Given the inordinate amount of citations of and lengthy quotations attributed to Kai Nielsen, I’d like to ask Mr. Riskas to list the top 5 most relevant and substantive critics of Kai Nielsen’s unique brand of philosophy, and offer a brief review of each critic’s contribution to the debate on those subjects.

For example, Kai Nielsen’s understanding of “God-talk” is controversial and not widely accepted in any major philosophical traditions. In Mr. Riskas opinion, who offered the best critiques of this, where, and how does Mr. Riskas respond to them?

Thanks!

My "inordinate" quoting and citing of Nielsen, as you interestingly, if not revealingly, put it, has happily and hopefully created some interest in his work, as well as his critics, although both sides are I think important. At least they were and are to me.

Perhaps the best sources that would give you what you need would be found in the References section of the book.

Specifically,see: Nielsen (1993): "Does God Exist: The Debate between Theists and Atheists." This work is somewhat dated, though still relevant, and Nielsen's evolution as a thinker on this matter can be determined by reading some of his later work.

Nielsen would no doubt resist the characterization of his thinking and work as a "unique brand" of philosophy.

He would perhaps not object to my characterization of his work in Atheism as merely intelligent, rational and informed analytical inquiry into theistic 'God-talk' (and formal docrine) that is not intended to falsify or disprove such talk and related truth-claims, but rather to determine if the various concepts of god, i.e. the ways 'God' is used in different theistic language-games, can reasonably be considered to be intellible and coherent, and factually intelligible (i.e. confirmable or disconfirmable in principle as stated, and therefore even probably true or false, or justifiable, as truth claims worthy of rationale belief).

This "a priori" approach just seems like good common-sense to me.

Nielsen's work, while initially rooted in analytical philosophy, pragmatism and critical theory, has evolved with advancements in philosophical thinking, particularly in the areas of analytical philosophy and neo-pragmatism. In those venues, he has primarily been challenged by those whom he characterizes as "Wittgensteinian Fideists," i.e. those who apply the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein to the question of "God-talk." See in this regard: Nielsen (1982, 2001, and 2006; "Wittgensteinian Fideism?").

As a philosopher (with a small "p") Nielsen's body of work, of which its application to the philosophy of religion is is but one (and not primary) application, tends to be influenced by the works of Dewey, Peirce, Rorty, Davidson, Quine, Putnam, Wittgenstein, Rawls, Daniels and others from the disciplines of analytical and pragmatic philosophy. As a philosopher, he might characterize himself as a pragmatic, analytical, commonsensical thinker committed to a contextualist, historicist, non-scientistic (not non-scientific), fallibilist naturalism without metaphysical foundations.

Perhaps it's fair and reasonable to say, without anticipated objection from Kai, that his critics, whoever they might be, would be those thinkers -- theists or not -- who remain firmly rooted in, and committed to, the pre-Enlightenment Tradition of Platonic, Cartesian and Kantian thinking, as well as post-modernism. This would include those who would consider themselves Metaphysical Realists, Relativists, and even those Scientific Realists in search of knowledge of the world as it "really is" on the basis of "word-world" correspondences or fittingness.

My post-deconversion study of Nielsen's work was very therapeutic for me, as was the writing of the book, which I disclose in the Introduction. My appropriation of Nielsen's approach to Mormonism comes with his late-in-life endorsement and generous collaboration. For me, his "a priori" Atheism is, among all forms of Atheism I have studied over the years, the only approach that can neutralize Mormon apologetics and promote the real doubt necessary to break the vicious "double-bind" of Mormonism.

As for my reply to Nielsen's critics, I would very briefly say here that such criticisms are falsely leveled against a "straw man" and wrongly based on the fallacious premise that the language-games of theism are incommensuable with non-theistic language games, and are therefore not analytically criticizable from anyone outside such a privileged language-game. This sort of relativistic, Wittgensteinian defense, together with the defense from parity and possibility are, to my mind, and as I write in my book, evasive and ineffectual, particularly given the certainty and univesality that theists profess and argue for.

More extensive replies to common criticisms of, and defenses against, the analytical deconstruction of "God-talk" performed by Nielsen are offered in the book, should you choose to carefully read it.

I realize that this is more than you asker for.

Hope it helps, regardless of your reasons for asking.

Tom



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/16/2013 05:51PM by tomriskas.

