Was Nibley a Genius, Scholar, or Crackpot?

[_Mercury]

I used to have statements by James Charlesworth, Cyrus Gordon, Jacob Milgrom, I believe the late Bruce Metzger, and some others, lauding Hugh Nibley's learning and scholarly abilities. He was well known and considered little less than brilliant by most of his peers in the relevant fields.

Then ante up and provide them. Also provide their information concerning their tenure, publishing history, etc.

The people here, most of whome do not even approximate Nibley's learning, intelligence, educational background, or experience, calling him a crackpot, for no other reason than that he is a Mormon (and this is the definition of bigotry) leaves one breathless.

Yahyahyah, I think hes a crackpot because hes a Mormon. Sure.

No, I think hes a crackpot because he took dissimilar ceremony and belief from any culture he could find in a vain attempt to satisfy his paymasters who tasked him with the impossible goal of legitemizing the kooky, unbelievable farce that is Mormonism.

[_Mercury]

I recommend a reading of "Zeal Without Knowledge". This is one of Nibley best articles:

http://www.thereasonableman.com/wp-cont ... wledge.pdf (PDF file!)

And I reccomend those who read nibley and have joygazms to read Carl Sagans "Demon haunted World".

[_Fortigurn]

And I reccomend those who read nibley and have joygazms to read Carl Sagans "Demon haunted World".

Sagan's book isn't bad, but it does suffer from outdated research and mild polemic. It's also a little simplistic. I could write you a better article for much the same purpose, if you wished.

Incidentally, he borrowed the phrase 'a candle in the dark' from the title of a book by a brilliant 16th century Christian (Thomas Ady), who wrote a masterpiece debunking numerous forms of superstition, especially witchcraft. I have a copy of Ady's work, if you want one.

[_Mercury]

And I reccomend those who read nibley and have joygazms to read Carl Sagans "Demon haunted World".

Sagan's book isn't bad, but it does suffer from outdated research and mild polemic. It's also a little simplistic. I could write you a better article for much the same purpose, if you wished.

Incidentally, he borrowed the phrase 'a candle in the dark' from the title of a book by a brilliant 16th century Christian (Thomas Ady), who wrote a masterpiece debunking numerous forms of superstition, especially witchcraft. I have a copy of Ady's work, if you want one.

DHW is aimed at a very general audience. It does a very good job at furthering the teapot/FSM/invisible-dragon thought experiment.

But if you think you can do better then lets see what you have.

[_Fortigurn]

DHW is aimed at a very general audience. It does a very good job at furthering the teapot/FSM/invisible-dragon thought experiment.

Yeah, it's a popularized version of what could have been expressed in a more sophisticated and therefore more convincing manner.

But if you think you can do better then lets see what you have.

I would start by suggesting you read Thomas Ady's work, to which I referred earlier. It anticipates just about every single argument Sagan raises, using them centuries before Sagan did. In fact it is so far ahead of its time that Ady's contemporaries accused him of being an atheist (which he wasn't, he was a devout Christian), and modern day atheists refer to Ady approvingly as one of the earliest rationalist skeptics. His arguments preceded the rationalist arguments of the Enlightenment by at least a century.

If you want a copy, I can send you one, no drama. You should also read Reginald Scot's work along the same lines (modern skeptics have as much praise for him as for Ady, and he was likewise condemned for atheism by his contemporaries), which was written even earlier than Ady's. I can send you a copy of this also.

[_Mercury]

DHW is aimed at a very general audience. It does a very good job at furthering the teapot/FSM/invisible-dragon thought experiment.

Yeah, it's a popularized version of what could have been expressed in a more sophisticated and therefore more convincing manner.

But if you think you can do better then lets see what you have.

I would start by suggesting you read Thomas Ady's work, to which I referred earlier. It anticipates just about every single argument Sagan raises, using them centuries before Sagan did. In fact it is so far ahead of its time that Ady's contemporaries accused him of being an atheist (which he wasn't, he was a devout Christian), and modern day atheists refer to Ady approvingly as one of the earliest rationalist skeptics. His arguments preceded the rationalist arguments of the Enlightenment by at least a century.

If you want a copy, I can send you one, no drama. You should also read Reginald Scot's work along the same lines (modern skeptics have as much praise for him as for Ady, and he was likewise condemned for atheism by his contemporaries), which was written even earlier than Ady's. I can send you a copy of this also.

Sounds interesting. I'd like a copy.

[_Coggins7]

Noah was born around 2944 B.C., putting the Flood at roughly 2344 B.C. This according to W. Cleon Skousen's fold out chart in the back of his book "The First 2,000 years". I'm not a big Skousen fan, but that was the first source I could think of to answer your question.

