If you have to ban somebody over religious differences, it is probably a good idea to wait until the debate about what constitutes a bad religion is over.
When you argue that religion provides a special path to the truth, you are not helping yourself by prohibiting your rhetorical opponent’s speech. You see, people who have a measure of truth can defend their position on the merit of the argument.
So when you shut them up with prohibitions, you demonstrate your ignorance more conclusively than any advocate ever could.
I appreciate your frustration. When Ronan dangled the carrot of “reasonable” religious “truth” in front of you, you got all excited at the prospect of an intellectual justification of religious truth claims. It is unfortunate this expectation had to be disappointed because Ronan misinterpreted the work of Peter Vardy, which rests on Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. I was the proverbial bearer of bad news who assumed that his Christian friends were tougher.
I regret that you banned me because I like those of you that I know and it pains me that you would embarrass yourselves and our community in that way.
It is doubly unfortunate since I found out about your ban when I posted the following comment that now languishes in your moderation cue:
The Book of Mormon is actually a lot stronger than the Vardy of this post.
One can reasonably argue that something like the light of Christ empowers our imagination to capture the noumenon but that is something quite different from experience.
The light of Christ would be a rational asset that makes properly sense of our observations.
Mormonism has considerable resources to be a force for good. We don’t need to misread Peter Vardis to find them.
For my part, I will continue to consider you friends, although I must admit that that would be easier if your actions would not contradict your words quite so obviously.
Comment #52 was below the belt. It also represents a classic diversion fallacy. Owning up to not fully understanding Kant would have been the more mature stance.
Thanks, Dave. Ronan thought he had something special. His audience was celebrating him and then it turned out that it was a profound misreading of Kant and, probably, Peter Vardis as well.
That hurts. So you have to make it personal because there is nothing that you can say on the merits.
It’s somewhat disappointing because I expected Ronan to be capable of a rational exchange. But his desire to dominate got the better of him in this case.
Wow.
I’m gobsmacked.
Based on Ronan’s discussion of Vardy I have no desire to read V, but I”m shocked that he’d feel so threatened and intimidated by your comments. OK, you showed that he didn’t grasp certain elements of his argument. But you weren’t uncivil or belligerent. And yeah, David J is right: comment 52 is really below the belt.
More importantly, Hellmut, you are right about this: “So when you shut them up with prohibitions, you demonstrate your ignorance more conclusively than any advocate ever could.”
It’s especially nasty that they’d do that right now, when MSP as a collective has been bending over backwards to be nice to the faithful Mormon community.
I guess the question now is:
Which MSP regulars remain not banned at BCC?
I’m out, you’re out, Hellmut has just joined the club. Is there anyone left who could pop over and leave a comment on that thread?
I can haz comments? No u Kant!
Good question, Andrew. Back in the day, my motivation for MSP was to provide a DAMU venue that was at least as open as BCC so that we could return their hospitality. LOL
Of course, they weren’t really interested in our hospitality but over the years, no thanks to me, MSP has attracted its own audience, which now exceeds BCC’s readership substantially.
Hellmut,
wait, did BCC used to be open? I find that possible history QUITE humorous.
I’ve been reading a few things about bloggernacle history (esp. with the history of the Mormon Archipelago) and it seems like they’ve been playing the same game for a while…
Far as I know, I’m not banned yet. But do I really want to get myself mired in that? Man, I hate it when they decide to discuss amongst themselves about atheists while refusing to let live atheists have a say.
No. Or if you do, it’s better just to write a blog post elsewhere than to try to comment there.
BCC used to be open? As long as I’ve known it, it hasn’t been an open discussion forum. It’s been a semi-private club where insiders discuss how clever they are and dismiss anyone who challenges them.
You are right, Andrew. BCC has always been playing Boyd Packer but compared to the DAMU message boards, which were reserved exclusively for disaffected Mormons, BCC is pretty open.
Since the purpose of the DAMU was providing a refuge for people who had to recover from Mormonism, discussions with testifying believers would have been counterproductive. While that was necessary, it also created a contradiction with our values about openness and free speech.
From my perspective, the purpose of Main Street Plaza to have a DAMU space that would be able to welcome Mormons who disagreed with us about religion.
At the beginning, we bent over backwards to be non-threatening and welcoming. We could not sustain that but I am proud that Main Street Plaza is a free speech. As long as people are civil, they can say here what they want even if it were to embarrass us.
Thanks, Chanson. I agree with you and Andrew that it is not worth it. We can say what needs to be said here and elsewhere.
