rdl, Thank you for bringing this discussion back to the top, and retrieving it from obscurity. In the post below, I am responding to mikwut's last post to me, which I see that you have also responded to. I have not yet had a chance to read your response, and I am interested to see your thoughts. Again - thank you. Craig _________________________________________
Hello again mikwut,
I was out of town, and when I returned, I found that rdl had pulled our discussion to the top. I will therefore respond to your last post in this new location.
Previously, I asked what was wrong with agreeing on standards of evidence (i.e. using the court system as a model), and you responded, I did explain to you that a court is not constructed to solve non-empirical matters such as the existence of god question and it would allow you a "gimme" and a "stacked-arena" that play right into your hands of a completely empirical knowledge base - that is not reality.
We seem to disagree on the definition of "empirical". Here are the relevant definitions in the on-line Miriam-Webster dictionary: 1) originating in or based on observation or experience; 2) relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory; 3) capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.
Based on the first definition, I would classify your epistemiology as "empirical" because it satisfies the definition "originating in or based on observation or experience". I think we are both empiricists. Where we disagree is on which observations or experiences are trustworthy.
You say First, I obviously do not believe that non-empirical evidence is a self contradiction. Haven't I been arguing just that for the past several months?
If you say that evidence exists that is not empirical, then you must be claiming that evidence exists that is not based on observation or experience (from the definition of "empirical"). I don't think that is what you meant.
You say, We have access to other avenues of truth and knowledge these are not in conflict with empirical knowledge. Empiricism does not preclude other avenues to truth.
Take the following:
All truth-claims are to be empirically validated; that is, we should only believe something if it can be verified by sense-perception. Anything less is false and/or meaningless.
1. The above statement is a truth-claim.
2. The above statement has not been empirically validated; who has observed a universal limitation with his senses? First, no mortal has universal sense-perception. Second, how would such a person use his senses to observe a conceptual limitation? Craig you are asking for a "gimme" here you are essentially saying that all truth claims must be validated by sense-perception, except for the one above as stated.
3. Therefore, the statement above is false or meaningless. It's internally inconsistent. We discover this non-empirically but without precluding any empirical truth.
I am puzzled why you continue to make philosophical arguments against empiricism when you yourself have adopted an empirical epistemiology. Do not these same arguments also apply to your own philosophy?
A problem for me with philosophical arguments against empiricism is that there is no real alternative to empiricism if we hope to develop a justified belief system. Isn't the alternative statement: "Truth-claims need not be empirically validated. They need only be asserted.?"
I am comfortable formulating my belief system in terms of probability. This is because I doubt that it is possible to avoid errors in any belief system. However, we minimize the probability of error by developing standards of evidence, searching for the high quality evidence, and developing a belief system congruent with the high quality evidence. I would modify your statement to read:
"All truth-claims or theories are to be empirically evaluated; the degree of confidence or belief that can be placed in a truth-claim or theory should be proportional to the quantity of high quality evidence that supports the truth claim or theory. The standards by which the quality of evidence is to be judged will include: 1) Parsimony (I would include in this simplicity and conservatism and the idea of Occam's Razor), 2) Fruitfulness (the truth claim or theory leads to predictions that are validated), 3) Inclusiveness (the truth claim or theory incorporates as much high quality evidence as possible and does not ignore relevant high quality data) , 4) Capacity of the truth-claim or theory to systematize and unify knowledge, i.e., the extent to which a given belief or observation is supported by different lines of evidence, especially evidence that can be replicated, cross-checked or independently verified using different methodologies, with appropriate controls, so as to minimize error due to bias or faulty perception".
Regarding the above standards, I previously asked "What standards or criteria would you propose for the assessment of evidence?"
And you replied, I will accept your burden and attempt to use your criteria, not the court room but the parsimony..etc.
That's great! We actually agree on two things now.
Previously I said, "Now we return to a key difference in our views. You are willing to accept certain facts and experience that I am not willing to accept as legitimate evidence."
And you responded, This seems true. But to me arbitrary on your part that it can be COMPLETELY thrown out and not just maturely and thoughtfully considered.