Hello Tom,

I’m glad you think both sides are important. The motivation behind this post had been building up for some time, your book has been causing a stir among ex-mormons and more than a few friends have told me about your book. So before going any further I do want to say that overall, it is almost always a good thing for people to get excited about a book that captures their attention and that you should be congratulated on achieving that on any scale.

I’m a never-Mormon, an atheist, and a student of philosophy, so my interest in your book only centers around the philosophy you marshal for your deconstruction of Mormonism. I was actually surprised by how much you seem to rely on Kai Nielson, you seem to import everything he says in toto and it gave me the impression that a better title would be “How Kai Nielson might deconstruct Mormonism”. Nothing inherently wrong with that I guess, but you seem to be out of touch with the philosophical issues that surround the controversial stances that Nielson takes. It is almost as if you’ve read Nielson very carefully, but never read much farther than that.

For a good example, take this comment:

“Perhaps it's fair and reasonable to say, without anticipated objection from Kai, that his critics, whoever they might be, would be those thinkers -- theists or not -- who remain firmly rooted in, and committed to, the pre-Enlightenment Tradition of Platonic, Cartesian and Kantian thinking, as well as post-modernism. This would include those who would consider themselves Metaphysical Realists, Relativists, and even those Scientific Realists in search of knowledge of the world as it "really is" on the basis of "word-world" correspondences or fittingness.”

You do realize that these unknown “critics” bear a description eerily similar to the majority of the academic philosophers in the English speaking world today? Just scanning the philpapers poll with some of the positions you mentioned…

http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

…we see that 75.1% believe in scientific realism, 81.6% adhere to a non-skeptical realism about the external world (mind independent reality we have access too), 50.8% to a correspondence theory of truth.

Your criticism of metaphysics (rather, a presentation of Kai’s criticism) presented in your book just seems out of touch with how analytical metaphysics is done today, if not all philosophy done in the 20th century it seems. Like on page 45 where you include yourself ( ! ) in a list of influential philosophers who take on a “deflationary concept of truth” to prevent being “clouded by metaphysics” sort of left me like a YouTube commenter saying “WTF?” Quine was a hard realist about mathematical objects so I guess he is a pre-enlightenment Platonist? Donald Davidson’s explicit externalism in his semantic theory of meaning is a pretty strong commitment to a mind independent external world.

I mean, who is your audience here? It can’t be people with a background in philosophy because you just assert stuff without much argument and name drop people without meaningfully incorporating or engaging the ideas associated with those names. It can’t be people who don’t know anything about philosophy, because all these names and three dollar words mean nothing to them.

I’ve engaged a few readers of your book (even Kerry Shirts on Facebook) and they really didn’t seem to grasp all the philosophical foundations of your deconstruction and to be honest, I don’t blame them a bit. The only reason I can make sense of it is because I’ve gone through the mechanical process of actually reading J.L. Austin, Wittgenstein, Quine, and Davidson in school, but all it did was make me wonder if you’ve bothered to do so.

So if I take your standard of what it is to be a “Free Thinker” and being “mature” ( page 125, citation #82), should I come to the conclusion that you’ve stepped away from Kai’s philosophy and objectively examined all these philosophical issues you’ve seemed to come to a steadfast position on?

Before I begin my reply, allow me to say that your aggressive and frankly offensive intrusion into this forum and thread, and toward me personally, is, from my perspective, as suspect as it is unprofessional. It seems my initial instincts regarding your initial inquiry have been confirmed.

That said, whatever your concerns are regarding my book or philosophical preferences are, to my mind, irrelevant to the work proposed and at hand in the book itself.

You no doubt would have written a very different book on the subject if you were a once an informed insider, or are now an informed outsider to the Mormon faith, but that as well is irrelevant to this forum, for you have not, and are not in either case.

That you do not hold Nielsen's work with esteem, or do hold it in derision for your own reasons, is also not relevant to this forum. Nor is the question of how Nielsen's work might be, or is, regarded by other philosophers, or the extent or degree to which I have studied every philosopher mentioned, or all that has been written about them. (When it comes to philosophy, we are all amateurs to some degree, whether we choose to admit or not.)

My considered agreement with Nielsen's philosophical leanings and approach in his particular Atheism, together with my considered judgement in favoring or rejecting certain aspects of those philosphers I have mentioned, cited and studied in the book (which is not to include myself as one among them in status, staure or reputation as you seem to have wrongly inferred from your reading of p.45) is also not relevant to either the work presented or performed in the book.

