I think that most people realize that there is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. There is also an often unrecognized fine line between the two. Ignorance can be solved--give a person information, they will absorb it, and presto! No longer ignorant!

Stupidity is harder to solve because it involves a person unwilling of becoming informed or incapable of such. Most people are capable of becoming informed, which means that most stupidity is a choice to not become informed.

There are a myriad of reasons for someone to remain stupid. What I've never understood is the propensity of some to revel in their stupidity. Perhaps it is simply one more evidence of their condition. The vast majority of ignorant folks (myself included) don't revel in their ignorance--they want to learn and, given the chance, will do so.

It is also a sad fact of life that those who view ideaology as a spectator sport will cheer on the stupid. They are, after all, useful idiots, fodder for the cause of the spectator. The useful idiot (stupid as he is) views such cheering as evidence of the correctness of his chosen stupidity. Again, one more evidence of their condition.

Woe, though, to the useful idiot who crosses the fine line from stupidity to ignorance, learns something new, and thereby loses their usefulness to the spectators. They become subjects of derision where once their usefulness was trumpeted. They are no longer useful idiots, having lost their adjective in the eyes of the spectators.

An interesting world, indeed.

In actuality, I have a certain amount of respect for gemli. As originally encountered, he was a determined atheist. Then for a certain period of time, he read a few wikipedia articles about "Mormonism" sic and started to pontificate and base his arguments solely based upon those few anti-Mormon wikipedia articles.
It was a painful time to be associated with that particular manifestation of gemli's arguments for it was extremely obvious that he had just picked up a few "talking points" for which he had no actual knowledge. After some amount of time, I've noticed that although back to his "determined" atheistic bent, at least he no longer seems to be hollowly echoing the anti-Mormon diatribe that is so easily regurgitated by those over at the POB. Now, at least he seems to solely opine about religions in general and atheism in specific while barely mentioning the Restored Church, except to state that he doesn't believe in it and cannot understand how others might believe in it. Although I cannot condone his statements, at least I can appreciate that he has withdrawn the strident anti-Mormon rhetoric which he briefly embraced. I think that this is to his credit and that we should admire the fact that he apparently recognized the trap he was falling into and proceeded to distance himself from it.

Let those at the POB admire gemli for his counter-arguments, at least we can admire him for his willingness to discard the obviously blatant and poorly constructed arguments of the anti-Mormons. It's obvious that they cannot fathom how to extricate themselves from their cesspool, nor leave their anti-Mormon thrashing alone, as opposed to gemli who appears at least to have elevated himself above that particular fray. I can't read gemli's thoughts, but I think I can follow his logic and at least it appears that he has the admirable trait of being willing to drop or discontinue personally offensive arguments for which he had no basis. Obviously, the people over at the POB have no qualms about being personally offensive to those of us who believe, including Dr. Peterson. Now, if we can just help gemli to the next level of understanding by continuing to encourage him to take a few minutes to do exactly what Professor Peterson has suggested in this post...

I have it on good authority that gemli is not "anti-Mormon." It might be that sticking one's finger into an open flame is a bad idea, whether the flame is from a kitchen stove, a campfire, an electric heater or a hot iron. It's not the specific item that matters as much as it is what they all have in common, which is that they're all dangerously hot. Gemli focuses on religions because they all make essentially the same fundamental claims of supernatural beings and eternal lives for one species of ape. He thinks it's unseemly for intelligent people to adhere to the scores of discrepant theological claims that defy reason and cannot be falsified. It's telling that thousands of different religions exist which are believed in wholeheartedly by millions of people. They can't all be right, but they can certainly all be wrong.

gemli:. "I have it on good authority that gemli is not "anti-Mormon.""

I don't consider you an "anti-Mormon," either. Your general hostility to theism simply happens to have found Latter-day Saints as a target of opportunity. And understandably, of course, you love my blog. Moreover, I'm a very genial and good-hearted host.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Im really hoping gemli will respond...

He's just going to repeat his Articles of Faith for the millionth time.

Ignorance is a great defense when the alternative is seeing things that aren't there, like gods, ghosts, goblins, ghouls ... there are 4,000 different religions ... there were no gold plates ... stories are not evidence...