I haven’t bothered discussing much there so haven’t had the opportunity to be banned. Aside from one comment actually attempting to contribute to the discussion, I also added a note about banning Hellmut because I don’t particularly care if have commenting privileges. The result…
I don’t completely agree with this. It was just RfM that actively censored TBM opinions, citing “refuge” and “recovery” as the reasoning for it. For a few years RfM seemed like the only exmo presence on the Internet — hence they set the tone in a lot of ways. As for other DAMU forums, I don’t know that they actively censored civil TBM points-of-view. But it’s the nature of a forum to be more of a private social club for members, so even if they didn’t actively exclude TBM posters, they couldn’t really integrate them into the discussion, either. Like you, Hellmut, I switched my focus to blogging for that very reason, as I explained in My friend, the Internet.
The thing is this: There are people who feel threatened my the mere existence of people who disagree with them. There is nothing we can do to make those people feel welcome (short of moaning that our lives are miserable wrecks and killing ourselves…). However, I’m committed to keeping this place welcoming to those who want to have a reasonable discussion despite disagreeing on various issues.
I wonder if they haven’t just sent everything into moderation? Or just all of us?
Here’s what I tried posting over there:
I wonder if the comment will show up at some point?
The bloggernacle is a mini-Church on a smaller time scale: it goes through periods of assimilation and retrenchment, in which opposing views are quashed but then are allowed to reemerge when people start to feel like they’re in an echo chamber or out of touch with reality.
To BCC’s credit, they’ve now provided a link out of the echo chamber.
Sounds like the inauguration of a new 100% DAMU-free policy over at BCC.
Reason #769 why Mormons are often not entirely forthcoming about what they believe.
Hellmut, Ronan responded to you at BCC and noted that he wasn’t interpreting Kant or making any truth claims but rather was summarizing Vardy. Is it possible that you’ve misunderstood Ronan’s post? If so, oops, right?
OK, but if you want to make that statement a little more credible, you might consider giving the [alleged] real reason why he was banned. And why was my comment sent to the garbage heap? It had nothing to do with, Hellmut, banning, Kant, or any of that — it was relevant to a completely different part of the discussion.
Lovely. I would like to be friendly and civil with them with them and see them do the right thing. I don’t like to be in a position of whining about shitty treatment, I’d rather be saying positive things about positive things.
The funny thing is that just the other day, somebody on FaceBook suggested to me that I “Like” BCC. And I did it, because I figured, “sure, I like them.” Now I feel like a complete patsy.
Hellmut said right from the beginning that he hadn’t read Vardy. Someone in this debate is clearly wrong about Kant’s definition of noumenon. Maybe it’s Vardy, maybe it’s Hellmut, and maybe it’s just that Ronan misread Vardy. If Ronan wants to have a reasonable discussion about noumenon, then it might help if he’d post some clarifying passages on the subject from Vardy’s book. Then we can look up the corresponding passages from Kant. At that point, we’ll be in a position to decide which person should be saying “oops.”
Thanks for coming by, John. I am afraid that Ronan completely misread Vardy. Ronan’s summary makes no sense. That might be Professor Vardy’s fault but it is unlikely that a philosopher and theologian would mischaracterize basic concepts such as Experience, Empirical, and Noumenon so bizarrely.
Vardy certainly knows Kant and the reading that Ronan reports is so far out of field, it is on another planet.
Be that as it may, Ronan and some of his readers were pretty excited to discover an alternative mode of experience that would give them access to the truth and validate their religious views and commitments. I am afraid that people’s enthusiasm got away with them. Instead of consulting a basic encyclopedia, they got all frustrated and took it out on the messenger when the prospect vanished under the weight of superficial inquiry.
Ronan’s remarks in #52 reflect poorly on him. A gentleman would not ridicule an opponent, much less a friend, and an intellectual would not resort to personal attacks during an academic dispute.
As you know, I am confronting my peers when they assault the dignity of other human beings. In light of Ronan’s petty behavior, you may want to determine the proper course of action for yourself.
Hellmut, Ronan’s never done anything but defend you. This reaction seems out of proportion.
If Ronan was sarcastic in his comment to you, it might have been because he did not view himself as offering an interpretation of Kant that could be corrected by you but rather saw himself as summarizing Vardy.
Now you are pointing out here in extremely strong wording that Ronan has completely misread Vardy. I’m not sure what makes you so confident about that but I see you have strongly felt beliefs on the point that what was written about Kant inaccurately reflected his philosophy on the matter. I think it’s unfortunate that this is so important that it’s caused you to come out with fists bared throwing punches at Ronan.
As for censoring you, if your comment has been held in a mod queue or deleted then I can only imagine it was because Ronan considered further discussion of the threadjack to be irrelevant to that portion of his review of Vardy. Ronan’s not in the business of censoring people’s substantive religious differences in any context. I would have thought you know that. As a result, it is curious to see this post (given my impression that you are aware of who Ronan is and that he is not someone who censors people for religious disagreement).