What is relevant to my purposes for writing the book, and primary to this work, is the analysis and assessment of the Mormon faith performed, the arguments and conclusions reached and the justification presented. Beyond that, you and I or others might disagree on the philosophical underpinnings of the work, or the pedigree of those sources I have chosen, or the style of the writing, or the underlying assumptions and fundamental premises of the work, but such disagreements are, I would argue, of secondary concern to the actual analysis and psycho-social assessment performed in Chapters 3-8 of the book. (Fallibilism, as I'm sure we would both agree, cuts both ways, and noone has access to "The Truth," or to a privileged point of view or linguistic representation of reality or right and wrong.)

This is not the appropriate forum to litigate our philosophical differences, engage in philosophical debate, or showcase our believed mastery of the current state of philosophy.

The focus of this forum, as I understand it, is to allow those who are interested in reading the book and understanding it to have access to its author; to ask questions to check or deepen understandings, and to exchange views regarding the analysis and assessment performed, the arguments made, and conclusions reached; to, in other words, capture, expand and apply what has been presented in the book for whatever personal reasons the readers might have in reading it. Beyond that, every reader, every member of this forum, will make their own assessments and appropriate and/or investigate their own areas of interest to satisfy their own appetities for learning.

This will be my only reply to you in this or any RfM forum.

Regards.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/16/2013 10:18PM by tomriskas.

Hey Tom,

Ya know, I owe you an apology. When I bellied up to this forum and wrongly assumed that because you repeatedly mentioned scholars by name for the purposes of highlighting your agreement with them, I should have understood intuitively that this doesn’t obligate you to really know anything about what those names actually thought and wrote. I should have checked myself right then and there. Why assume such an outrageous thing that Tom Riskas is familiar with all the names he drops? I ain’t got the right.

And to think, here I was laboring under the illusion that the controversial claims about there being no truth without language and the radically minority view Kai Nielson has about referents in language was somehow importantly connected to your chapters about Mormon concepts of God and the plan of salvation being incoherent. Thankfully, you’ve instructed me that isn’t the case at all. I must have dreamed up all those pedantic warnings to your undefined readers at the beginning of Chapter 1 about how important all this philosophy stuff was to the “conceptual analysis” of your book.

As you have correctly pointed out, a forum that is described by a mod as,“…discussion of Tom Riskas' book "Deconstructing Mormonism: An Analysis and Assessment of the Mormon Faith." is no place to talk about what you wrote in said book. I’m such a fool! The only appropriate course of action was to jump in line to give you a textual massage and praise you for the courage it took to equate Mormonism with a virus that infects the brain. Talk about an edgy and provocative psycho-social assessment that hasn’t been overdone or run into the ground before!

I’m having all my e-mail forwarded to the edge baby, because that’s where Tom Riskas’ eye opening commentary on ‘Basic Freud’ takes us!

Mr. or Ms. "mrstakhanovite"

The nature of your initial offensive and aggressive posting to me, followed by your faux, sarcastic apology to me above, your misrepresentations of what little you have read, and your uninformed reply to DF above points to the likelihood, if not the fact, that you are an imposter who has no genuine interest in carefully reading the book, and whose only interest is in disrupting this forum with irrelevant diversions and pretentions of knowledge regarding both the work and reputation of Kai Nielsen as a widely known and respected philosopher, and the conceptual foundations and methodology of the deconstructive analytical work being proposed, advocated and utilized in deconstructing what would seem to be your particular faith at birth or of choice.

Regardless, if you are interested in having a civil, informed and mature conversation with me on the philosophical basis of my work in another, appropriate forum, or by email, after I am satisfied that (1) you have carefully read the entire book, inclusive of footnotes; (2) you are willing and capable of seeking to understand and engage in mutually respectul dialogue and discussion (not debate); and (3) I have completed my involvement in this DM forum, I would be willing to do so to further your understanding of the basis of, and rationale for, my philosophical commitments, and my advocasy of the work of Kai Nielsen in relation to the works of his critics and other philosophers of like mind (in certain significant aspects) cited in the book, including the relevant works of Ayer, Frege and, more recently, Quine, Putnam, Davidson, Wittgenstein, Dewey, Peice, Sellars, Rorty, Rawls,and Daniels to name a critical few.

But again, your agenda, whatever it might be (and I for one do not think it is the authentic pursuit of understanding), is in conflict with the agenda of this dedicated forum as I understand it to be, which is the reading, understanding and exploration of the analysis and assessment of the Mormon faith as presented in my book.

