripture.

[hope_for_things]

28 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Neither one of them like Vogel because he is tough to deal with.  So trashing him as sophomoric, etc on a message board like this is simply easier than dealing with what he has to say.

I'm just a little surprised by it, perhaps because I haven't been around here long enough to see the old biases by those who've been arguing for years over these subjects.  A fresh pair of eyes usually sees things a little differently than the old dogs.  

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Neither one of them like Vogel because he is tough to deal with.  So trashing him as sophomoric, etc on a message board like this is simply easier than dealing with what he has to say.

Very predictable.  You are a positivist.  

Go ahead then and rebut Goff and Kevin, Rorty and myself.   We will see which view is "tough to deal with"

Prove that you can see what others cannot see.  I only see what I experience- my perceptions of appearances as interpreted by a human brain

It is comforting to know you can see reality as it is with no brain attached.

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It doesn't matter how much new information emerges. If the Book of Mormon turned out to be fictional, it would, quite simply, be a fraud and not worthy of basing one's religious faith on it.

Of course, I hasten to add that the Book of Mormon is not fictional and, therefore, is not a fraud.

 

Binary thinking is really hard to engage with, sorry.... 

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm just a little surprised by it, perhaps because I haven't been around here long enough to see the old biases by those who've been arguing for years over these subjects.  A fresh pair of eyes usually sees things a little differently than the old dogs.  

Well if you can describe objectivity without filters or prejudices or even linguistic characterizations go ahead and describe it

Of course do not use language in doing so, since it is inherently prejudiced by culture.

Quote

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

To accept Vogel, one would have to refute the above statement.

Best wishes

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Binary thinking is really hard to engage with, sorry.... 

Some things in this world are binary by nature, and endeavors to make them not binary yield logical incoherence.

One is male or female.

One is pregnant or not pregnant.

And something is either fradulent or not fraudulent. It cannot be both at the same time.

 

Edited August 29, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Well if you can describe objectivity without filters or prejudices or even linguistic characterizations go ahead and describe it

Of course do not use language in doing so, since it is inherently prejudiced by culture.

To accept Vogel, one would have to refute the above statement.

Best wishes

No-one can describe objectively without filters or prejudices.  Vogel can't and you can't either.  How does this fact (that we are all biased and prejudiced inherently) make it so you can summarily reject a respected historian and call his work sophomoric?  

[Nevo]

15 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I was thinking of this one:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/oliver-cowdery-scribe-elder-witness/

Ah, okay, thanks. I was hoping Morris had written a book on Cowdery. His articles have been excellent.

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Hardly but then beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  We all seek things to confirm our bias.  Most or your contribution here is simply hip hip hoorah for those you think confirm your view point.

You DO understand that this is exactly the opposite of what Vogel says, right?  How ironic can you get???

Hip hip hoorrah for Vogel.  That is what this amounts to.

I say hip hip hooray for Rorty.   Now that we have the cheering over, do you have any substantial way to determine which paradigm we should use?   One which misunderstands your point above (Vogel) or one which agrees with your quote above (Rorty)?

So which is it?  Vogel's absolute truth verifiable only by Vogel's absolute truth, or your own statement that "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder"?

What is your ironic definition of truth which justifies both views at once?   Is beauty in the eye of the beholder, or solely in the interpretation of evidence?

What is the evidence for beauty?  Please share how you can empirically show that a scene is "beautiful" or that a woman or man is beautiful?

What is the common evidence for people AND landscapes being "beautiful"?

Edited August 29, 2016 by mfbukowski

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Here's the slide:

I think Dr. Peterson has covered pretty much all of the logical alternative explanations for the Plates.  Here's my take of the options:

