It is currently Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:56 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: I Think I figured out Why Dr. Peterson Uses the Scientists
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 11:58 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am
Posts: 4192
Location: Firmly on this earth
He is baiting the internet. He needs ideas and criticism, but wants to publish, so he lobs these incredibly out of context bombs out on his website and then rushes over here to check out our reactions to his quotes and who he uses.

He is indirectly getting peer review, but doesn't want to personally face the music, and if he finds any weaknesses he can silently correct them without embarrassment. Otherwise, I have no idea why he keeps using the same kinds of tactics, authors, and assumptions, instead of actually doing what a good critical thinker would do and updating his own knowledge as to what science is actually doing, thinking, and accomplishing to better our world.

Surely, Dr. Peterson can't actually believe such quasi religious/scientific materials he is quoting?! His junk against evolution is just atrocious..... sigh....... is he actually scared of using the real evolutionist evidences? Jerry Coyne would set straight many of the silly biased religious scientists he keeps pounding out imagining they have the skinny on the chimera of evolution. Why do we see nothing of him in Peterson's ramblings? Why Evolution is True is one of the truly great books of actual evidence that Coyne has written.

_________________
"Being and nonbeing arise mutually. Thus not to see the unity of self and other is the fear of life, and not to see the unity of being and nonbeing is the fear of death." Alan Watts

"The problem is most religions proceed to try and explain the truth and then insist that you agree with their explanation." Brad Warner


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: I Think I figured out Why Dr. Peterson Uses the Scientis
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:37 am 
Anti-Mormon

Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:32 pm
Posts: 5130
Location: In the Politburo
Philo Sofee wrote:
He is baiting the internet. He needs ideas and criticism, but wants to publish, so he lobs these incredibly out of context bombs out on his website and then rushes over here to check out our reactions to his quotes and who he uses.

He is indirectly getting peer review, but doesn't want to personally face the music, and if he finds any weaknesses he can silently correct them without embarrassment. Otherwise, I have no idea why he keeps using the same kinds of tactics, authors, and assumptions, instead of actually doing what a good critical thinker would do and updating his own knowledge as to what science is actually doing, thinking, and accomplishing to better our world.

When it comes to Daniel C. Peterson the first thing one has to recognize is that you are not dealing with a scholar who is trying to live out an ideal life of the mind; rather he is a Mormon academic with pretensions of being some kind of public intellectual. He has no intention of ever advancing any sort of thesis that is original to him as Dan never really creates anything meaningful but only consumes the work of others so he can regurgitate it later.

Dan isn't looking for criticisms because he has no motivation to actually grow as a scholar or even as a person. There is only a few audiences that he caters to and everything outside that he happily ignores or dismisses with disdain. I don't think the man reads 95% of the books/articles he mentions, he is careless with everything because his own personal standards are almost non-existent.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: I Think I figured out Why Dr. Peterson Uses the Scientis
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:53 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 13355
Dr. Peterson reads to me as a dime a dozen commentator in the world of evangelical apologetics. The constant reference to scientists and other scholars is to try and establish that the views his is arguing have a patina of respectability. It's part of the infamous push/pull relationship fundamentalists have with modernity. It's disorienting until you become familiar with it, but there's both a deep criticism of secular means of knowing and a desperate effort to demonstrate their religious views triumph with those secular means of knowing. Don't put your faith in science / Science supports my faith. That's why you can get abject dismissiveness of overwhelming scholarly consensus on a subject while simultaneously arguing that a position has merit and really can't be disagreed with by laymen because there is someone with a Ph.D. from Harvard who argues it.

The only things that make Dr. Peterson unique - that set him apart form an endless list of bloggers who also are familiar with evangelical apologetics and can parrot them too - is that he is a Mormon while doing this and that he is a scholar of Islam who legitimately can speak with authority on the subject. Unfortunately, he doesn't do much to leverage either and spends most of his time fanboying boilerplate conservative evangelical views on religion and politics.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: I Think I figured out Why Dr. Peterson Uses the Scientis
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 12:03 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 13355
I'm sure Dr. Peterson is reading this thread. Want some advice?

I know you are a fan of Habermas/Craig style arguments on the historicity of the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ. You also seem to appreciate how those arguments could easily be turned on key elements of Mormon truth claims. I view this as a reductio ad absurdum of those arguments, but you likely view it as a missionary opportunity. We both look at this situation and think, "If only Habermas and his fans would follow the logic of his arguments into Mormonism."

