Top 100 Reasons why GBH is smiling...

[_Blixa]

Tal is a the guru of postmo life.

Oh brother. I doubt there are any "gurus" of "postmo life," at all, let alone one.

I have read many exer or postmo posts. I kinda of feel sorry for them. After all, most believed with a strong testimony one time. Most felt the holy ghost testify of the truth to them. And then, suddenly, they are outside looking in. It must be a shock for their senses.

You must not have read that many or you wouldn't have such a blanket generalization about the variety of experiences people post about...

[_evolving]

You know, Dan, I have read many exer or postmo posts. I kinda of feel sorry for them. After all, most believed with a strong testimony one time. Most felt the holy ghost testify of the truth to them. And then, suddenly, they are outside looking in. It must be a shock for their senses.

the arogance required to make this statment really amazes me. Save the sorrow for yourself. The shock of being on the outside looking in is truly based on your perception. that is YOUR reality.. I am shocked that a TBM can read the 100 list Tal has posted here and let it roll off his/her back. defend you faith man! take every deplorable thing said about your religion and faith and defend it, don't feel sorry for exer or postmo who laugh at you. the apologetic internet Mormons are the very reason I am seperated from mormonisim. the fact you know all of the blemishes,the lies, that you understand all of the nuanced humor required to laugh at the 100 list.. and you still believe the the warm fuzzy feeling telling you the the Book of Abraham was written by hand of Abraham on the papyrus. that is where your sorrow should be focused. internet Mormons are truly removed from the reality of mormonisim. you can read 100 insulting demeaning, downright offensive things about your church it's founder and leaders and then 45 seconds later feel sorry for those who are angry for realizing what the truth is.. being on the outside looking in -- exactly! I'm outside of the fishbowl of mormondom looking in. Angry I was a fish for so long, believing the water I was breathing was the only true water. well the air out here is great! shocked to be on the outside of the fishbowl, Yes at first. but now, I am shocked that a "defender of the faith" can be so passive when everything they believe in is used as humor. and then have the outright arogance to feel sorry for me.. truly amazing

[_silentkid]

It must be a shock for their senses.

My senses have been so completely shocked by my withdrawl from the blessed feelings of the Holy Ghost, that I tremble (every touch an insignificant act) as I type these words--my vision a blurred, pre-migraine mess; my hearing a dulled, post-muzzle blast blur; everything I eat an indistinguishable mish-mash of sweet, sour, salty, bitter; my nose struggling to grasp any aromatic scent dancing on the delicate breeze of postmormonism.

[_gramps]

Now you can no longer pretend to be unaware of my denial of your claim about me.

That's all I really wanted to achieve.

I expect that you'll continue to make your claim, of course. But arguing with you about what position I hold, as if my direct personal knowledge of what position I hold enjoyed no epistemic privilege or advantage over your inference regarding that question (which is, incidentally, quite fundamentally mistaken), holds precisely no interest for me. It would be rather like my saying that I don't like venison liver while you insist that, in fact, I do, and that you know better than I about such matters. In such a case, argument would be completely pointless.

Don't worry Dan. Tal is a the guru of postmo life. He has a following in postmo land and he needs to live up to that following. I kinda like Tal although I would not recommend him to people who need a quick read. Good to see you here. Stick around and enjoy the fun. The celestial forum will accomodate you very well.

You know, Dan, I have read many exer or postmo posts. I kinda of feel sorry for them. After all, most believed with a strong testimony one time. Most felt the holy ghost testify of the truth to them. And then, suddenly, they are outside looking in. It must be a shock for their senses.

I think that GBH is smiling because he knows what he has to look forward to....a life with his wife in the celestial kingdom. He is a good guy.

Hey, why me, welcome back. Long time.

I see you haven't lost any of that arrogance of yours.

Have you gone back to church yet, or are you still sitting on that fence, the "true believer" who can't get off that desk chair to make it to church?

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Nice try, loser:

"How do I know that the room in which I wrote this paper and the audience to whom I originally present it were not simply subjective experiences in my mind? I cannot prove otherwise."

This is taken out of context. DCP is not endorsing radical skepticism here. He's making a philosophical point using this as a rhetorical introduction.