Here we arrive at a new issue: the question of when to reject a truth-claim or theory in its entirety, when to reject it partially, and when to hold it in suspension. I would offer the following criteria for complete rejection: A truth claim or theory shall be judged completely invalid when the supporting evidence is of low quality and quantity while evidence supporting an alternative truth-claim or theory is of high quality and abundant. Of course, there are many cases that lie between these extremes. The theory that the BoM describes actual historical events in Mesoamerica is completely invalid, in my opinion, because the supporting evidence is of low quality and quantity while evidence supporting an alternative truth-claim or theory is of high quality and abundant. Given that the BoM is the "cornerstone" of Mormonism, I must reject the authority of Mormon leadership.
Previously I wrote, "Sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it to. You seem willing enough to admit evidence related to witness testimony, but not other evidence".
And you responded, I was simply reinforcing the fact that even you who only accept empirical evidence must take the witness evidence seriously and used the court of law to reinforce that point, it seems you wanted your cake and eat it too by restricting our ability to apprehend this question to court room admissibility that is more fitting for your arbitrarily based empirical worldview. I will add the witnesses to the BoM in the abstract should be accepted without hesitation in the court room.
The evidence that I do not consider admissible is the god-sense evidence. I consider the witness evidence to be admissible. The problem is when we begin to consider the quality of this evidence, we are left with many concerns: in my view, it fails on all four of our agreed-upon criteria.
Previously, I wrote, "Apparently, then, the jury has standards for the evaluation of evidence that make it unlikely that they will accept supernatural claims. Why should our standards of evidence be any less?"
And you responded, Possibly unlikely, especially when asked to let a possible murderer go free on that basis alone as your alien analogy created. But the standards for viewing trustworthy eyewitness testimony is the same and this does indeed cause your refusal to accept it as true with a burden to offer a MORE plausible explanation without just throwing out supernatural possibilities to begin with.
Again, I am willing to accept the witness evidence, but I do believe that the quality of this evidence is poor, and I discount it on that basis. In my view, the more plausible explanation for the witness testimony is a combination of deception by Joseph Smith and cultural/psychological factors not unlike current testimonials regarding alien abductions.
I previously referred to Carl Sagan's book "Demon Daunted World", and his discussion, fairies, angels, and aliens in different eras and cultures. I asked, "What is the more straightforward explanation? that different creatures really have visited the earth in different eras? or that these are psychological-cultural phenomena?"
And you responded, Carl Sagan is a brilliant man rest his soul and I love Cosmos. The statement you give above can still be true that Sagan makes without being complete. ALL experience of a religious or supernatural variety isn't necessarily a reflection of culture while much of it still is. Why don't you see his vivid fallacy in insinuating that it is ALL culture bound? Non-belief shouldn't receive a free pass and the experience of non-belief should be seen as culture bound as readily as everything else you want to dismiss so easily, non-belief should be viewed just as readily as a pychological-cultural phenomena.
No one is giving non-belief a "free pass". The question is one of probabilities. What is the probability that angels actually visited Joseph Smith? What is the probability of alien visitors? What is the probability of fairies? All have eye-witness testimonies. If we discount one as the result of psychological phenomena, are we not also discounting others?
I think you would agree that some religious belief is psychological-cultural (and I would include genetic in the ?psychological? part of that). If so, then how do you discriminate between the valid interpretations of religious experiences and interpretations that are not valid? Shouldn't we apply our quality criteria?
You say, I think you could be fooling yourself concerning the better reasoning skills being the culprit and not other attitudinal things. For one you don't seem to apply your now evolved reasoning skills as easily and forthrightly to your new worldview as you did your old and many examples abound including myself where better reasoning skills simply added depth to a religious worldview and not doubts serious enough to abandon it for another.
I am comfortable making the statement that my reasoning skills have improved as I have aged. I am not unique in that regard. However, you are correct and perceptive in noting that my earlier statement was too simplistic. Two other major factors contributed to my change of worldviews: (1) science education - particularly in biology and geology, and (2) a "dark night of the soul" involving one of my children, where I became extremely concerned with my capabilities for self-deception. So I apologize for my earlier statement. It was not the whole story.
