DiscussMormonism.com

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 27, 2020 3:57 am

Must be the sugar rush from all of those M&Ms.

Kiwi57 just made this predictable statement:

"It's appropriate to note here that, whatever Dr Ritner's qualifications for reading the extant papyri, he is in no wise an expert on the Book of Abraham."

And then, the junior apologist Jack says,

"Yeah--he's kind of in the same position that Michael Coe was vis-à-vis the Book of Mormon: An expert in his own field but not on the text in question."

Ehhhyea, not quite, Jacky, m'lad. Whatever Coe had on the Book of Mormon, Ritner is well beyond for the Book of Abraham because 1) there are source documents for Abraham and 2) The Book of Abraham is like 12 pages long, there's literally nothing to become an expert on.

This is the excuse the apologists always use. First, they say that apologetics is overlooked by experts, out of lack of interest. Then, if an expert happens to look, their opinion doesn't count because they haven't invested thousands of hours in reading everything every crack-blistered apologist has written on the subject first. Not that it would matter if they had, of course.

consiglieri wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:06 am

Good thing Louis Midgley has weighed in to help balance out the discussion.

consiglieri wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 27, 2020 3:34 am

The fact there is virtually none gives Wyatt not a moment's pause.

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:41 am

Tom wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 26, 2020 7:15 pm

In reading some exchanges elsewhere regarding Dr. Muhlestein’s essay, I’ve learned that a budding Mormon apologist is working on a Bayesian probability analysis of the Book of Abraham evidence. I assume that the Dales will serve as peer reviewers once the manuscript is submitted to Interpreter.

Oh I SO HOPE SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (wringing hands in gleeful anticipation!!!)

Kyler Ray Rasmussen jcwo • a day ago

.... "Why are apologetics always so concerned with the merely plausible no matter how far fetched while simultaneously ignoring the probable?"

It's funny you should ask. Give me a couple months and we can have this conversation again once I'm finished with my Bayesian probability analysis of the Book of Abraham evidence. It's important when you do that kind of thing that you take into account all of the evidence, and not just the stuff you agree with. I'll be taking a hard look at Ritner and Vogel and doing my best to compare that to what John and Kerry have to say, seeing how the probabilities shake out.

http://disq.us/p/2bgeimu

Billy Shears Kyler Ray Rasmussen • 5 hours ago

Is your Bayesian analysis for your own edification, or is it something that you plan on publishing? Personally, I'd love to see this make it into, say, Interpreter.


——
DanielPeterson Mod Billy Shears • 5 hours ago

In other words, I expect, BS is eagerly anticipating a season of attacking whatever you come up with, along with Interpreter for publishing it.


——
Billy Shears DanielPeterson • 4 hours ago

You expect falsely. I am a fan of Bayesian analysis because it helps clarify the arguments being made. I would hope that the article is well thought out and compelling and causes me to learn something new. I would endeavor to take its arguments seriously and give a fair analysis. If my current thinking on this is faulty, I'd love nothing more than to be disabused of my misconceptions.

Frankly, from my seat much of the apologetics surrounding the Book of Abraham seems self-contradictory and is designed to create perceived plausibility by obfuscating the issues. An explicit Bayesian analysis that endeavors to recognize all of the evidence would be refreshing.

In the recent podcast SERIES, John Dehlin interviews Ritner with the help of a podcaster by the name of "RFM," who appears to be intimately familiar with virtually all of the apologetic arguments relating to the Book of Abraham. This increased the value of the podcast tremendously, because RFM was able to continuously play devil's advocate (or if you prefer, "apologist's advocate"), thereby preventing Ritner and Dehlin from attacking straw men or ignoring the evidence in favor of the Abraham hypothesis, whatever it may be.

I raise this as a constructive resource to help Kyler Ray Rasmussen in his endeavor to fairly weigh all of the evidence.

consiglieri wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 27, 2020 9:55 pm

Hard to stop laughing after reading that salvo from the one and only Billy Shears!

....You expect falsely. I am a fan of Bayesian analysis....