That's about all any response is going amount to. It's really all he's ever amounted to. You know what they say about expecting a different result from doing the same thing over and over, and all that.

Yes, I'm afraid you're right. It's disappointing, because it's an opportunity for him to actually ENGAGE for once, even, shock horror, DISCUSS! But, as you say, probably a mad hope...

How would one engage with someone who thinks, say, that the Earth is flat? Some claims are so far out in left field that there is no way to get one's head around them, much less falsify them. The sheer number of religious claims are designed so that they cannot be falsified, questioned, proven, disproven or tested. The factor that determines which theology one believes is not the specifics of its claims, but which religion one is born into. If Mormons had been born in New Orleans, they'd likely be Catholics. Or Baptists. Or who knows what? I imagine that Catholics think that if only they could engage with Mormons they could get them on the right path.

gemli:"How would one engage with someone who thinks, say, that the Earth is flat? "

My personal choice would be to deploy evidence and to employ logical arguments. Your mileage apparently varies.

gemli:"The sheer number of religious claims are designed so that they cannot be falsified, questioned, proven, disproven or tested."

Nonsense. The dominant theme of this blog is questions and evidence connected with religious claims. The dominant subject that I address in my publications is questions and evidence connected with religious claims . With no exception that I can recall, every article and book that I have recommended to you -- and at which you've invariably refused to look -- has been connected with questions and evidence regarding religious claims.

Your absolute refusal ever to engage any of the above doesn't entail its nonexistence.

gemli:"The factor that determines which theology one believes is not the specifics of its claims, but which religion one is born into. If Mormons had been born in New Orleans, they'd likely be Catholics. Or Baptists. Or who knows what? I imagine that Catholics think that if only they could engage with Mormons they could get them on the right path."

At any given moment, a very substantial proportion of the world membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is made up of first-generation converts.

Me: "I'm really hoping gemli will respond."

My gosh, I wish I'd never said that!

PL:"My gosh, I wish I'd never said that!"

Amen.

Omar Khayyam's quatrain again seems relevant here:

“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”

Apparently Blackstone Publishing did an audio book version of Ghost Hunters, and it is available through Hoopla. Just putting that out there for anyone who, like me, prefers or requires audiobooks and who has access to a library that uses the service.

This "gemli" fellow seems to get under Dr. Peterson's skin. I don't think that's his reason for posting in this blog, but it's probably the inevitable consequence of someone who challenges the deeply held (although unjustified) beliefs of theists. One day they may see the light. Or not. False beliefs are extremely difficult to expunge, especially if one has constructed an entire worldview on the assumption that they're true. You'd think that the sheer number of discrepant theologies would render them all suspect. But once one has built his entire worldview on this or that theology, it becomes impossible to discard it without a sense of enormous loss. But the best way to avoid falling off a steep cliff is not to have climbed it in the first place.

gemli:. "This "gemli" fellow seems to get under Dr. Peterson's skin."

No. Not even slightly. I actually find you cute, sometimes, and I'm happy that you comment here.

But I do, candidly, find absolutely amazing your flat-out and unashamed refusal even to glance at anything that seems as if it might contradict your worldview.

gemli:. "the inevitable consequence of someone who challenges the deeply held (although unjustified) beliefs of theists"

It's not the fact that you challenge my beliefs. Strong challenges are actually helpful to me, in the long run. They allow me to sharpen arguments, recognize areas that need shoring up, etc.

It's the fact that you offer neither evidence nor argument for your position, and that you never engage any evidence or argument that we provide -- never -- that astonishes me and others here.

gemli:. "False beliefs are extremely difficult to expunge, especially if one has constructed an entire worldview on the assumption that they're true."

Quite so. An insight that applies to you just as much as it applies to everybody else.