Previously, I wrote, "Let me tell you a brief story that I have previously related on this forum. When I was a missionary in South America, I once left a kerosene space heater burning as I drifted off to sleep. About 3 am, I suddenly awoke and saw a gaunt man in a black suit who rapidly covered his face just before he disappeared. I quickly turned off the fuming space heater and removed it from our room (which fortunately had very high ceilings). The next day, both my companion and I had pounding headaches. Now what is more likely? That the apparition was a supernatural being or that it was a figment of my imagination induced by carbon monoxide poisoning?"
And you replied, I really enjoyed this story, I as I explained to vines do not have any such stories to offer. My mission was rather dull served in the exotic Tulsa, Oklahoma field. I never left with lofty expectations of seeing anything like angels or skinny black clothed individuals - did you?
No, I did not.
Previously I wrote, 'To me, "vision or spiritual" strongly implies imagined - probably with strongly suggestive encouragement from JS. I do not see the difference between, "I saw the plates in a visionary or entranced state" and "I saw the plates while I was dreaming?" or "I saw the plates while I was hallucinating.'
And you responded, The word can be stretched in either direction, that is why I offered the other quotes, Martin obviously nuanced his specific meaning of the term as he saw the plates as plainly as he can see his hand in front of him. He certainly would have later explained a more nuanced meaning that you are describing if your interpretation is more correct.
I am willing to believe that he "saw the plates as plainly as he can see his hand in front of him". However, that does not mean he was not hallucinating. I saw a dark figure as plainly as I can see my hand in front of me. I did not sense that I was hallucinating, yet I concluded that in all probability, I was.
I would concur with you that the apparition was most probably due to the carbon monoxide but you yourself are able to figure that out Craig which is exactly my point. I have no doubt dreams and many experiences can be extremely vivid but we still have the ability to discern and dicepher between these realms. I have had dreams and many half conscience experiences but I am readily able to understand them as just that - just like what you seem to have the same ability in doing. I am yet to have a dream or half-conscience experience where I am not able to discern it as such. And like I said I failed to be hypnotized so for the gullible I accept your explanations but not for the mature as easily. Your type of experience and the many I read in SKEPTIC magazine explain a great deal to me about the seeming arbitrariness of these experiences if they were all "real" - many of them are religious people that are misinterpreting or wanting such an experience too much. Many come from the gullible and the naive, unlike yourself, we both saw plenty of those on the mission I am sure you would agree. I am yet to be convinced that ALL experiences such as Paul, many of the experiences from Catholic Saints or Joseph Smith and the majority of the populations basic and primary beliefs are simply reduced to these types of explanations especially when to me intelligent men like Oliver Cowdery or David Whitmer could reason and critically think just as well as you and I.
I have every reason to believe that highly rational people can be deceived.
You continue Why couldn't they have offered some sort of explanation such as what you offer of the carbon monoxide for what happened to them. They were clearly able to discern they weren't dreaming or just watching some movie or illusion but that there interaction with the experience was in fact real. Your experience shows how it might be more difficult for Joseph to fraud these men than you are making it out to be and your own self-realized example is evidence for that.
The witnesses of the BoM and Paul lived in a vastly different era. An explanation such as carbon monoxide poisoning was not even an option for them. Understanding of psychological phenomena was poorly understood (still is!), so there is no reason to think that they would have had the background needed to interpret their visions other than how they did.
Previously I wrote, "Actually, the discrepancies in testimony together with the admission that he never saw the golden plates, except in a "visionary or entranced state" seems to me strong evidence of hallucination and confusion."
And you asked, What discrepancies?
I was referring to the second hand account that you provided. I did not view it as consistent with the primary account.
Mother Whitmer used the same word, "vision" when she recounted the nephite messenger showing her the plates while she was going to milk the cows in broad daylight in the real empirical word, now she could be just making it up but that doesn't matter here for we are arguing about the use of the word. It is not incongruent here with Martin Harris's use. The word was not used in a dichotomous way with "real" as you are attempting to make it. Especially in light of the ontology of mormonism I explained earlier.
How is the vision of these witnesses any different than the witnesses of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens?
