Hi Darkfem, I'm fine if you don't want to file the book as a whole under "philosophy" of any tradition, but push comes to shove, anyone who defends the book is going to have to defend the idea that “God-talk” is incoherent and to do that is going to require the reader (and one would think the author too, but I digress) to do some kind of philosophy to do that. When you mention
Forum: Deconstructing Mormonism

Hey Tom, Ya know, I owe you an apology. When I bellied up to this forum and wrongly assumed that because you repeatedly mentioned scholars by name for the purposes of highlighting your agreement with them, I should have understood intuitively that this doesn’t obligate you to really know anything about what those names actually thought and wrote. I should have checked myself right then and t
Forum: Deconstructing Mormonism

Hello Tom, I’m glad you think both sides are important. The motivation behind this post had been building up for some time, your book has been causing a stir among ex-mormons and more than a few friends have told me about your book. So before going any further I do want to say that overall, it is almost always a good thing for people to get excited about a book that captures their attention
Forum: Deconstructing Mormonism

Given the inordinate amount of citations of and lengthy quotations attributed to Kai Nielsen, I’d like to ask Mr. Riskas to list the top 5 most relevant and substantive critics of Kai Nielsen’s unique brand of philosophy, and offer a brief review of each critic’s contribution to the debate on those subjects. For example, Kai Nielsen’s understanding of “God-talk” is controversial an
Forum: Deconstructing Mormonism