It is true that on that thread he asked commenters not to bash the Mormon Church and then in his snarky comment to you allowed that you might be among those who consider the Mormon Church in Vardy’s category of bad religion. Still, I think it’s a stretch to use that as evidence that Ronan is trying to censor anyone based on substantive disagreement on religious views.
chanson, the “oops” relates to this post by Hellmut dumping on his buddy Ronan, not to anyone’s misreading of Kant. Hellmut’s comments to which Ronan had responded in #52 seemed to be premised on a belief that Ronan was interpreting Kant and doing so wrongly.
If Ronan is not interpreting Kant but only summarizing Vardy (even if Ronan is somehow misreading Vardy’s use of Kant), then this post is an “oops” from the very beginning, isn’t it?
John f. — Sure, I agree we should cool it down and take it out of the realm of strong emotional reactions on all sides. We can look carefully at how Vardy defined “Experience, Empirical, and Noumenon” and see if Ronan’s definitions match Vardy’s and if Vardy’s match Kant’s.
If there’s a big discrepancy somewhere in there, it is absolutely central to Ronan’s discussion — not some sort of tangential “threadjack”.
No, frankly, it isn’t. If Vardy was summarizing Kant, and Vardy, in fact, misunderstood Kant, then it’s a relevant point to the discussion — not a threadjack. If Ronan banned Hellmut for bringing up a relevant point that he didn’t want to discuss, then it is in no way an “oops” to move the discussion somewhere else.
If Ronan is misreading Vardy then that becomes more central to the discussion. Who’s going to do the work to determine whether that’s the case? Certainly not me. I could care less about whether Ronan understands Vardy. I just like the excuse to try to work my old Bad Religion songs into blog comments, even if no Bad Religion song can make your life complete.
The “oops” does not refer to moving discussion about that point elsewhere but rather it refers to what this post is — it is not a moving of discussion of that point elsewhere but rather a “J’accuse!” piece aimed first at Ronan but more fundamentally at BCC itself, seeking to expose that blog for the reactionary, sheltered, ultra-orthodox sycophants that they are.
Please see my comments 52 and 59 on the BCC thread.
Ronan’s the one who read Vardy and wanted to discuss his ideas. I would hope he’d care whether he was paraphrasing Vardy correctly or not.
Yes, I find that incredibly regrettable as well. As I said above, I would rather not be having this discussion. I would rather see you prove us wrong by doing the right thing.
Seriously, though, you’re right that all of this meta-discussion isn’t helping — it’s just obscuring the original discussion. Let’s all take it down a notch, and let Ronan present some citations from the book so that we can analyze the matter calmly.
Why? Are they citations from Vardy’s book, backing up your reading of it?
Ronan has replaced his comment #52 with an apology to Hellmut for being snarky and has rephrased his paraphrase of Varny in #59. Not sure if that matters or clarifies how Kant is being used by Varny or not.
John F. — Of course it matters. That’s great that he was big enough to apologize!
But, now you guys have got me curious! See, I haven’t read Vardy or Kant — neither one! Can’t we perhaps see how Vardy defined those terms?
A portion of Ronan’s #59:
I never viewed anything Ronan did as retaliation against anyone for anything religious. The bad religion snark in the erstwhile comment #52 was just snark and Ronan is one snarky dude.
Thanks, that’s a big improvement on the discussion. The only part I disagree about is it’s being a thread-jack. BTW, I hope this means we’ve all been un-banned at BCC as well! 😉
I would like to thank Ronan for his apology regarding comment #52.
Whoever wrote that gay Mormon book needs poo on their head.
Hellmut,
Cool, man. So, what do you now think of my summary of Vardy?
screamingnephite — Please read our commenting policy.
I find it certainly reasonable to say that aesthetics adds value to the human experience and to the acquisition of knowledge. It is not reasonable, however,
a) to conceive of an aesthetic experience as an extra-empirical experience,
b) that an aesthetic experience somehow transcends human limitations. Aesthestics are an aspect of the human experience and are therefore subject to human limitations that apply elsewhere,
c) Aesthetics can contribute to knowledge acquisition is a number of ways but they do not justify knowledge claims in the sense of legitimizing power claims.
But initially, you said this:
My responses to Ronan focused on this narrow passage, which is, unfortunately, nonsense.
There can be no phenomenon if there is not a noumenon any more than there cannot be an image in the mirror without an object that gets reflected. The noumenon is the thing in itself, for example, the rabbit. The phenomenon is the human perception of the rabbit.