"Already in the sixth century before Christ, the pre-Socratic thinker Xenophanes of Colophon recognized this aspect of the human condition: 'And as for certain truth, no man has seen it, nor will there ever be a man who knows about the gods and about all the things I mention. For if he succeeds to the full in saying what is completely true, he himself is nevertheless unaware of it; and Opinion (seeming) is fixed by fate up all things'. In other words, no mortal human being can know the truth absolutely, indubitably, precisely, or beyond any possibility of error or dispute.

Believing that no one is can obtain absolute certainty (a position called "fallibilism" that is accepted by pretty much everyone) does not mean that one believes one cannot know anything. There is a large gap between certainty and nothingness. If you disagree with what he is saying here, I'd love to hear your defense of it.

"I am inclined to agree, in at least one sense, with Karl Popper's contention that absolutely pure and untainted sources of knowledge do not, and cannot, exist. Not, at any rate, here in this fallen world".

See above. What? Do you think you can achieve certain knowledge untainted by your subjective frame of reference? By what magical trick did you manage that?

[_Tarski]

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Tal Bachman wrote:
Folks like Bitton, Peterson, McGuire, Juliann, sometimes base their church defenses on claims that it is not clear that we can actually "know" anything at all.

I'll let Ben and Juliann speak for themselves, but, in my case (and, I'm very nearly as confident, in the case of my late long-time friend Davis Bitton), this statement is flatly false.

I hold no such view, and never have.

Nice try, loser:

"How do I know that the room in which I wrote this paper and the audience to whom I originally present it were not simply subjective experiences in my mind? I cannot prove otherwise."

"Already in the sixth century before Christ, the pre-Socratic thinker Xenophanes of Colophon recognized this aspect of the human condition: 'And as for certain truth, no man has seen it, nor will there ever be a man who knows about the gods and about all the things I mention. For if he succeeds to the full in saying what is completely true, he himself is nevertheless unaware of it; and Opinion (seeming) is fixed by fate up all things'. In other words, no mortal human being can know the truth absolutely, indubitably, precisely, or beyond any possibility of error or dispute.

"I am inclined to agree, in at least one sense, with Karl Popper's contention that absolutely pure and untainted sources of knowledge do not, and cannot, exist. Not, at any rate, here in this fallen world".
.

OK, Tal. I usually like to agree with you (your a smart guy) but I have to admit that here I don't get it. I don't see how these statements by themselves demonstrate that D. Peterson defends the church on the basis that one can't know anything at all. Maybe I would need to see the context.
In fact, if interpreted properly, each of these statements are somewhat defendable. For example, I do think that absolute infallible knowledge is impossible. But, the follow up question is "so what?". We get along fine without such epistemological absolutes.

In anycase, these types of statements often pop up when discussions "devolve" to questions of absolute epistemological foundations.

I also don't get the level of distain. Seems too high. Did I miss some drama?
To me DCP is just an educated person that defends a religion that now seems to us to involve extremely implausible beliefs (like most religions). This is par for the course in this highly religious world. He is not a spectacle-- just some Mormon with an education (weren't we once like that?) and an "attitude". Ho hum!

If I were in your position, my response to DCP's assertion that he does not defend the Mormon church on the basis of epistemological relativism would simply be along the lines of "well it sure seemed that way to me--please clarify your position again in this regard".

[_why me]

Now you can no longer pretend to be unaware of my denial of your claim about me.

That's all I really wanted to achieve.

I expect that you'll continue to make your claim, of course. But arguing with you about what position I hold, as if my direct personal knowledge of what position I hold enjoyed no epistemic privilege or advantage over your inference regarding that question (which is, incidentally, quite fundamentally mistaken), holds precisely no interest for me. It would be rather like my saying that I don't like venison liver while you insist that, in fact, I do, and that you know better than I about such matters. In such a case, argument would be completely pointless.

Don't worry Dan. Tal is a the guru of postmo life. He has a following in postmo land and he needs to live up to that following. I kinda like Tal although I would not recommend him to people who need a quick read. Good to see you here. Stick around and enjoy the fun. The celestial forum will accomodate you very well.

