I get the idea that you *don't* understand the point about subjectivity here at all.
Objectivity, or the lack thereof, is irrelevant to the definition of an internal critique.
And it’s equally irrelevant to the definition of an external critique.
Do we suppose the Mormons look at that and say 'Ya know, we'd never thought of that. You've pretty much demolished Mormonism, there, Chuck!'? I get the sense from "Chuck" that he thinks his critique is something like that. And to him, I'm sure it is. But to the Mormon, it just looks ignorant and foolish.
Who are you debating—me or Chuck?
For the record, I’ve done a critique of Hugh Nibley, who was the leading Mormon apologist of his generation.
And, of course, there’s a lot of fine countercult material on Mormonism by Blomberg and others.
This thread is not a critique of Mormonism. I never said I was making a case against Mormonism in this thread. Mormonism was cited as a counterexample by others.
Rather, this thread is about the degree to which religious experience is, or is not, a valid appeal.
I can’t miss a target I was never aiming at in the first place.
When you ask, "Is his testimony corroborated?", you're begging the central question of *who* decides what constitutes "corroborated" or not. Clearly, from your posts, you feel entitled to pronounce judgment on this question, and any others. Your arguments are compelling, because you say so, and your critics? Their arguments are lame because you say so.
So maybe you can tell me *who* determines, for example, what the *right* worldview is to "cohere with" in your statement above. Are you assuming we *start* with your worldview in judging Mormon's claims?
A couple of issues:
i) There are general criteria for assessing testimonial claims. Not all of the criteria are equally applicable to every individual case. That depends on the precise nature of the testimony. Testimony is not all of a kind.
ii) Your question is irrelevant to the distinction between an internal critique and an external critique. An individual value-judgment will be rendered in either case. Sorry you’re such a muddled thinker.
I’m no more judgmental that you are when you indulge in YEC-bashing.
iii) The question of “who” gets to decide is not the “central” question. That’s just another one of your irrelevancies. Anyone is free to render his own value judgment.
But you yourself obviously done regard all positions as equally valid. You don’t regard YEC as just as good as TE.
You’re one of those schizophrenic individuals who likes to intone relativist rhetoric in an absolutist tone of voice.
You're indulging yourself, at the expense of others, to the baseline worldview, what you call "our worldview". But that worldview is just as subjective as a Mormon's or an atheists (with an atheist's being arguably *less* subjective). "Chuck Liddell" responds with the virgin birth question, and then *really* wants an answer from Joe Mormon, as if he thinks Mormons are caught in their own trap! Apparently, he's so stuck in thinking that everyone else's arguments are subordinated to *his* paradigm, that he doesn't suspect that Mormons might have an internal rationale that resolves this.
Notice how judgmental Touchstone is when it comes to Chuck. He’s far more judgmental of Chuck than he is of Joe Mormon.
Touchstone is a very judgmental relativist.
BTW, it wouldn’t hurt him to define his terms instead of yelling “subjective” at every turn.
That's just a lot of self-flattery, isn't it? Ask a Mormon if that's a "gotcha" and he will laugh just like Paul Manata laughs when Exapologist points to an eschatological "gotcha" in Paul's framework.
Gotcha's are in the eye of the beholder. "Victorious" arguments are in the eye of the reader. You're free to accept or deny others claims as you see fit, as am I. I don't rule out all such experiential claims, nor do I accept them all at face value.
Are you debating me or Manata?
But I don't make pretenses to having some right to decide what is objectively "true" that supercedes a Mormon's or an atheist's, or another Christians.
Oh, I see. And is it objectively true that you “don't make pretenses to having some right to decide what is objectively ‘true’"?
And if it’s not objectively true that you “don't make pretenses to having some right to decide what is objectively ‘true’,” then we can safely ignore your disclaimer.
Indeed, since you “don't make pretenses to having some right to decide what is objectively ‘true’,” then we can safely ignore all your arguments for evolution.
Thanks for refuting yourself. That’s a real timesaver.
Not at all. You can accept or reject any testimony you want. Just don't pretend that *your* rejections are binding on *them*.
You have a love affair with straw man arguments. Did I “pretend” that my rejections are “binding” on a second party?
“Binding” in what sense? Logically compelling? Morally compelling? Psychologically compelling? Legally compelling?
They're not, unless you are prepared to accept their (and other) dismissals of your Christian faith as binding on you.
Of course, this is simple-minded, as if we cannot treat any argument as good or bad unless we treat every argument as equally good or bad.
Observe the steady intellectual deterioration in Touchstone’s reasoning.