That misunderstanding has consequences for the remainder of Ronan’s summary or argument such as the peculiar juxtaposition of empirical and aesthetic experience when in reality aesthetics is inherently empirical.
It is important to get that straight because all other arguments flow from the distinction between noumenon and phenomenon. Whatever it is you want to do with Vardy, whatever benefit Vardy might provide to religious people, cannot work until we get the relationship between the thing itself and our perception of the thing, the noumenon and the phenomenon straight.
My corrections in that regard are actually an asset to you. Only fools would banish me for that. But the world is full of fools and Cassandra has never been popular.
Your new summary of Vardy makes a lot more sense, Ronan. I have not been able to obtain the book yet but your argument appears to be coherent now.
Beyond Vardy, I consider it almost self-evident that science and logic are inadequate for a human being or group to conduct their lives. Science is too expensive and too slow. Science cannot generate a world view that connects all the dots.
Others, such as Toulmin in Cosmopolis, have argued that rhetoric can extend the reach of reason when logic turns out to be indeterminate.
In that vein, I agree that imagination is essential for us to generate a map, our symbolic representation of the world in which we operate. Obviously, many religions have provided us with such maps and religions can continue to formulate world views that meet or fail to meet the practical needs of human beings who have to operate in complex environments.
Religion, however, has no monopoly on myth making, I mean that in the positive sense, and formulation of world views. Carl Sagan’s work comes to mind. He connected many dots in useful and powerful ways.
Hellmut — I think that’s quite a reasonable response, and I agree that your criticism was ultimately helpful to him.
I just have to take a little issue with your last paragraph. I was really hoping we we’d finished the meta-discussion, and it kind of looks like you’ve obliquely called Ronan a “fool.” Sorry, I just have to say that because we were hard on BCC, hence it would be good to hold ourselves up to a very high standard….
I can’t even say they need poo on their head?
Under the circumstances, I believe “poo on their head” is about as civil and constructive as one can get.
screamingnephite — this is not a place for trolling. This is your last warning.
I would not use those adjectives to describe BCC, John.
The word that best describes BCC’s behavior, whoever that may be, is self-destructive. Although it is kind of funny at some level, it pains me to see people do that to themselves. That’s why I confront them.
I think anybody who is associated with that organization ought to take responsibility and put an end to the self-destructive foolishness.
Let’s be honest here, saying someone “needs poo on their head” still falls within the bounds of civil discussion and is not violating any guidelines.
Sorry for making you feel like a patsy, chanson. FWIW, I like you and think your contributions are generally constructive. I think Hellmut’s contributions are usually polite and often constructive. I like Andrew, too.
Hi, Chino 😉
#47: lol
All right, glad we’re all friends again. I’m just going to interpret that last bit as gentle ribbing among friends. 🙂
Hi John C.,
That’s nice to hear, because I like those folks, too. I also like Alan, ProfXM, Aerin64, Daymon Smith, Chris H., Chandelle, Leah, Jonathan, UrbanKoda, Zoe, Jessica, Saganist, Cr@ig, Madame Curie, and pretty much everyone else who’s contributed to the discussion here at MSP during the past year.
In terms of the current thread, I like how David J kicked things off and Holly’s nod to MSP’s ongoing efforts to welcome (or at least accommodate) all comers and their various opinions. And as usual, I like what Kuri, Andrew S. and Jonathan Blake have brought to this conversation.
I especially like seeing john f. here, as it reminds me of how much I appreciated his commentary over at M* regarding Harry Reid’s canceled firesides.
And since Ronan’s here, I’d like to take this opportunity to apologize for the mess I made with my screed about the Indian Placement Program in a past thread over at BCC. For what it’s worth, in all my years of online shenanigans, that particular thread has so far been the only instance that resulted in my hearing from family members concerned about my penchant for self-immolation (although I suspect they mostly reached out in order to satisfy their Mormon/morbid curiosity about how much I’d imbibed before dousing myself in shame).
Which is why I really appreciate that Hellmut and chanson allow me to hang out here. If I can’t discuss Mormonism in a totally open environment, I tend to get toxic tout de suite. So, admittedly, at the end of the day, what I like most of all is MSP. When I’ve got something to say, I’m allowed to say it here and I don’t have to worry about stepping on toes or violating unwritten orders or checking in with anybody first. And that rocks.
And speaking of stuff that rocks, I think the crew over at FPR really ought to look into adding this feature* to your sidebar:
http://www.chriscarlisle.net/VH5/VH5_left.htm
Cheers!
*This Virtual High Five can be used more than once as a way to celebrate those moments of personal accomplishment because, well let’s face it, the internet has severely limited your ability and willingness to interact with real people. h/t DKL