Readers may remember a thread some time ago, entitled "Questions for Dan Peterson," in which Mr. Stakhanovite unearthed what appeared to be a serious flaw in one of DCP's FARMS essays. Well, at last, Mr. Stak has gifted us with a fuller study of the problem in question:

http://servileconformist.typepad.com/se ... onformist/

The pair of blog articles persuasively argue that Dr. Peterson seriously misrepresented the French philosopher and author Albert Camus's views on life and religion. The articles are throrough and incisive, and I highly recommend them to anyone who is interested in philosophy, textual citation, accuracy, and truth. Next to John Gee's "two inks" claims, this may very well rank near the top of Worst Mopologetic Misrepresentations of All Time.

My sincere hope is that Mr. Stak's analysis prompts the MI team to issue a retraction in the next issue of the Review.

Thank you for posting this, Scratch.

Please, stemelbow - read the blog post referred to before you go into autotext mode. Pretty please?

DCP's abuse of Camus seems to be akin to someone taking the anti-Christ dialogue from the Book of Mormon and presenting that as if it were the actual message of the Book of Mormon. Very dishonest, indeed.

Any links on this or other info apprreciated.

When pigs fly.

If you are asking about the "Two Inks" claims by Gee see here.
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=89262

Congratulations to Stak. It was a good read and should serve as a model for future critiques of slapdash apologetic critiques of secularism and atheism.

This is such a perfect representation of Mopologetics. They dazzle you with b***s*** dressed in scholarly robes so that it is hard for most people to cut their way through. The faithful embrace it as a reason to believe without really understanding it. The skeptical recognize it for what it is, but don't want to expend the effort to expose it.

Every now and then, someone who is truly an expert in the area grabs their b***s*** with both hands and throws it right back in their faces. That's what you've done Stak. Great job.

Well said.

Hi DCP, we know you're reading this.

How about you post a response to this accusation about you being...well...let's say...shoddy?

Still no stemelbow contribution?

How odd...

here's my contribution, since its being sought for.

A million curses upon your head for making this blunder, Dr. Peterson. You clearly will never have anything worth considering ever again. All your work ever done is forever to be considered a pile of garbage. You have hurt millions of people over and your life is a mess. It must be because you don't post on boards like this anymore but you do put out a post on a personal blog but don't allow comment. When you're out cold and starving begging for some sort of subsistence you won't be worth the oldest pair of Drifting's shoes. Your eternal torment is coming.

Stemelbow:

Why don't you explain, in your own words, what the issue is and why MrStakhanovite disapproves of what Daniel Peterson wrote?

Dan has taught you well.

I would not be surprised to learn someday that stemelbow is one of DarthJ's sock puppets, a parody of the stupidest TBM one could ever imagine.

See my sig line. iirc, I first made that sig as a result of an earlier stemelbow thread. Biggest. Idiot. Ever.

Lol. Well, water always finds its own level...

LOL you guys, Danny boy is going to blow a gasket again and stomp around the trailer park with his litigation hammer - again. It's all he knows how to do anymore.

Thanks for the kind words everyone, I truly do appreciate them.

What I enjoy about this, among other things, is that your observations about Daniel's flawed treatment of atheism and secularism could also be used, with certain tweaks, against the rhetoric of the New Atheists. Like Daniel Peterson and other religious apologists, the New Atheists do not engage the traditions of atheism and secularism as seriously or in depth as you do here. Whenever I read what you have to say on these topics, I feel like going back to school to study these things in greater depth.

Yes, Daniel's litigation hammer is about as blunt and inaccurately wielded as his understanding of Camus. Whenever DCP talks of having spoken with a 'lawyer acquaintance' at BYU on a topic--somehow to imply that DCP has from that discussion become a legal expert on the topic--I am reminded of Stanley Kowalski in A Streetcar Named Desire.

...no...on second thought, when DCP swings his litigation hammer, I am reminded more of Elliott Garfield's transparent (and humorous) plagiarism of that phrase in Neil Simon's The Goodbye Girl.