So why not seize that opportunity and spend some time - real time - adapting the apologetics of historical resseruction to key Mormon claims in a rigorous fashion? Not as a blog post, but as a book length explication. You get to contribute something unique to the field of Mormon apologetics. You get to develop a missionary tool to deploy against would-be evangelical converts.

Meanwhile, folks like me get a fully-fleshed out reductio response to a popular evangelical argument. It's win/win as far as I can tell.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: I Think I figured out Why Dr. Peterson Uses the Scientis
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:56 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:15 am
Posts: 2967
Location: OreIda
The four posts above are gifts of charity to DCP I really do hope he accepts the gifts in the spirit in which they were given.

Some the best people I have ever interacted with in my life post on this board.

_________________
aka Pokatator joined Oct 26, 2006 and permanently banned from MAD Nov 6, 2006
"Stop being such a damned coward and use your real name to own your position."
"That's what he gets for posting in his own name."
2 different threads same day 2 hours apart Yohoo Bat 12/1/2015


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: I Think I figured out Why Dr. Peterson Uses the Scientis
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 5:21 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am
Posts: 4192
Location: Firmly on this earth
EAllusion wrote:
I'm sure Dr. Peterson is reading this thread. Want some advice?

I know you are a fan of Habermas/Craig style arguments on the historicity of the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ. You also seem to appreciate how those arguments could easily be turned on key elements of Mormon truth claims. I view this as a reductio ad absurdum of those arguments, but you likely view it as a missionary opportunity. We both look at this situation and think, "If only Habermas and his fans would follow the logic of his arguments into Mormonism."

So why not seize that opportunity and spend some time - real time - adapting the apologetics of historical resseruction to key Mormon claims in a rigorous fashion? Not as a blog post, but as a book length explication. You get to contribute something unique to the field of Mormon apologetics. You get to develop a missionary tool to deploy against would-be evangelical converts.

Meanwhile, folks like me get a fully-fleshed out reductio response to a popular evangelical argument. It's win/win as far as I can tell.


This would be an important book because it would help demonstrate the Mormon Jesus (who is supposed to be the Christian Jesus after all) really does hold up well against the atheists and philosophers. I know Blake Ostler's trilogy dealt with various aspects against the Christian philosophy of their God (never getting it on with the atheist arguments however), but it never did really follow the logic of Jesus. This is a very good help here for Dr. Peterson to actually write something important and value as a solid contribution. I for one, would buy it.

I must say though, I would be sorely disappointed were he to ignore Robert M. Price's & Jeffrey Jay Lowder's book The Empty Tomb, Jesus Beyond the Grave, Prometheus Books, 2005, one of the singular texts that took me out completely of the game of Mormon apologetics. Do Mormon scholars want to make a powerful missionary tool of their writings? Then solidly refute these kinds of serious analysis against their own favorite propositions e.g., that Jesus was really actually physically resurrected as Mormon theology proclaims. I would also strongly recommend he tackle Kris D. Komarnitsky Doubting Jesus Resurrection What Happened in the Black Box?, 2nd ed., Stone Arrow Publications, 2014. And if he could also just demonstrate how the critical and careful, logic thinking of other books such as Matthew MacCormick Atheism and the Case Against Christ, and The Improbability of God, and The Impossibility of God, both by Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier, he would go a very long way into getting me to doubt my doubts, now an apostolic Mormon commandment, said to be done in General Conference. I suspect Michael Martin's Atheism, A Philosophical Justification is beyond Peterson's pay grade, which disappoints me.

Dr. Peterson would be doing doubters the world over a gigantic favor of showing us lesser ability thinkers who cannot find the way out of these arguments, that there are actual, critical, careful, historical answers that even atheists can agree with if only we knew where to turn. Besides, these mere 5 books would only be a weekend recreation for Peterson to get through, and a mere nuther week to refute em. I see that also in the win/win category.

_________________
"Being and nonbeing arise mutually. Thus not to see the unity of self and other is the fear of life, and not to see the unity of being and nonbeing is the fear of death." Alan Watts

"The problem is most religions proceed to try and explain the truth and then insist that you agree with their explanation." Brad Warner


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: I Think I figured out Why Dr. Peterson Uses the Scientis
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:00 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 7:58 pm
Posts: 2692
MrStakhanovite wrote:
Philo Sofee wrote:
He is baiting the internet. He needs ideas and criticism, but wants to publish, so he lobs these incredibly out of context bombs out on his website and then rushes over here to check out our reactions to his quotes and who he uses.

