Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
I wouldn't include anyone from FARMS or Nibley in the first or third category because those individuals have devoted their life's work to building a case to support Mormonism. I don't disqualify anyone because they have religious faith or adhere to a religious creed; Augustine, Aquinus, and Dante, among many others, were towering intellectuals who were devout Christians. The problem I have with Nibley and FARMS folks is a level of intellectual dishonesty, carrying on a pretense of using the scientific method to prove something based on purported objective evidence when really all they are doing is consciously engaging in sophistry. It's more accurate to call these people fraudsters.
|
Fraudsters, because you say so?
Even the evangelical link seems to support the concept that Nibley is respected for his intellect.
You are being disengenuous. At the very worst, Nibley and FARMS could be considered religious advocates, which is all a religious apologist is.
You yourself admitted that you do NOT pay attention to minutae, but you claim they are "fraudsters". Are you being objective in your evaluation of Nibley and FARMS? Not being in the same sphere of their expertise are you even qualified to judge them?
I am not an intellectual, and really don't want to be one. But I have many friends who busy themselves with the intellectualism of life. You seem quite happy to pick and choose, to use the pretense of intellectualism, but to shed its rigors when it pleases you.
Why are they fraudsters in your mind? Because they haven't reached the same conclusions as you have? Is that approach intellectually honest?
This post is not your best work.