1. Joseph had no plates, and his claims to the contrary can be attributed to him being a cynical (i.e., intentional, mendacious) fraud (corresponds to DCP's point A.1.a);
2. Joseph had no plates, and his claims to the contrary can be attributed to him being a pious (i.e., well-intentioned, misguided-but-sincere) fraud (corresponds to DCP's point A.1.b);
3. Joseph had no plates, and his claims to the contrary can be attributed to him being deluded (i.e., mental handicap/ illness, drug- or trauma-induced brain injury, etc.) (corresponds to DCP's point A.2);
4. Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he fabricated them as part of being a cynical (i.e., intentional, mendacious) fraud (corresponds to DCP's point B.1.a);
5. Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he fabricated them as part of being a pious (i.e., well-intentioned, misguided-but-sincere) fraud (corresponds to DCP's point B.1.b);
6. Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he fabricated them as part of being deluded (i.e., mental handicap/ illness, drug- or trauma-induced brain injury, etc.) (no corresponding point in DCP's slide);
7. Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he received them from a contemporary (or a group of contemporaries) who fabricated them (corresponds to DCP's point B.2.a);
8. Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he received them from a non-contemporary (or a group of non-contemporaries) who fabricated them (corresponds to DCP's point B.2.b).

I think the weight of the historical evidence at hand makes options 4-8 substantially more likely than options 1-3.  There were simply too many people who saw the plates.  

Of the remaining options, I think insanity/mental illness (# 6 above) does not seem warranted.  Accusations of mental illness are essentially devoid of evidence.

I also think the remaining "cynical fraud" theory (#4) is not plausible.  Joseph's personal writings give no hint whatsoever to such motives.  (As Dr. Peterson noted: "One of the places you run into issues is with Joseph Smith’s writings, which are now being published, the personal writings of Joseph Smith, the Joseph Smith Papers. If Joseph Smith is not sincere, then I can’t judge sincerity in another human being.")

So that would leave essentially three options, namely, #5, #7 and #8:

• Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he fabricated them as part of being a pious (i.e., well-intentioned, misguided-but-sincere) fraud (I think the "Inspired Fiction" theory would need to be categorized here);
• Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he received them from a contemporary (or a group of contemporaries) who fabricated them (corresponds to DCP's point B.2.a);
• Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he received them from a non-contemporary (or a group of non-contemporaries) who fabricated them (corresponds to DCP's point B.2.b).

I think there are some rather substantial flaws in these, as outlined in DCP's remarks.

So the 9th option comes into play: Joseph had actual, physical, authentically ancient, plates because he received them from a non-contemporary, a resurrected being named Moroni, who led Joseph to where the plates had been buried centuries before.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sorry, but you're still missing some options.  If anything, I find arguments that attempt to appear logical by listing different options to usually suffer from a disappointing lack of imagination.

And it's actually missing the most important one.  And it's not even that hard to figure out.

Suppose in the 1960s instead of the Book of Abraham Papyrus being recovered, someone in the northeastern US was digging and found a set of plates that looked almost exactly like the plates described by the witnesses.  They give the plates to the Church, and the Church has them analyzed by experts who return a verdict that they are of early 19th century origin.

Obviously, we would quickly have a new theory that isn't on that list: 

B.1.c  He made them, but only under the direction of God and in the fashion of the original plates, and he did so to provide physical support for the actual, true stories that were being revealed to him via revelation.

Ergo, not a "fraud" but a true prophet who needed to use the materials and skills available to him in his frontier culture to aid the restoration of the Gospel.  After a short period of time, his followers no longer needed such props to aid their faith and they could be disposed of.

It's no different than the defenses used regarding the Book of Abraham or Joseph's use of seer stones.  The arguments are already there, they just don't have to be used because the plates are no longer available for inspection (just as there was no need for defenses of the Kinderhook Plates or Book of Abraham until after the sources became available for inspection). 

Given some time, I could probably come up with five other options that aren't on that list.  Given the need, I'll bet believers could come up with ten, and the Church could publish an essay describing all ten and say "It doesn't matter which option is true as long as you believe."

Edited August 29, 2016 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Hardly but then beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  We all seek things to confirm our bias.  Most or your contribution here is simply hip hip hoorah for those you think confirm your view point.The amazing thing to me about this thread is the defenders of the BoM hold out that a fantastical supernatural claim for the BoM has to be dis-proven by those who don't believe it.  Really?  Why is that?  The burden of proof is on those who make the claim. 

I've answered this complaint repeatedly here. Defenders of the Book of Mormon don't bear a burden of proof because we don't claim that it can be empirically proven, only that a logical, cumulative case can be made for its plausibility, which would then leave one free to go to God in humble prayer and ask about it. On the other hand, those who declare it is false do bear the burden because of the absolutist assertion they make.