He is indirectly getting peer review, but doesn't want to personally face the music, and if he finds any weaknesses he can silently correct them without embarrassment. Otherwise, I have no idea why he keeps using the same kinds of tactics, authors, and assumptions, instead of actually doing what a good critical thinker would do and updating his own knowledge as to what science is actually doing, thinking, and accomplishing to better our world.

When it comes to Daniel C. Peterson the first thing one has to recognize is that you are not dealing with a scholar who is trying to live out an ideal life of the mind; rather he is a Mormon academic with pretensions of being some kind of public intellectual. He has no intention of ever advancing any sort of thesis that is original to him as Dan never really creates anything meaningful but only consumes the work of others so he can regurgitate it later.

Dan isn't looking for criticisms because he has no motivation to actually grow as a scholar or even as a person. There is only a few audiences that he caters to and everything outside that he happily ignores or dismisses with disdain. I don't think the man reads 95% of the books/articles he mentions, he is careless with everything because his own personal standards are almost non-existent.

I think that Dan’s main objective in these articles is providing apologetics rather than strict intellectual study. I could be wrong but that is how these articles come across to me personally.

_________________
So you're chasing around a fly and in your world, I'm the idiot?

"Friends don't let friends be Mormon." Sock Puppet, MormonDiscussions.com.

Music is my drug of choice.

"And that is precisely why none of us apologize for holding it to the celestial standard it pretends that it possesses." Kerry, MormonDiscussions.com
_________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: I Think I figured out Why Dr. Peterson Uses the Scientis
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:10 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:57 pm
Posts: 6879
Location: Palm Tree Paradise (minus a few palm trees)
Jesse Pinkman wrote:
I think that Dan’s main objective in these articles is providing apologetics rather than strict intellectual study. I could be wrong but that is how these articles come across to me personally.

If DCP's main objective is apologetics, his lackadaisical attitude towards his work isn't doing his audience any favors. Still find it hard to believe that he would recommend to his readers an article on Bayesian inference - probably the most effective destroyer of unfounded belief to be found anywhere.

_________________
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: I Think I figured out Why Dr. Peterson Uses the Scientis
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:30 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:49 am
Posts: 7856
Location: Somewhere between bemused and curious.
DrW wrote:
Still find it hard to believe that he would recommend to his readers an article on Bayesian inference - probably the most effective destroyer of unfounded belief to be found anywhere.


It does not surprise me at all. Given that his LDS readers have already shown they are open to accepting "evidence" from sources like the HG or Moroni's promise. Or that his audience reads the Deseret News and the Ensign, not the New York Times or Washington Post. Their home libraries primarily consists of books written by apostles and BYU professors and so on.

So the evidence they are feeding into any Bayesian analysis comes from those sources and supports conclusions already reached by a warm feeling in their chest. Very few of them would have a background like Kerry Shirts did that would enable them to see how harmful to LDS belief a well rounded application would be.

Most of his readers are going to think;
"Wow, "Bayesian" that sounds really scholarly, he must be right!"

It's the Hugh Nibley affect all over again.

_________________
"The lives we lead now are not dress rehearsals, they are the only performance we have. Therefore what matters is what we have here, the people we know and and love and the good we can do for the world"
Sean Carroll


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: I Think I figured out Why Dr. Peterson Uses the Scientis
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:58 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm
Posts: 18599
Location: Koloburbia
Dr. Peterson couldn't ask for more blunt proofreaders. You guys deserve a raise or at least a thank you.

Dr. Peterson writes for many different audiences. Some things are meant for fellow apologists, for the average BYU faculty, for critics, and for chapel Mormons. When critics read the apologist stuff they get angry. When chapel Mormons read the stuff intended for an audience of critics they probably wonder if he got up on the wrong side of the bed.

I'm not sure that language professors are expected to know science, just as science professors are not expected to know Arabic. Besides, no one at BYU would be subject to punishment if they deny science in favor of that old-time religion. It's conceivable that employees at the Church Office Building could even be dinged for discussing things like the theory of evolution or historical geology - especially if President Nelson caught you saying the word Australopithecus.

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 27 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group