You know, Dan, I have read many exer or postmo posts. I kinda of feel sorry for them. After all, most believed with a strong testimony one time. Most felt the holy ghost testify of the truth to them. And then, suddenly, they are outside looking in. It must be a shock for their senses.

I think that GBH is smiling because he knows what he has to l6/*ook forward to....a life with his wife in the celestial kingdom. He is a good guy.

Hey, why me, welcome back. Long time.

I see you haven't lost any of that arrogance of yours.

Have you gone back to church yet, or are you still sitting on that fence, the "true believer" who can't get off that desk chair to make it to church?

Thanks for the welcome back. I appreciate the warm welcome. I feel loved and cherished. Yes, gramps it has been a while. I have posted a couple times on mormondiscussions a couple of weeks ago. I sort of went into retirement from the boards. I haven't posted regularly on MAD for a while now. I am trying to regroup my thoughts.

The fence that I sit on is rather comfortable. You should try it sometimes. It is not so bad being a fence sitter. The view is great. I make it to church but attend a meeting or two before taking a walk. I hope that you are having a good summer gramps. :=)

[_Polygamy Porter]

101: Loves to be fawned over by the young hot sister missionaries every morning down at T-Square.

[_Polygamy Porter]

The fence that I sit on is rather comfortable. You should try it sometimes.

Fence sitting will do nothing but give you anus splinters.

[_why me]

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Tal Bachman wrote:
Folks like Bitton, Peterson, McGuire, Juliann, sometimes base their church defenses on claims that it is not clear that we can actually "know" anything at all.

I'll let Ben and Juliann speak for themselves, but, in my case (and, I'm very nearly as confident, in the case of my late long-time friend Davis Bitton), this statement is flatly false.

I hold no such view, and never have.

Nice try, loser:

"How do I know that the room in which I wrote this paper and the audience to whom I originally present it were not simply subjective experiences in my mind? I cannot prove otherwise."

"Already in the sixth century before Christ, the pre-Socratic thinker Xenophanes of Colophon recognized this aspect of the human condition: 'And as for certain truth, no man has seen it, nor will there ever be a man who knows about the gods and about all the things I mention. For if he succeeds to the full in saying what is completely true, he himself is nevertheless unaware of it; and Opinion (seeming) is fixed by fate up all things'. In other words, no mortal human being can know the truth absolutely, indubitably, precisely, or beyond any possibility of error or dispute.

"I am inclined to agree, in at least one sense, with Karl Popper's contention that absolutely pure and untainted sources of knowledge do not, and cannot, exist. Not, at any rate, here in this fallen world".
.

OK, Tal. I usually like to agree with you (your a smart guy) but I have to admit that here I don't get it. I don't see how these statements by themselves demonstrate that D. Peterson defends the church on the basis that one can't know anything at all. Maybe I would need to see the context.
In fact, if interpreted properly, each of these statements are somewhat defendable. For example, I do think that absolute infallible knowledge is impossible. But, the follow up question is "so what?". We get along fine without such epistemological absolutes.

In anycase, these types of statements often pop up when discussions "devolve" to questions of absolute epistemological foundations.

I also don't get the level of distain. Seems too high. Did I miss some drama?
To me DCP is just an educated person that defends a religion that now seems to us to involve extremely implausible beliefs (like most religions). This is par for the course in this highly religious world. He is not a spectacle-- just some Mormon with an education (weren't we once like that?) and an "attitude". Ho hum!

If I were in your position, my response to DCP's assertion that he does not defend the Mormon church on the basis of epistemological relativism would simply be along the lines of "well it sure seemed that way to me--please clarify your position again in this regard".

You see Tarski, you need to understand Tal. I have this simple thought that Tal is slightly jealous of Dan. First, Dan is a smart guy. Second, Dan believes in the LDS church. Third, Dan gives guys like Tal a run for their money. Of course, there is disdain from Tal. As a guru for postmoism, he needs to keep up his image as a defender of the postmo faithful. But I do believe that Tal is most likely a great guy, perhaps even a good neighbor for someone to live next to. It is just that he seems to enjoy his fame as a postmo philosopher and in disdaining apologists.