Quote

There are many explanations non believers in the BoM make that are as plausible as the explanations made by believers. 

You think so? Have you bothered to read and consider Dan's FairMormon talk? Efforts to explain away the Book of Mormon and the circumstances surrounding it become so convoluted as to be like the proverbial Rube Golberg device.

If reading the text of his talk is too much work for you, read the superb posts Smac97 has made on this thread pertaining to it. They capture the essence very well.

Quote

And what is further amazing to me is I highly doubt you or others would give the same benefit to believers in say the Koran.  Do you simply accept the Islamic position as the correct one for how their scripture came to be because competing theories seem lacking to them?   If yes I assume you and Dan Peterson accept it as scripture with the same authority as the BoM or you simply use different standards for your preferred book of scripture.

The crucial difference you are neglecting/ignoring is that I don't go on message boards or do other things to attack or discredit the Koran or Islam. I am, in fact, indifferent toward them.

And you're still not getting it. I'm not saying someone is obligated to accept the Book of Mormon just because it can't be disproven. I have no quarrel with such a person. I might invite and encourage him to consider it and ask God if it is not true, but if he is disinclined to do so, I will allow him to go on his way and wish him well.

It's the critics and the attackers I have in mind. The book exists. If the standard narrative of its coming forth is rejected, it has to be accounted for somehow. And if all you can do is attack and you can't bring forth something viable as an alternative, your argument is not very compelling.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Without knowing all the background of your debates with Vogel or your critiques of Mormon historians, I think you're missing an important point that I'm making about the respect that Vogel's work has received by many many credible scholars.  

Assuming for a moment that you are correct about Vogel not understanding the your philosophical arguments, is it possible that you may also not understand the historical arguments that Vogel has presented?  It seems to me that your disagreements might be due to the differences in disciplines, more than anything else.

I'm not trained in philosophy or in history, but I can see that when a highly respected person who's won many awards and who's works are frequently sited by those in Mormon historical disciplines is being unfairly dismissed, and I don't find that to be credible.    

The entire point of Goff's article is that historians are largely ignorant of historiography if they were educated before the 1980's

That is also true of historians who are amateurs or didn't attend universities where historiography is taught.  That is true of general authorities with no expertise in historiography or anyone else who is unfamiliar with the contemporary theories.

Rather than worrying about Vogel, I would recommend you understand historiography better- what history is and is not, and I would base that education on contemporary standards because it has all changed in the last 30 years

Edited August 29, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Teancum]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Very predictable.  You are a positivist.  

Go ahead then and rebut Goff and Kevin, Rorty and myself.   We will see which view is "tough to deal with"

Prove that you can see what others cannot see.  I only see what I experience- my perceptions of appearances as interpreted by a human brain

It is comforting to know you can see reality as it is with no brain attached.

As about is predictable as your posts are really,. 

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Some things in this world are binary by nature, and endeavors to make them not binary yield logical incoherence.

Sometimes people see things that aren't binary, in binary terms because of their own limited perspectives.  

[Teancum]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You DO understand that this is exactly the opposite of what Vogel says, right?  How ironic can you get???

Hip hip hoorrah for Vogel.  That is what this amounts to.

I say hip hip hooray for Rorty.   Now that we have the cheering over, do you have any substantial way to determine which paradigm we should use?   One which misunderstands your point above (Vogel) or one which agrees with your quote above (Rorty)?

So which is it?  Vogel's absolute truth verifiable only by Vogel's absolute truth, or your own statement that "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder"?

What is your ironic definition of truth which justifies both views at once?   Is beauty in the eye of the beholder, or solely in the interpretation of evidence?

What is the evidence for beauty?  Please share how you can empirically show that a scene is "beautiful" or that a woman or man is beautiful?

What is the common evidence for people AND landscapes being "beautiful"?

It is in the eye of the beholder for you is it not?  You are the one that constantly says reality is what we see from our own perspective as well as truth is what truth is as confirmed by an outside influence that cannot be tested that you call the Holy Ghost.  But you do seem willing to allow others their own truths even if it contradicts yours of they think God is telling them to follow it.