Psst. Gaz. I hate to break it to ya, but he's not going to accept Skousen as an expert either. He's not going to accept anyone except a verifiable source, like an ancient relic or papyrus with Noah's name and address on it, and the museum in which said relic is kept. Noah's kinda like Adam... there doesn't seem to be any non-religious mention of him. That's the trouble with ancient myths. They just don't stand up to the glaring light of substantive sources.

You'd better stop sleeping with Richard Dawkins Harmony, or you'll very likely loose your Temple recommend. Leaving aside the question begging nature of your claims here (that both Adam and Noah are nothing more than "ancient myths"), I thought you were a Mormon? A Temple recommend holding, active Mormon? And you don't believe in the historicity of Adam or Noah. And you think Joseph Smith was a fraud and lecher, and the Book of Mormon the creation of Joseph's fevered imaginatin? Still willing to continue the game?

[_Mercury]

Noah was born around 2944 B.C., putting the Flood at roughly 2344 B.C. This according to W. Cleon Skousen's fold out chart in the back of his book "The First 2,000 years". I'm not a big Skousen fan, but that was the first source I could think of to answer your question.

Psst. Gaz. I hate to break it to ya, but he's not going to accept Skousen as an expert either. He's not going to accept anyone except a verifiable source, like an ancient relic or papyrus with Noah's name and address on it, and the museum in which said relic is kept. Noah's kinda like Adam... there doesn't seem to be any non-religious mention of him. That's the trouble with ancient myths. They just don't stand up to the glaring light of substantive sources.

You'd better stop sleeping with Richard Dawkins Harmony, or you'll very likely loose your Temple recommend. Leaving aside the question begging nature of your claims here (that both Adam and Noah are nothing more than "ancient myths"), I thought you were a Mormon? A Temple recommend holding, active Mormon? And you don't believe in the historicity of Adam or Noah. And you think Joseph Smith was a fraud and lecher, and the Book of Mormon the creation of Joseph's fevered imaginatin? Still willing to continue the game?

Oh shut up coggy. Her TR should be outside the bounds of discussion. Your not her bishop so its none of your goddamned business.

[_grayskull]

Ray,

How many scholars contribute to the "real world"?

When I say "real world" I mean the real academic world however real that may or may not be.

Why should Nibley be expected to be involved in "revolutionary discoveries" when most of his academic peers have not?

Nibley has plenty of peers (?what's his field anyway?) whose work makes up the core literature on the topics he's writing. Notice his extensive footnotes, hundreds sometimes for a paper just a few pages long. Nibley cites Giorgio De Santillana, Edward Meyer, Karl Popper, and hundreds of others who have made important or at least notable contributions to their respective fields. What important contributions did Nibley make, and who is quoting him - outside of Mormon apologists?

I think the most unbiased person would say that his IQ was higher than most. What does that prove? Nothing. But why attack this ebullient mind merely because he was a believer?

Nibley was far higher than average. I'm not attacking his mind. I'm saying exactly what you are, that all those gifts in and of themselves prove nothing. I'm raising a question about his scholarship - something many Mormons think he's notable for. I'm suggesting that, unlike Giorgio De Santillana or Edward Meyer, despite how is IQ compares, Nibley didn't come up with anything significant in his entire career as a scholar who read 5 billion books that anyone outside Mormonism will ever cite.

I'm willing to be proven wrong. A lot of apologists on the web, someone must know what Nibely was known for outside of Mormonism.

[_grayskull]

lauding Hugh Nibley's learning and scholarly abilities. He was well known and considered little less than brilliant by most of his peers in the relevant fields.

Yawwn. Now, can you tell us what he contributed? Every year there's a child prodigy who breaks into the media because of some crazy mental feat. Often that's about the last anyone will ever hear of them inside or outside a university. Very few people would doubt that Nibley was brilliant. Now, what essay or book or thesis, produced by Nibley, do other researchers quote from?

The people here, most of whome do not even approximate Nibley's learning, intelligence, educational background, or experience, calling him a crackpot, for no other reason than that he is a Mormon (and this is the definition of bigotry) leaves one breathless.

He wasn't called a crackpot for merely being Mormon. The greater number of Mormon professors at BYU aren't crackpots. As a shout out to Gaz (I think it was), there are plenty of Mormon professors at BYU who are downright embarrassed by works of crackpottery such as Skousen's "First 2000 Years". I think Nibley was a crackpot based on his output as a researcher, and unfortunately I'm not getting the feeling he contributed much real scholarship to redeem himself from that.