Preferrably you will either withtdraw from this and other forums on this book in which I have been invited to participate as a guest, or agree to limit, with civility and in the spirit of curiosity and a desire to understand, your questions and expressed thoughts to the content of the particular sections or chapters being discussed with the sole intent of more fully understanding the content and its implications to the topic at hand, and after you have studied the section or chapter in question in its entirety.

This is not a forum for debate, philosophical polemics or "ad hominem" attacks or insinuations. It is, at least in this case, a forum for learning, understanding and reflective content-and- self evaluation. The dialogue, discussion and inquiry will hopefully deepen understanding, expand learning and enable critical evaluation of the content of the various sections and chapters of the books.

Since I do not have the right or authority to remove you from this dedicated forum (DM), my voluntary involvement in this forum as its guest will, sadly, hereby be suspended by choice until you either withdraw, are removed (which, again, is not my decision), or agree to comply fully and in good faith with the above terms and conditions in this case, which normally would be adhered to without explicit requirement or demand.

. . . they can possibly be weeded out.

Let's hope some kind of screening can be done, since this (as you accurately note) is not a forum for LDS apologists to swoop in like the Wicked Witch of the West's flying monkeys and contaminate the board. Mormon apologists have their own forums. This ain't one of 'em.

I am familiar with Mr Stak from other boards.

I can think of very few people who have been more critical of Mormon apologist and Mormon apologetics than he has. He is not a Mormon troll, quite the contrary. He also asks serious questions, though, at times he can be, shall we say, direct and blunt.

Perhaps he would consider limiting his questions to a single thread (this one maybe?) and Tom can choose to participate or not in this thread.

It would be a shame to loose Tom's participation.

He's too bright for that and I suspect would rather not waste his time or brain power indulging what he would regard, essentially, as jerks. He's got his boundaries and priorities and Stak didn't appear to fit well with either.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2013 12:54AM by steve benson.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2013 01:54AM by tomriskas.

Stak is the opposite of a Mormon troll.

Since links to other boards are forbidden here I can't link to where he usually posts to discuss Mormonism ;) ;)

You might not like his personal approach, but one does not get to pick one's critics. And I've been around both the law and the academy long enough to learn that every good argument can be improved by someone arguing against it.

Its not always pretty, its usually not painless, but people who point out the weak parts in my own work are doing me a favor however much I might hate it at the moment.

That's the way scholarly debate works.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2013 12:19AM by lulu.

mrstak: Tom Riskas is an author who was expressly invited to participate in this RfM sub-forum to discuss his book. He graciously accepted and is making himself available to answer questions and talk about his book's content in an orderly and specific way.

It is unlikely that any regular RfM posters interested in the book intended to jump down Tom's throat from the outset and thereby set an aggressive, discourteous tone to our interactions. I'd guess that not many people wishing to talk about the book would be interested in participating in the discussion as you have set it out.

Why the sarcasm? Why the rudeness? Could not the same points be made, if they must be, in at least a neutral way? What need is there to be so aggressive and rude to the author that he even considers withdrawing his participation?

I hope you will reconsider your approach or even withdraw your participation. Or else lay out your reasons for coming here and for your antagonistic posting.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2013 05:17AM by Nightingale.

Just to quickly add my perspective, as an academic schooled in these traditions you name but with a cultural studies perspective toward epistemology.

This is just my perspective, but I don't read Tom's book as a work of analytic philosophy. It's much more than that: I see it as a full-fledged deconstruction. It works to re-articulate of a range of theoretical perspectives to address a discrete problem, to pull apart an ideological formation and expose its contingencies. By "working" these theories, as Tom does with Nelson's analytic, for example, they become something else.

Therefore, I don't see the "philosophical foundation" of Tom's deconstruction impinging on the actual *use* of theory. Nor do I see it changing the outcome of his analysis.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/16/2013 08:36PM by Darkfem.

Darkfem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
>
> Therefore, I don't see the "philosophical
> foundation" of Tom's deconstruction impinging on
> the actual *use* of theory. Nor do I see it
> changing the outcome of his analysis.

And, if the intended audience is comprised of the typical
literate Mormons who have at least a year or two of
higher education, anything beyond a Phil. 101 class
will probably lie beyond their comprehension anyway.