If someone tells me that the moon is made of green cheese, I'm going to tell him that he's wrong. If he responded that I haven't sufficiently examined the evidence, can you understand why I might not feel it necessary to delve further into his claim? But there's a book written by the Moonmen! It tells an extraordinary tale that can't be verified, but, uh, well, um, I believe it! And so do lots of other people who coincidentally spread out from one isolated community. They spread the word, and now there are Moonmens all over the world! Surely that means the story is true! Even though the Marsmen believe in an entirely different story, along with scores of other this-men or that-men claims, it means that when lots of people believe different absurd tales it makes all of them credible! And don't ask for "proof." No only is it insulting, it's indicative of a closed mind that refuses to accept stories that are built on circular evidence. Circles are perfect, so that should put an end to further discussion. Ha! I win.

gemli:"If someone tells me that the moon is made of green cheese, I'm going to tell him that he's wrong. If he responded that I haven't sufficiently examined the evidence, can you understand why I might not feel it necessary to delve further into his claim?"

I understand that you imagine theism to be as ludicrous an idea as a green-cheese moon.

But that's your idiosyncratic, even eccentric, take on the matter.

There are (and have always been) reputable philosophers, historians, and scientists arguing for theism. There are no comparable theorists arguing for a cheesy moon. Major university presses publish books arguing both sides of the question of theism; no significant press of any kind has ever published a book arguing either side of the milk-product moon. Theism and atheism are a question; lunar-dairy theory is not.

That you think there's no real question involved says quite a bit about you but nothing about the serious thinkers (on both sides) who have addressed the "God question" over the past 2500 years or so.

gemli:"But there's a book written by the Moonmen! It tells an extraordinary tale that can't be verified, but, uh, well, um, I believe it! And so do lots of other people who coincidentally spread out from one isolated community. They spread the word, and now there are Moonmens all over the world! Surely that means the story is true!"

Nobody here makes an argument that is even remotely analogous to your caricature. I'm unaware, in fact, of anybody anywhere who makes such an argument.

gemli:"Even though the Marsmen believe in an entirely different story, along with scores of other this-men or that-men claims, it means that when lots of people believe different absurd tales it makes all of them credible!"

Nor is this recognizable.

gemli:"And don't ask for "proof." No only is it insulting, it's indicative of a closed mind that refuses to accept stories that are built on circular evidence."

If I've offered a "circular argument" at any point, you should demonstrate that. I deny having ever done so.

But I don't consider yours a quintessentially closed mind because you refuse to accept my position. I consider it so because you neither offer nor engage arguments and because you neither provide nor consider evidence.

One's expertise in one sphere does not necessarily extend to others. If a reputable medical doctor believed that the earth was flat, he'd quickly pay a price of ill-concealed laughter. His sensible positions on medical topics would not compensate for his flat-earth views.

Theism gets a break because most people are taught the god stuff practically from birth, while physics and chemistry, the claims of which can be tested and verified, are presented much later. Get 'em while they're young is the watchword of all theists. Early education in spirit stuff sticks, and it's very hard to dislodge once it's taken root.

I'd say that reputable philosophers, historians and scientists would hesitate to believe in invisible spirit beings, especially when such claims are made with astoundingly scant evidence that consists only of stories. At some point stories must give way to actual evidence. There is no reliable, demonstrable and definitive evidence for the untold numbers of supernatural beings that people have invented for centuries.

Besides, anyone who thinks that people will not believe absurd claims of the most egregious nonsense has not been watching the news lately. A dangerous moronic dweeb can have nearly half the population of the United States in his thrall while he spews nonsense like a demented firehose.

Arguments are circular when they use the conclusion to justify the premise. Theists would be out of a job if they had to produce reasonable, solid and demonstrable evidence for their claims. Instead, it's all stories, all the time.

gemli:"One's expertise in one sphere does not necessarily extend to others."

True. Your background doesn't guarantee that your opinions on religion are valid or true.

gemli:"Theism gets a break because most people are taught the god stuff practically from birth, while physics and chemistry, the claims of which can be tested and verified, are presented much later. Get 'em while they're young is the watchword of all theists. Early education in spirit stuff sticks, and it's very hard to dislodge once it's taken root."

Which is just as true of secular and atheistic societies. People tend to go with the culture in which they're raised (e.g., in Albania, Cuba, Russia, and the like). The next generation of Swedes is likely to resemble the previous generation.