Previously, I wrote, "I believe that he believed that he saw an angel and the plates. And I can assure you that I did indeed see a gaunt figure dressed in a black suit. Does that mean that a gaunt figure in a black suit was actually present? Hardly".
And you replied, Because you are able to so discern Craig. And I assure you there is no respect lost or esteem on your part for so readily admitting that you were "duped" by the use of Carbon monoxide and that such an admission would be hardly impossible for any of the witnesses.
Again, you are making assumptions about the culture of these people and what they understood. In the time of Christ, people afflicted with psychological illnesses were judged as possessed of the devil. In another era, mentally ill people were burned as witches. Why? Because that is how their culture taught them to think and interpret such events. They did not have the insight provided by modern medical science to help with their interpretations.
Previously I wrote, 'Again, Whitmer uses the words "in a vision, or in the spirit". Would Whitmer want to go to his grave revealing that he had participated in one of the most significant deceptions ever attempted? That he had been a dupe?'
And you replied, He certainly would not want to go to his grave perpetuating a deception, most people want absolution and peace on their death bed not continued angst. Your attempt to switch the trustworthiness of taking something to his deathbed in your favor is not convincing to me.
I offered one alternative explanation (fear at being thought a dupe), but I think the most likely explanation is that Martin really believed that he had seen something in a vision - just like those who claim to have seen aliens, or those who saw fairies in earlier centuries.
You sayAnd your dismissal of the direct quote of David Whitmer for using the same words "in a vision" is simply being stubborn on your part Craig - he is clarifying how the word is being used and not allowing for the license you are taking with it to be agreeable with him. We call Joseph in the grove the "first vision" - does that mean we ever understand that to mean the first unreal experience or the first dream or the first illusion - NO! it specifically is being nuanced to refer to an experience with divine beings and our natural bodies remaining our natural bodies but needing to be protected if you will to be in such presence. That is all any of the witnesses were saying. We simply disagree on who is twisting the language I believe it is you.
OK, we disagree.
Previously I wrote, "Not if by denying their earlier testimonies they open themselves to ridicule as fools and dupes. Pride is a powerful thing. Moreover, it is quite possible that they believed their visions were real as much as the many sincere people who claim to have seen aliens or fairies or leprechauns."
And you responded, I don't think they would have opened themselves up to such ridicule and yes pride is a powerful thing and its sword cuts many ways. Great notoreity and respect I believe is closer to what would have been received by an official witness "coming clean" if you will, they are the ones "duped" not the "dupers" themselves. I remember watching an interview with one of the David Koresh followers who had ran away from the compound before all the hoopla took place and relayed how powerful Koresh was at brainwashing them all. I respected the man very much and don't think he opened himself up to ridicule as a fool or a dupe but rather respect for thinking his way through such foolishness and rising above it. All of the witnesses had myriad opportunity while away from the church to simply do so with no loss of respect or ridicule - I believe the ridicule was more persistant as long as they stood by their witness. The more time passed on, the less ridicule they would have had to endure. We can all have a good laugh years later craig. You make it too hard.
You have made a reasonable case discounting embarrassment as a motive. However, you have not addressed the more substantive issue: how is this type witness any different than witnesses of aliens abductions or fairies or leprechauns?
Previously, I commented 'Interesting apologetics. Who then was this "young man" who was an unofficial witness of the BoM and "One of the Quorum of the Twelve"?'
And you responded, First, apologetics should not engender any sense of it being a pejoritive term - it is a neutral term. You yourself are engaging in apologetics for non-belief.
Actually I consider myself to be engaged in apologetics for justified belief - NOT non-belief.
I don't know the exact name of the young man but the fact none of the official witnesses were part of the Quorum pretty well settles it for me.
I asked, "Why doesn't his testimony count?"
And you say, It does count I was just separating an "official" witness from an "unofficial" witness. The empirical nature of the official witnesses is what makes their experience so depthful. The other witnesses can't serve in the exact capacity except for themselves.