In fact, all of the critical apparatus and seemingly
impressive citations may be intimidating to that audience
in the same way that an old Hugh Nibley treatise is
intimidating. The "outcome" will be a few Mormon
de-conversions, no matter the strength of the philosophical
underpinnings, possibly followed by many more, once
the CliffsNotes version is published for the less learned.

IMHO

UD

Hi UD. I should have stipulated that I meant "outcome" in terms of his analytic, not in a material sense of people leaving the church. I wouldn't presume to make a prediction about something like that :)

Darkfem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi UD. I should have stipulated that I meant
> "outcome" in terms of his analytic, not in a
> material sense of people leaving the church. I
> wouldn't presume to make a prediction about
> something like that :)

Thanks for the clarification, friend.

I'm absolutely positive that the initial "outcome" will
be noticeable de-conversions. There's been an LDS men's
group meeting in Ann Arbor for a few years, just waiting
for a confirmation of their skepticism, such as Tom is
providing. In the backs of their minds, such folks have
already made their decisions -- but the book will give
them cover. Once that supply of disenchanted academics
and bright students is exhausted, there may be a lapse,
before we read the breathless Peggy Fletcher columns,
alerting the Mormonverse to this startling new development.

UD

The practice of analytical inquiry advocated and practiced in the book is, as I see it, as a practical and therapeutic way to test one's faith, appropriating Loftus' OTF. It also serves as an "a priori" argument to argue for a return to our natural Atheism, and the abandonment of all theistic faith.

The hope and goal, for those struggling with real doubts -- who have been bitten by the "wolves of disbelief" -- is that the reader will test the approach as he or she is carefully reading and reflecting on what is written.

The intended and desired "outcome" of the writer and the book is, as you correctly wrote, "deconversion."

If someone is reading as merely an interested bystander, or out of intellectual curiosity, the outcome might not occur as quickly, if at all. Still, I would suggest that those who buy or read or struggle or even indignantly rant or inveigh against this book and its author are perhaps not merely curious, just as I wasn't merely curious when as a Stake Missionary with a solid testimony I attempted to read "Heaven and Hell" by Emanuel Swedenborg, only to throw it away and retrieve it several times, until I finally had to burn it (and nearly set my garage on fire) because what he allegedly experienced seemed too close for comfort to Jos. Smith's experience and revelation of the three kingdoms of glory. Real doubt is betrayed in many ways, and we perhaps usually realize it later rather than sooner.

Darkfem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just to quickly add my perspective, as an academic
> schooled in these traditions you name but with a
> cultural studies perspective toward epistemology.
>
>
> This is just my perspective, but I don't read
> Tom's book as a work of analytic philosophy. It's
> much more than that: I see it as a full-fledged
> deconstruction. It works to re-articulate of a
> range of theoretical perspectives to address a
> discrete problem, to pull apart an ideological
> formation and expose its contingencies. By
> "working" these theories, as Tom does with
> Nelson's analytic, for example, they become
> something else.
>
> Therefore, I don't see the "philosophical
> foundation" of Tom's deconstruction impinging on
> the actual *use* of theory. Nor do I see it
> changing the outcome of his analysis.

Darkfem, I just finished stating on another thread that I wouldn't continuing posting in this dedication. Your response is too tempting to pass on. How do you propose the reader use the theory when the readers who have responded on these threads are unable to articulate an answer to simple questions posed? Of what use is this book to the average reader, and if it is not of use to the average reader, what audience is it intended to influence and for what purpose?

Correction: I wouldn't *continue* posting

Yes, I see your other post to Satan Claus.

I'm not sure how to address your question.

All I know about an "average reader" is that they are persons who read.

This doesn't seem to be what you want to do. This is also probably why you don't seem to understand the responses you are getting to your questions, which by the way are not simple at all.

I apologize for being blunt, but it's hard for me to engage with you seriously if you don't want do the work of engaging the book. That's what we're all here for.

Hi Darkfem,

I'm fine if you don't want to file the book as a whole under "philosophy" of any tradition, but push comes to shove, anyone who defends the book is going to have to defend the idea that “God-talk” is incoherent and to do that is going to require the reader (and one would think the author too, but I digress) to do some kind of philosophy to do that.

When you mention “Deconstruction” what really do you have in mind? Because what I thought it was supposed to convey was the Derrida style literary criticism that goes under that name, but it obviously isn’t that.