Of course, as I observed to you previously, a substantial portion of the Latter-day Saint community are first-generation converts.

gemli:"I'd say that reputable philosophers, historians and scientists would hesitate to believe in invisible spirit beings"

And yet many do believe, because they find the available evidence and arguments persuasive.

gemli:"such claims are made with astoundingly scant evidence"

What would you know of the evidence?

gemli:"that consists only of stories."

This repeated claim of yours is flatly false. Evidence for theism has consisted of more than mere stories since long before the "Five Ways" of Thomas Aquinas (d. AD 1274). And modern arguments such as "cosmic fine tuning" have nothing whatever to do with "stories."

gemli:"At some point stories must give way to actual evidence."

And the sooner yours do, the better.

gemli:"There is no reliable, demonstrable and definitive evidence for the untold numbers of supernatural beings that people have invented for centuries."

There is good evidence. QED.

gemli:"Arguments are circular when they use the conclusion to justify the premise."

I'm perfectly aware of what a circular argument is, and have been since at least my teens.

But I challenge you to show where I have made such an argument.

gemli:"Theists would be out of a job if they had to produce reasonable, solid and demonstrable evidence for their claims."

Tell that to Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, Keith Ward, William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Owen Gingerich, and a host of other well-credentialed and prestigiously-employed advocates for theism.

gemli:"Instead, it's all stories, all the time."

Flatly false. See above.

I'm sure people such as Plantinga, Swinburne, Ward, the odious William Lane Craig and John Lennox are well-credentialed in their brands of theism, but I suppose one could be well-credentialed in astrology or phrenology, both of which are demonstrable nonsense, and yet have millions of believers. Belief is cheap, and it costs surprisingly little to be taken to the cleaners. As long as there are people who are willing to believe in unprovable extraordinary claims there will be a thriving market for every kind of spirit woo-woo.

gemli:"I'm sure people such as Plantinga, Swinburne, Ward, the odious William Lane Craig and John Lennox are well-credentialed in their brands of theism, but I suppose one could be well-credentialed in astrology or phrenology"

You're simply embarrassing yourself. Alvin Plantinga earned his Ph.D. in philosophy from Yale, and he is regarded as one of the greatest living philosophers. Richard Swinburne and Keith Ward were both educated in philosophy at Oxford, where they taught for decades. William Lane Craig, whom I've faced in debate, holds two doctorates, one in philosophy from the University of Birmingham and the other in New Testament from the University of Munich. John Lennox holds a doctorate in mathematics from the Universities of Cardiff and Cambridge, and taught for decades at Oxford. Owen Gingerich earned his Ph.D. in astronomy at Harvard, where he taught until his retirement.

Neither Birmingham nor Yale nor Munich nor Harvard nor Oxford nor Cardiff nor Cambridge offers any degree in astrology or phrenology.

gemli:"Belief is cheap, and it costs surprisingly little to be taken to the cleaners."

And yet you keep claiming that religious leaders somehow get rich from it.

Do you ever stop to wonder whether what you're saying makes even minimal sense?

One's educational level has little to do with what one might believe when it comes to religion. I know that some believers are extremely intelligent, and yet there are other extremely intelligent people who don't believe in religion at all, such as the late, great Christopher Hitchens. The floors at his debate venues were spotless, given that he moped them with all of the theists who thought they'd get the better of him.

"I know that some believers are extremely intelligent"

You only ever concede this after repeated call-outs. And then you go right back to claiming religion is only a fail-safe for death-fearing hairless apes or a scheme to deprive dumb yokels of their money.

You don't get to say, "Oh I know that," and then repeat what "that" just dismantled.

Some believers are indeed extremely intelligent. But given two extremely intelligent people who disagree with each other, how does one determine which one is right?

gemli:. "Some believers are indeed extremely intelligent. But given two extremely intelligent people who disagree with each other, how does one determine which one is right?"

By examining the evidence and the analysis that have been offered and making up one's mind.

How many times does this need to be explained to you?

What if the evidence consists of the very stories that require evidence? There are no golden plates, no angels, no gods or anything else that can be examined. There is a story. Period, full stop.

gemli:"What if the evidence consists of the very stories that require evidence?"

That's very often the case in historiography. There is no herpetological evidence for the reign of the Roman emperor Trajan or the battle of Thermopylae. Geological research has little to tell us about the beliefs of the Egyptian Old Kingdom.