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The entire point of Goff's article is that historians are largely ignorant of historiography if they were educated before the 1980's

That is also true of historians who are amateurs or didn't attend universities where historiography is not taught.  That is true of general authorities with no expertise in historiography or anyone else who is unfamiliar with the contemporary theories.

Rather than worrying about Vogel, I would recommend you understand historiography better- what history is and is not, and I would base that education on contemporary standards because it has all changed in the last 30 years

I'll have to invest some time to comprehend these arguments and I'm sure I can find some value from what you're explaining and your POV.  

Conversely, I still have a strong hunch that part of your disagreement with Vogel and willingness to so quickly dismiss him, has to do with a fundamental communication problem.  Many disagreements are a function of individuals unwillingness to truly understand the perspective of the other person, and people end up arguing two different points, rather than trying to understand the merit of the actual points that are being presented.  It can become a battle of wills instead of a free exchange of ideas with a desire to understand.

For this reason, I take exception to your characterization of Vogel.  I genuinely respect much of what I've seen you contribute on this message board, so I was a little surprised to be honest.  

Edited August 29, 2016 by hope_for_things

[Teancum]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've answered this complaint repeatedly here. Defenders of the Book of Mormon don't bear a burden of proof because we don't claim that it can be empirically proven, only that a logical, cumulative case can be made for its plausibility, which would then leave one free to go to God in humble prayer and ask about it. On the other hand, those who declare it is false do bear the burden because of the absolutist assertion they make.

You think so? Have you bothered to read and consider Dan's FairMormon talk? Efforts to explain away the Book of Mormon and the circumstances surrounding it become so convoluted as to be like the proverbial Rube Golberg device.

If reading the text of his talk is too much work for you, read the superb posts Smac97 has made on this thread pertaining to it. They capture the essence very well.

The crucial difference you are neglecting/ignoring is that I don't go on message boards or do other things to attack or discredit the Koran or Islam. I am, in fact, indifferent toward them.

And you're still not getting it. I'm not saying someone is obligated to accept the Book of Mormon just because it can't be disproven. I will invite and encourage him to consider it and ask God if it is not true, but if he is disinclined to do so, I will allow him to go on his way and wish him well.

It's the critics and the attackers I have in mind. The book exists. If the standard narrative of its coming forth is rejected, it has to be accounted for somehow. And if all you can do is attack and you can't bring forth something viable as an alternative, our argument is not very compelling.

Yes I did read Dan's talk and did not find it compelling, nor do I your post above.  And yes it is upon those who claim the Book is what is claims to be as well as how it came to be to provide more than a simple low level bar of plausibility so people can simply ask God.  Angels giving plates of Gold to one person and that person using stones and or a thing called the Urim and Thummim to translate the book from some unknown language are fantastical claims and not events that are common nor really able to be demonstrated with much evidence.  Odd that historically such things happen only to a select few that then ask people to take it on faith.  Thus the plausibility level is a low bar for the BoM because there is little to no evidence to show angels are real beings that actually interact with humans on any level of frequency.

Additionally as noted the BoM claims that the people and civilization accounted for in it are real. Thus the book can be tested and falsified on those grounds as well. So far DNA evidence as well as lack of other historical evidence makes it pretty difficult to lend credence to the BoM and what the book claims for itself in that arena.

Last of all I will note that your comments re the Koran are no you don't approach a book that came forth with fantastical supernatural claims in the same way you so the BoM.  Oh and also this is not an attack.  You are the one who started the thread.  If you did not want people to respond and you simply view comments that disagree with you as attacks why start the thread?

[cdowis]

del

Edited August 29, 2016 by cdowis

[UtahTexan]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CountryBoy, just want to say how glad I am that you have returned. I wish you all the blessings in store for you from your newly regained faith, and I offer you my friendship.

Honored.  

Tried to PM you with no luck

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

I'm LDS and love the BOM and accept it as scripture, though I don't see it as a translation of an ancient record, nor do I think an angel gave Joseph gold plates.  So, I don't like taking the critic side in this throwdown to the critics.  But, why isn't it this simple?