If I had to explain what you wrote in my own words, my understanding is that the book has us look at what ontological commitments Mormon religious language makes. If so, that is exactly what Quine does in his famous little article ‘On What There Is’, but that isn’t mutually exclusive with anything Mormonism claims.

mrstakhanovite Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
>
> When you mention “Deconstruction” what really
> do you have in mind?
...

In a couple of years the inevitable LDS rebuttal will be
published. No mention will be made of RfM, or Darkfem, or
yourself. But something along the lines of your inquiry
will appear in "review" -- probably in the first paragraph,
and directed at Tom in a purely rhetorical manner.

I do not look forward to reading that paper. It will come
from a second tier apologist -- probably a grad student far
away from Provo -- but Givens and a couple of philosophy
"experts" will supply some ghost-writing, where needed.
Maybe we will finally see something like an articulation
of the LDS doctrine of knowledge there, but I don't expect
that much.

We'll look back upon your response postings as benign and
complimentary, compared to what is coming. Our little
teacup tempests are but a tiny cloud on the horizon, barely
the size of a Saint's hand.

UD

Well put, I think, UD.

Whatever philosophical sophistry might be employed in such apologetic attempts will, I think, if they are to have any credibility to those with real doubts and discerning minds who have read the book, have to come to terms with, or convincingly refute, the assumptions underlying the analytical deconstruction of their faith.

Specifically, and for those, if any, who might be interested, such assumptions might be summarized as follows:

1. While the external objects and natural phenomena that constitute the world we live in are certainly known and knowable directly by experience through direct sensory contact, there is no knowledge "about" such reality, or what we believe to exist or be real, without language. What we assert (or believe) to be "truth" or "Truth" regarding a particular subject or object of inquiry is ultimately language dependent.

2. "Truth" (or "Absolute Truth") is something we cannot have, given the fact of fallibilism and the language, context and historically dependent nature of human knowledge. There simply is no intelligible, ahistorical, non-contextual (or historically
and contextually transcendent) "Archimedean Point" from which we as fallible, language dependent, historical human beings can objectively perceive -- or assert to objectively or truthfully or "Truthfully" know -- the subject or object of inquiry as it "really is".

3. The most we can intelligibly strive or hope for, or expect, given 1 and 2 above, is the best knowledge, or justified beliefs, we can reasonably get, if any, about the subject or object of inquiry (in this case the Mormon 'God' and its referents, or attributes, as a referring expression).

4. For a stated truth claim, or belief, to be justified, or warrantedly assertable, it must, in principle, be justifiable.

5. For a stated truth claim or belief to be justifiable, the referents of the alleged existent (e.g. the primary, secondary and relational attributes of 'God') must be specified with specific truth conditions that can, at least in principle (or possibly), be confirmed or disconfirmed as being true (or probably true) or false (or probably false).

6. For the referents of the alleged existent (i.e. 'God') to be specified, they must be specifiable.

7. For such given or alleged referents of the referring expression (i.e. 'God') to be specifiable they must be at least intelligible sufficient to determine their truth conditions, or what would count for or against their existence.

8. If the alleged existent, as referring expression, has no intelligible reference range or specifiable referents with specific truth conditions, the assertion or claim of its existence is factually vacuous or unintelligible, and therefore unjustifiable, making it a factual non-reality as conceived or conceptualized, and believed.

9. If, conversely, it is determined that the asserted truth claim is justifiable, and the belief is subjected to the appropriate justificatory process(s) and methodolgies in an attempt to achieve wide intersubjective (i.e. objective) consensus (WRE), and is found to be false or incoherent in relation to our best justified beliefs, or knowledge, then such a claim is unjustified.

These assumptions and related practice as presented, alluded to and illustrated primarily in the FP and Ch.1 of the book, and applied in Chs. 3-6, do not, again, constitute any particular Philosophical, theoretical framework. Nor are they based on a particular Philosophical theory of truth.

They merely provide the working premises of a particular analytical practice-in-use; a therapeutic practice of critical conceptual analysis-through-inquiry that can profitably be applied to any metaphysical belief system that makes transcendental, "eternal" truth claims that are allegedly representative of Reality or Truth, i.e. "things as they really are;" a practice used in this book specifically to determine if Mormon truth claims inherent in Mormon 'God-talk' are indicative of factual reality as conceived and believed; a practice that I have concluded exposes Mormon and other theistic belief systems as the "houses of cards" they are.