Historians deal with surviving records, inscriptions, and accounts.

Historians also reject claims that can't be verified, or contradict reality. You know, little things like that.

gemli:"Historians also reject claims that can't be verified, or contradict reality. You know, little things like that."

Yup. That's why I invite people who are interested to examine the relevant evidence and analysis.

This is growing wearisome. You've done nothing more than regurgitate your familiar talking points, over and over and over again. You never really do.

"Some believers are indeed extremely intelligent..."

Are you backing down from your earlier, oft-repeated claim that religion is only a retreat for the fearful, the ignorant, and the deceptive?

gemli: "how does one determine which one is right?"

You seem to have done it without much effort.

Usually the one who's right is the one who makes the fewest improbable assumptions.

gemli:"Usually the one who's right is the one who makes the fewest improbable assumptions.""

If, as it seems, you're trying to restate Ockham's famous "razor," you've got it wrong.

A better way of putting it would be to say that, given the choice between two explanations, the simplest one that adequately accounts for the data is to be preferred.

Conjuring up supreme beings and angels that can't even be demonstrated to exist does not seem to be "simple" in any way but one. And it's not flattering.

So one could say in this case that Ockham's razors are disposable.

gemli:"Conjuring up supreme beings and angels that can't even be demonstrated to exist does not seem to be "simple" in any way but one. And it's not flattering."

If you're ever interested in a substantive discussion, gemli, be sure to let us know.

Excellent deflection, as usual. But there are no supernatural beings, so there's no substance.

gemli:"Excellent deflection, as usual."

It's no deflection. It's a polite way of saying that, unless and until you're interested in discussing evidence and arguments, there's no point in spending hours on such exchanges as these. You've repeated your creed far more than enough for me to understand your viewpoint.

gemli:"But there are no supernatural beings, so there's no substance."

gemli, a few days back:."Proclaiming that something is true is very different from its being true."

I'm proclaiming the null hypothesis. If you've got evidence for your God that meets the standard used for assertions of scientific truths, I'd be eager to hear what they are.

gemli:. "I'm proclaiming the null hypothesis. If you've got evidence for your God that meets the standard used for assertions of scientific truths, I'd be eager to hear what they are."

Just as in science, the evidence for theism (and against theism) is of various degrees of certitude and strength.

In general, though, this sort of question isn't susceptible to the kind of proof that one finds in chemistry or in herpetology, the queen of sciences.

Already Aristotle advised that a mark of wisdom was to expect only the level of certainty from a field or an area of inquiry that is appropriate to the field or question involved.

One can count the number of caribou in a particular forest meadow, but discussing the meaning of life, or the lack of meaning of life, will never be that simple.

No, life isn't simple. But it's not magical, either. Invoking gods and angels that desperately want us to believe in them while remaining obscure, hidden, vague and highly questionable seems counterproductive. Does God seek out the gullible? Does belief require abandoning reality as the first step in the stairway to Heaven? (Apologies to Led Zeppelin.)

gemli:"Does belief require abandoning reality as the first step in the stairway to Heaven?"

Obviously not. I've just returned from lunch with a friend who's visiting from out of state. He's an active and committed Latter-day Saint. He earned his M.D. from Cornell and his Ph.D. from Rockefeller University and he holds roughly twenty pharmaceutical patents.

I'm amused by your attempt to claim Science© and Reality© as somehow peculiarly yours by simple unsupported announcement.

I'm sure your friend is extremely competent in his field of study. But if he prescribed prayer while stroking a rabbit's foot as a cure for scrofula, I doubt that his colleagues would turn to him for medical advice.

gemli:"I'm sure your friend is extremely competent in his field of study. But if he prescribed prayer while stroking a rabbit's foot as a cure for scrofula, I doubt that his colleagues would turn to him for medical advice."

Please see my previous responses to this class of comments from you.

gemli: "I'm proclaiming the null hypothesis"

I wonder how far a scientist would get if all he/she ever did was "proclaim the null hypotheses" and then sit back and demand someone else do the actual work for their own position. And, then, when that work has been done by someone else, proclaim that "I cannot be bothered with the evidence!" For someone who proclaims to be a man of science, you do very little work of a scientist.

gemli long ago proclaimed here in that he was simply here to troll. At some point I think that if we cannot take him at his word, we can certainly take him at his actions."

