More hand waving Diana. We’re not talking about what individual people believe. I already conceded that each person is the only credible source for what they themselves believe. We’re talking about what a religious organization teaches.
Is not the religious organization in question the best source for what it teaches? How can any other source be anything but secondary?
I’m an ex-Mormon. I have extensive experience in the LDS religion, I was taught its precepts by Mormons, and at one time believed them. I am indeed qualified to speak about LDS teachings, practices, culture, etc. This isn’t to say I’m perfect. I do make mistakes, and there are indeed some things I just don’t know.
You can reasonably call my credibility into question based on what I have said about Mormonism, but you cannot dismiss what I said by virtue of my no longer being Mormon.
I can, and do, dismiss what you have to say as secondary. The problem, of course, is that while the bias of the believer and organization is there, it is also KNOWN. We know that it will present it’s beliefs in the best light possible (and where religion is concerned, the ‘best light’ is the ‘correct one.’ ) I submit that when we are dealing with a non-member, either ex- or simply non-member critic, that bias is not known. That is, we can assume that it is not positive; a positive review of a religion generally equals joining it. The problem is, we don’t know exactly how biased the reviewer is, what his or her agenda is (besides the fact of the disbelief) or just what he or she is willing to do to ‘defeat’ it. This makes the credibility of the reviewer hugely problematic. The reviewer may be doing his or her level best to be fair, but in reality? It can’t be done.
It’s why I don’t try to explain Catholicism to anybody else. I may think I have it right, because I asked Catholics, but I’m not about to print pamphlets. There are people out there who would prefer to get the opinion of non-members on any bit of doctrine. If I run into such anti-Catholics, and I have a Catholic right there to correct me when I screw up, I might chime in on the side of the Catholics, but that’s as far as I’ll go in this area.
This doesn’t however mean that a medical layman cannot, after becoming informed, state correct things about alternative medicine. I’ve seen you’re rather knowledgable of logical fallacies. If you, as a presumable non-doctor or non-homeopath, made a claim about homeopathy and I retorted “Oh well what do you know, you’re not even a doctor”, that would be an ad hominem
True…but it also speaks to ethos; one’s credibility very much affects rhetoric, and the reliability of the information. I MIGHT give you correct information about alternative sources of medicine, but before you bet your health on it, you’d go to an expert (NOT me…) to confirm what I told you, wouldn’t you? I sure hope you would.
Most states, by the way, frown on people practicing medicine (or law) without a license. No matter how knowledgeable they actually may be. .
Also remember that we’re talking about former members of a religion. Likening this to alternative medicine, a former homeopath or a former general practitioner usually can offer credible information.
Not if the former homeopath has gone to medical school, he can’t. He has NO incentive to be kind to homeopathy; he has to justify his decision to leave. So, again, one must confirm the information he gives you with a practicing homeopath.
I don’t think so. I’m not going to dismiss out-of hand what a Republican claims a particular Democrat proposed, or what constitutes the Democratic platform simply because he’s a Republican, that is unless I’m only looking for affirmation rather than confirmation. I will however generally dismiss the claims of particular Republicans (Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, et. al) as their history has demonstrated that they are not credible.
One cannot automatically pigeon hole folks like Rebecca and me with the likes of Ed Decker simply because we’re former Latter-day Saints.
Ah, but I’m not doing that. There are great gradations in the levels of anti-hood, from Ed Decker to the mildest of critics: I reserve considerably more colorful language for the Ed Decker types.
What I am saying is that in terms of teaching others WHAT we believe, ex and non-members are secondary sources because of the credibility gap. Consider; only a believer will know just how ‘off’ any ex or non-member’s presentation is…he has NO way of knowing how far the bias lies, or what the agenda is. No matter what, he’ll have to, eventually, go to the source to see what the believers have to say.
It is for this reason that I will only ask Catholics about Catholicism. Trust me, Jack Chick isn’t going to be educating me about Catholicism, and neither are any of the other anti-Catholics sites out there.
Why are you assuming that current members are incapable of being incorrect, or dare I even say, lying?
Now, how are you going to tell when a current member is lying about his personal beliefs?
It’s more than I would do to assume that. Even when a Catholic (as an example, since we ARE on CAF) seems to say something that contradicts what I have read in the catechism, the most I will do is assume that I misunderstood something somewhere, rather than assume that the believer is lying–or even incorrect. The odds are that I am the confused one.