T

tomriskas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ?..
>
> Whatever philosophical sophistry might be employed
> in such apologetic attempts will, I think, if they
> are to have any credibility to those with real
> doubts and discerning minds who have read the
> book, have to come to terms with, or convincingly
> refute, the assumptions underlying the analytical
> deconstruction of their faith.
...
>
> T

Of course I am not a predictive prophet and my attempt to
discern the future my not pan out.

More likely there will be two LDS responses to your book.
I doubt that the on-line "Interpreter" apologists can long
resist the temptation to supply something for their readers.
That will be easily dealt with, I suppose.

The more serious response will not have so many saintly
hallmarks attached -- nor will it be so obviously a knee
jerking reaction to what you have written and are doing.

It would not surprise me to see an atheist Gentile called
upon, to return some long overdue professional favor. Some
person with suitable credentials whose contribution is
not automatically seen as a direct attack upon you -- whose
monograph does not even appear to elevate your contribution
to the level of any serious threat.

A collection of papers, edited by such an atheist LDS-friend,
who has a reputation in contemporary philosophy and whose
selection of compiled papers just happens to contain one
particular treatise that serves to undercut what you've done.
A paper on Continental Philosophy's idea of deconstruction
that just happens to match your philosophical underpinnings
against something else, and then neatly side-steps the
evident/apparent conflict by disposing of the conflict itself.

I'm just a rank amateur at imagining such things. But if I
had to guess, I'd say that Steve Benson had some wisdom up
his sleeve in speaking of the problem that came out of the
blue to confront you here very recently -- not an LDS
attack, but, as Steve saw it, a troublesome development
nevertheless.

But, you don't need me to speak of such things. I'm more
interested in observing at this point than I am in trying
to add anything truly new and useful.

Thanks again for taking the time to respond.

UD

You are spot on DF. Please see my other posts in this thread to UD.

Tom

May I ask you a question mrsstakhanovite? I am under the impression based on your exchange here with Tom (Tom, don't leave, I think everyone has a right and ought to try and come to understand your book as best as possible for them), that you think "God-talk" as deconstructed by Tom is actually a valid way to discuss God in religion? What impressed me the most (in my ignorance of the various philosophical strands of thought hovering out there, I haven't read them because my head has been up my butt for decades in apologetics, so my ignorance is vast, DANG IT....) was Tom's insistence that the description of what is actually MEANT when talking about Intelligences, spirits, what eternal means, etc. How can we actually justifiably even come close to demonstrate there is any reality to any of this kind of talk? And if there isn't of what meaning is it?

Anyway, I'm just curious about your view on that. Thanks. I have been reading Shades board for a while, and I think you guys n gals always have good discussions. I am seriously hoping we can here too.

Kerry,

Tom has stated that he will not continue to engage on this dedicated forum unless Mr. Stakhanovite withdraws. On that account, Mr. Stakhanovite might choose not to respond to you.

Oh. Well I think it is quite seriously important to have Tom here. I value his input about his own book. I have MANY things I wanna talk out with everyone here. Coe on back Tom, please.

Let patience have her perfect work. :-)

backyardprofessor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh. Well I think it is quite seriously important
> to have Tom here. I value his input about his own
> book. I have MANY things I wanna talk out with
> everyone here. Coe on back Tom, please.

After thinking things over, I'm convinced that the
best option would be to scrub the board totally and
re-set it as a fully moderated, invitation only forum,
where each submitted posting was held for review for
24 hours. That would slow the cross-communication down
to a crawl. Probably only one or two approved threads
could be held open at a time.

Anything short of that kind of close moderation is simply
going to result in a repeat of the current situation.
This new board probably will not survive any repeat.

Asking Tom to experiment here again, under the current
system is asking an awful of him (and of admin.)

UD

Perhaps the best way we could contribute would be to start a new thread (or a few) discussing some aspect of the book. For me, there are some unanswered questions and comments re the book in the main forum which I plan on bringing over here (i.e., from UD to me a week or so back).

Perhaps having a couple of threads that focus on discussing the book, even though preliminary forays into some of the topics, will get things going in a more positive direction and we can see how things fall out from there.

I have to do it tomorrow as it's late and I'm too tired tonight. One thing I know already is that it takes an alert and informed brain to get into the meat of Tom's book.

Later...

Hello All.

I assume our unwelcomed intruder will not return either by choice in not wanting to comply in good faith with the conditions proposed for continuance, or by action taken by the Admin. Board of RfM.