You're a fine one to be talking about deflection. Your second sentence is nothing but deflection.
Self awareness isn't really your strong point, is it, gemli?

There's no evidence for supernatural beings except for stories. But if such beings really existed and truly wanted us to know about them, they would have no problem revealing themselves in a way that would leave no doubt. But all theologies are based entirely on doubt. Doubt leaves the door to nirvana open just a crack, and the uncertainty somehow makes the belief even stronger. All I can say is that people have made claims of the supernatural for ages of ages, and such a realm has never been verified to exist. But as long as people spend their short lives in a sometimes cruel and uncertain material world, there will be those who cling to the hope of a better one after we die. I think it's particularly ironic that those who desire eternal life waste the only life they have in hope of one that doesn't exist.

gemli:"There's no evidence for supernatural beings except for stories."

At least three times within the past forty hours or so, I've cited to you seven specific examples of arguments for the existence of God -- Anselm's ontological argument, Aquinas's "five ways," and the modern argument from cosmic fine-tuning -- that have absolutely no connection with any story.

I like some of them and am not especially fond of others among them, and I could have cited many, many more. But they're very widely known.

You don't respond. You don't even acknowledge them or my mention of them. You simply repeat your claim -- which my mention of the seven arguments has demonstrated to be obviously and unambiguously false -- that "There's no evidence for supernatural beings except for stories."

gemli:"those who desire eternal life waste the only life they have in hope of one that doesn't exist."

On at least a dozen prior occasions when you've made this claim, I've asked you by what standard you can declare any life "wasted." Measured by what standard, on your view of the cosmos, can you make such a judgment? In a purposeless universe, against what "purpose" can any life be judged to have failed? Who chooses that purpose or that standard, and why should anybody else care about her choice? In your world, both theists and atheists vanish into nothingness at their deaths. The universe doesn't care about their views of the existence or nonexistence of God, and their views will have absolutely no effect, one way or the other, on the random cosmos into which you imagine them to have been born.

You have never acknowledged my questions in this regard. You have never engaged my challenge. You simply wait for a little while and then make your claim again.

You should explain and justify your claim of "wastage" or else stop making it.

Cosmic "fine tuning" is ad hoc nonsense. If the universe is "fine tuned" for anything, it's empty space speckled with scorched or frozen planets circling dying stars. Over 99.9 percent of once-living things on earth have gone extinct.

Ghost stories are something that might frighten children, but we might ought to have outgrown them by the time we reached the age of reason.

Living a short life in expectation of an eternal one to follow seems a waste to me. Begging the nonexistent for the impossible ought to the very definition of a waste in anyone's philosophy.

gemli:"Cosmic "fine tuning" is ad hoc nonsense."

You're changing the subject again. Whether or not it's nonsense -- and I hope you'll pardon me for not taking your flat assertion as The Final Truth over the arguments made by physicists and philosophers and biologists such as Francis Collins, Richard Swinburne, Michael Denton, Allister McGrath, Brandon Carter, Paul Davies, Alvin Plantinga, Sir Fred Hoyle, John Leslie, Geraint Lewis, John Barrow, Luke Barnes, Douglas Axe, and many others -- isn't the point. The point is that "cosmic fine-tuning" is an argument for theism that has no connection at all with any "story."

Do you remember your repeated claim that there is no evidence for theism that isn't a mere story? Have you forgotten already?

gemli:"Living a short life in expectation of an eternal one to follow seems a waste to me."

Every time you've said this, I've responded by noting the enormous consensus of scholarly studies showing that, in general, religious people live longer, happier, and healthier lives than do non-religious people. In the end, of course, according to your faith, we all rot and dissolve and our memories and experiences die with us. Still, even on your view, living more healthily and happily for a longer time is difficult to describe as a "waste."

I've made this point to you many, many times. You've never responded or engaged what I've said. Not ever. Not once. Never. You simply wait for a while and then repeat your claim that the lives of theists are somehow "wasted."