© 2024 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
Sorry to come so late to the discussion, but I think that there are things that get the short shrift even though you would think they would pique the interest of everyone. There are things that deserve to be widely disseminated and examined that are largely ignored. For a long time the Book of Mormon was one of them, but is now getting some attention, even if it took a silly musical to bring it to a wider public notice.
Tom Nibley
I loved this essay. I myself have an insatiable appetite for the word god, if I am not talking about God, then I am pondering, reading, writing, or listening to that media that is on this subject. Also I am plotting how to maneuver people into a position that would be accepting of a God, especially into the doctrine that we as Latter Day Saints accept.
Again thank you
Professor Peterson
for your words and the work that you do.
I really like this comment:
“The fact is that speculative reasoning in the style of medieval Catholic scholasticism is simply not within reach of most ordinary believers. They lack the training for it, and, in not a few cases, the capacity. Requiring facility with it and a mastery of it would mean that proper faith would be available only to a small, highly educated elite. And surely this is not, and cannot be, the divine plan.”
Very good ideas. I learned much from the essay. I recall a quote from Givens’ book “By The Hand of Mormon” that seemed to fit your theme, or at the least, fits my view of the subject. Much much thanks for your thoughts and postings. Dennis
REASON AND REVELATION MUST GO TOGETHER
“It necessarily follows from the supposition of our rational facilities being limited, that there is room for our being instructed by revelation . . . . However upon supposition of such a revelation, we must be supposed to be able to see the evidence of its being such. It is the proper office of reason to determine whether what is proposed to us under the notion of a revelation from God, be attended with suitable attestations and credentials, or not. So that even in this case, we may of ourselves judge what is right .” Jonathan Mayhew, 1748 By The Hand Of Mormon p. 117
The more I study and meditate the more I am convinced that your observation above that “No sentient, properly functioning, mature human being is without reason, and reason should constantly organize and evaluate experience, just as experience should inform and guide reason. Revelation, in my judgment, should never be detached from rationality, but rationality shouldn’t be divorced from empirical experience, either, not even if it’s experience with God and the divine” is the key to knowledge of and experience with our Father in Heaven. I believe it was Elder McConkie who stated that “God either stands revealed or he remains forever unknown”.
Thank you for a beautifully written and thoughtful piece on reason and revelation. I also appreciate the reference to “The Closing the Muslim Mind”, which I just purchased and downloaded as an e-book.
Doc Pete,
When you brought up SETI, you came very close to articulating some of the finer points to the New God Theory, written by Lincoln Cannon and others. Without googling it, is this something you’ve heard of?
A fundamentally reassuring, though under valued, aspect of our bodacious religion is how instinctively empirical it is by the promise given in Moroni 10. That is, what is empirical must be based on observed evidence in an experiment, which itself must be replicatable. Just the claim itself (regardless of whether or not it has merit) is a bit daunting for the vast majority of people. Up until reading this article, I was unaware that there was anyone, anywhere, outside of Mormonism or the New Atheism who would even dare to try to stake a claim with the in-your-face religious empirical experiment similar to the one presented in Moroni. I’m interested by Peterson’s claims that indeed this type of experiment didn’t seem too daunting for certain personalities in both Christianity and Islam.
But hey, in my defense, my ignorance was justified. One of the very rare instances that I had an opportunity to speak to Muslims on a theological topic was in Fargo, North Dakota while on my mission. I asked the fellows why they believed in Islam. They responded by getting upset with me. To them, it was like asking why water was wet. To them this was an insulting and stupid question.
This also reminds me of an occasion when I had an opportunity to listen Peterson and Hamblin debate James White on the radio. Peterson’s opening line of attack caught me off guard by how simple it was. He asked what was essentially the same question I posed to the Muslims: why do you believe in the bible? I thought for sure White (as a fellow Christian) would knock that softball out of the park. But alas, he fumbled terribly into a circular argument. I’m not terribly familiar with White, but it is interesting that it was not in his instinct to appeal to an independent third party (i.e. the Holy Ghost) for validation.
The shear audacity of my religion frankly warms my heart. There just ain’t anything else like it.
Professor Peterson:
As I was just now reading and very much enjoying your fine essay, I wanted you to quote that famous line from David Hume: “reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions” and so forth. And, then suddenly, there it was. But there are some additional remarks by Hume that cause one to wonder, I might even be tempted to quote some of these later, if I feel so inclined. I must also add that the wisdom of Jerusalem does not reject reason, but merely, as Hume correctly indicated we all must do, subordinates it to its own higher endeavors–the longings of the heart.