I want to continue our deliberations and explorations if you do. I am, of course, concerned about further intrusions by those who have bad intentions, or who desire only to be rudely disruptive.

Again, I will participate if and as you desire. My hope is that you and the Admin. Board of this Forum will consider some additional guidelines and, if needed, enforcement mechanisms to vet new participants and protect against intrusive and unwelcomed interference.

As a start in this regard, I do not think that those who do not have the book or have not done the requisite reading should actively participate in any of the DM Forums, or if they do, I suggest they perhaps submit their questions or comments to a board for determination on the basis of certain basic criteria, such as, for example: Is the question relevant to the content being discussed?; Has the question already been addressed?; Does the question deal with a personal concern or problem in a way that solicits advice or counsel? Is the question or comment constructive to the dialogue?, etc.

Also, may I suggest that, again, we all try to stay focused on the topic being discussed and avoid digressions, speculations, or forays into the mystical, esoteric or realm of metaphysical speculation? I'd like to suggest a little more discipline in sticking to the knitting, so to speak, and avoiding getting into the thick of thin (or irrelevant) things (irrelevant only to this forum). (Note: This might be easier asked than done since relevance can be so individualistic and, well, relative. So perhaps, as a common habit, we could all start by asking ourselves if what we're about to ask or contribute is relevant or a diversion or distraction. If we don't think it is then try it out. If another member questions its relevance, a simple, courteous inquiry would do. We could ask, for example, if it's relevant and if the person can explain the relevance or the question or comment so we can understand. Just a thought.)

I also like the suggested idea of starting separate threads to deal with other interests not strictly relevant to the main thread of the chapter in the book.

Thanks for your continued interest and support.

Let me know when you're interested in starting up again, if you haven't already done so. :)

T



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2013 11:18PM by tomriskas.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2013 11:12PM by tomriskas.

I actually thought MrStakhanovite was trying to discuss some of the background to the philosophy you were using in your book Tom. Perhaps you might have over-reacted?

I have had a difficult time and have invested quite a bit of time in your book reading, and re-reading it. Because my head has been so buried in apologetic issues, I am vastly ignorant of actual philosophers and counter-philosophers, and actually think it's a great idea to discuss those who disagree with Nielsen, not in a manner of being disagreeable, but surely philosophers don't all agree with each other right?

Anyway.... what I am hoping for is good solid information and sharing of views, even if we don't all agree with each other. Surely we all have different views, thinking, and understandings. It should not be seen as threatening though.

Anyway, I look forward to your participation again.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2013 12:50AM by backyardprofessor.

Respectfully, Kerry, I don't think so.

But that notwithstanding, and as I mentioned in replies this evening to UD and DF (see above), the focus is not, I would submit, on Philosophy (with a capital P). Nor is it on Kai Nielsen, whose open and repeated acknowledgement of his own fallibilism and tendency to modify and evolve his own thinking in responses to his critics and alternative philosophical points of view, I think speaks for itself.

While I offerred to discuss "Philosophy" in another forum after this one, this forum is not about doing so, nor do I think it is necessary to do so.

My practice of deconstructing Mormonism and theism, as well as its underlying premises and application, while influenced by the analytical work of Nielsen as it has evolved over the years, is nonetheless my own, and is not Nielsen's. As such, it can be explored and critically examined and questioned without the need for Philosophical foundations, and without the need to focus on Nielsen's vast contributions. In fact, my practice, like the naturalism I embrace, is, though based on certain assumptions as justificatory premises for its use, utterly without theoretical or metaphysical foundations. And its conceptual basis is i think adequately presented and defended in the book.

If you or others have questions regarding the methodology I use and why or how I use it, please ask. That's what this forum is for. And if, after you and others have obtained an adequate understanding of the practice I use and its assumptions and conclusions through a careful and thoughtful reading of the book, as you have, there are concerns or disagreements, please express them. That's also what this forum is for.

I am not interested in debate because I consider debate argumentative and not productive or conducive in fostering mutual understanding, and/or in self-reflectively creating new perspectives and insights. With debate we tend to compete to win and not lose an argument. With dialogue (and, to a lesser degree, discussion) we seek for shared meaning, and to enlarge the circle of understanding though the creation of greater insight and knowledge through vertical inquiry into underlying assumptions, the use of language, and our own reactions.

I surmise (and hope) you're primarily interested in the latter.

If so, I look forward to continuing the conversation.

Best,

Tom