 

1. If the LDS traditional narrative were true, it would be unique in the history of man.  Right?  Not just unique but really, really unique.  In terms of angel delivering ancient plates, translating by the power of God, etc.

2. Therefore, the threshold for acceptability in terms of how likely something could be can be pretty low, and still be favorable in terms of an "Occam's Razor" type of approach as an alternative to #1.

3. Choose your favorite critical argument.  Compared to all the unlikely, implausible actual events in world history, how does it compare?  Way more unlikely/implausible?  Go ahead and toss it.   In line with other unlikely, implausible events that have actually occurred?  Go ahead and accept it as an Occam's Razor alternative to the argument #1 which has no actual comparable in world history.  ie example that Joseph conspired with someone.  Would this go down as the most unlikely conspiracy in human history?  Go ahead and toss it out.  If not, it meets the threshold.  Joseph made it up himself.  Would it go down as the most unlikely case in human history of an uneducated person creating something impressive?  If so, toss it.  If not, go ahead and allow it.

 

 

The problem with #3 is you're still using your own knowledge as a reference.  Thus, the more ignorant you are, the more likely it is for the supernatural theory to be true.  It's a surefire recipe for gullibility and foolishness in every area, except in the case of The Book of Mormon, in which it happens to guide someone to the incredible truth of otherwise unbelievable claims.

You're also "tossing" theories based on the assumption that Joseph couldn't have been "the most unlikely case of an uneducated person creating something impressive" and so on.  Uri Gellar might be the most accomplished person in the history of the world at bending spoons naturally, and I might not know how he does it, but that still doesn't mean I should "toss" the theory that he's doing it using natural power.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Honored.  

Tried to PM you with no luck

There is a limit on PM posts that can be stored, and I'm afraid I'm, not very diligent at keeping mine cleaned out.

[UtahTexan]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There is a limit on PM posts that can be stored, and I'm afraid I'm, not very diligent at keeping mine cleaned out.

understandable.  I am sure you get inundated.  If you want to talk off the board, PM me.  

[cinepro]

23 hours ago, cdowis said:

(Deleted at author's request)

 

Not at all.  Look at the theories regarding the Book of Abraham and the papyrus.  Do you think there isn't enough creativity among apologists to account for all of those supposed "lies"?

Moroni obviously did appear to Joseph.  Joseph even recovered Moroni's original plates.  This gave Joseph the evidence he personally needed to have confidence to go forward with the project.  But the plates were too valuable, so God took them back to heaven and told Joseph to make a second set that would serve as an instrument for those who needed physical evidence.  So there were both authentic plates, and for safety, some prop plates. 

And God allowed the prop plates to be found in our day as a test to separate the wheat from the chaff, knowing that some people would be tested and make lists of "lies".  Which are you?

Edited August 30, 2016 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

As about is predictable as your posts are really,. 

At least I am consistent which is more than I can say for some here who criticize the same position which they tacitly hold in ignorance.

And no answer to ANY of my posts which may be repetitive but at least consistent.   And why do you think they are repetitive?  Because I am trying to get the point across so that other see that positivists have no place to hide, and that the church is actually true.  Without refutation, then I think my point, and Goff's point, and Kevin's point, and Paulsen's point (https://muse.jhu.edu/article/18126) and the same point made by countless others who are Mormons AND understand the point, stands without refutation.

Thanks for showing that tacitly.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Sorry, but you're still missing some options.  If anything, I find arguments that attempt to appear logical by listing different options to usually suffer from a disappointing lack of imagination.

And it's actually missing the most important one.  And it's not even that hard to figure out.

Suppose in the 1960s instead of the Book of Abraham Papyrus being recovered, someone in the northeastern US was digging and found a set of plates that looked almost exactly like the plates described by the witnesses.  They give the plates to the Church, and the Church has them analyzed by experts who return a verdict that they are of early 19th century origin.

So rather than address the evidence and historical record at hand, you fabricate a speculative hypothetical with no basis in fact?

Let's not do that.  Let us instead address the facts and evidence at hand.  What additional options do you have in mind?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 29, 2016 by smac97