09-10-2005, 11:04 PM | #11 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
that's not my definition
it's somebody who believes in a cause or principle and tries to reconcile all other facts around that principle.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
09-11-2005, 12:34 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Those two different definitions would chart the distinction I was trying to draw.
Btw, I re-read my last post and realized it was only marginally comprehensible. Sorry; very little sleep the last two nights. |
09-11-2005, 12:43 AM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,964
|
Re: that's not my definition
Quote:
|
|
09-11-2005, 05:45 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 3,059
|
If I'm interpreting what you guys are saying about apologists, it seems it's impossible for a believing Mormon to accurately study archaeological history related to the Book of Mormon.
In studying science, don't you first form a hypothesis and then test it until you either prove it or disprove it? Is there anything wrong with starting with the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is true? I do fully agree about massaging or forcing the facts around one's beliefs. Perhaps the danger is clinging too closely to a tenuous conclusion out of a hope it's true. Not only does it affect your credibility, but it may keep you from discovering other potential conclusions that you have not considered.
__________________
Get your stinking paws off me, you damned, dirty Yewt! "Now perhaps as I spanked myself screaming out "Kozlowski, say it like you mean it bitch!" might have been out of line, but such was the mood." - Goatnapper "If you want to fatten a pig up to make the pig MORE delicious, you can feed it almost anything. Seriously. The pig is like the car on Back to the Future. You put in garbage, and out comes something magical!" - Cali Coug |
09-11-2005, 12:22 PM | #15 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
that's good science, but a lot of scientists, not just
LDS apologists, hold on to tenuous hypotheses because they have some cherished biases.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
09-12-2005, 02:36 PM | #16 |
Charon
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo)
Posts: 9,564
|
An apology for the apologists:
I think we are being a little harsh on the apologists. Much of what I would throw into the apologist category (FARMS, FAIR, etc.) it written in response to specific issues raised in clearly anti-mormon literature and websites. When writing in response to material so clearly biased on the "anti-" side, it is not unreasonable to lean so heavily to the "pro-" side to address the issue at hand, i.e., to illustrate that other reasonable conclusions exist. Obviously, there is a big variety in the quality of apologist work. I recall as a child asking about how dinosaurs fit into the creation story. My grandmother told me that the earth was made out of the remains of other worlds and the dinosaurs and other ancient fossils actually came from those other worlds and they didn't actually live on this world. Even as a young child, my B.S. meter was ringing on that one. On the other hand, I have read some apologist articles that I felt were quite reasonable and well-written. As for LDS history in general, I tend to agree that there is a need for more open and honest writing. |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|