You show some creativity in discounting the testimony of the "unofficial witness" (while saying that it dfoes count), but your argument is weak. I have a hard time seeing how one testimony is more "empirical" than another. You have really perked my curiosity. Why is this person's name unknown? Why has the testimony of this witness been glossed over? As a lawyer, wouldn't you have some interest in a subpoena of this witness?
Previously I wrote, "I understand that you believe your epistemiology to be rational. So did I when I was a TBM. I also believe that the Church delivers you something that you want and need it to deliver."
And you responded, Alright. But in my mind I might be narrowing your term, your referring to mormons of a very narrow, literal and fundamentalist mindset - I call them very immature. And there are a lot of them unfortunately.
Would you classify Boyd K. Packer and Bruce R. McConkie as "immature" and as "fundamentalists"? I hope that you will give me a straight answer to this question.
You say, Fundamentalism is a disease that infects each and every religious movement, and it also allows for great ammunition and strawmen for nonbelievers because it distorts the reality of the religion. I don't believe mormonism for any TBM come hell or highwater I am a believer reasons - if I experience my cognitive experiences as similar to your gaunt figure experience as easily explainable in a different regard I happily take that path you can believe that or not. .
I am unsure exactly what you are saying here. I think you are saying that you would be willing to accept naturalistic explanations if they could explain the kinds of spiritual experiences you have had. Is that correct?
Often non-belief seems to me to be an oasis of rest (I am not referring to church callings I happily turn them down lately with my practice and daughters to attend to) but I mean existentially - if there is no God that can be as enticing a thought as to some it is a frightful thought.
Interesting point.
The church delivers for me in reality and theologically. Whether I want that depends on what time of day you ask me - but that want is not abiding in some dependant pychological sense, it wanes and faith and grace are what buoys it. I can experience the kind of pychological state of mind that your "want and need it to deliver" implies, I lost my wife and in the realm of love and relationships I often find myself with such a "feeling" or state of mind, I can contrast that to my religious beliefs and state of mind and they are not even close.
I am sorry to hear that you lost your wife. Raising two daughters alone must be very difficult. You have my respect and sincere best wishes. I know how hard it is to raise children, and I can only imagine how difficult that would be to do alone.
I wrote, "Previously when I spoke to you of the likely dissolution of the "self" when we die, you were scornful and derisive. Could it be that you adhere tenaciously to your views because of fear of death as personal annihilation?"
And you replied If I remember right our discussion was in regards to meaning, and I believe you were the one tenaciously hanging onto meaning even in finite atheistic senses. I simply call a spade a spade if it isn't there it isn't there. And if nihilism is - then nihilism is - who is the one that should be calling the other "fearful"?
I simply do not consider my belief system to be "nihilistic". I think purpose and mission can exist without requiring eternal life for individuals.
You continue Second, as I alluded to above, annihilation can be a very comforting thought and endless time living can be extremely difficult to face pychologically. I of course would be lying to say to you that I don't ever fear death. I would accuse you of the same thing if you stated otherwise but my beliefs aren't "tenaciously" hung onto for that reason. My fears of death wane back and forth, sometimes they are fear other times I deal with it quite well and nobly - there have been a couple times that I would have welcomed death even annihilation but that didn't change my beliefs.
Thanks for sharing that. I can see how you feel that your beliefs are independent of the fear of death.
Previously I said, "Your comments remind me of comments that I have heard from some loved ones. What do you think I should do when a loved one makes a statement such as this? Should I confront them and insist that theirs are without foundation, when they plainly believe that without their current beliefs, they would be unhappy?"
And you responded, I have no problem with honesty and believe it is the only vaccine of the fundamentalism disease that infects so many believers, mormons included. I also believe that fundamentalism to be the root many times of nonbelievers losing their faith. Because I believe what I stated to you above as real, the reality of our condition doesn't change one bit by just accepting non-belief as far as having to deal with death and meaning. You might even be surprised by the reactions of many of your loved ones being different from your own but nonetheless thoughtful. I thank god everyday (O.K. that is metaphor) for my "wayward" older brother who atleast didn't just put a mask on while we were growing up. He lived with integrity and experienced growing up with all of its mysteries, foibles, and troubles like he should have and I was then able to confront the nonsense and ridiculousness of many aspects of the church such as mask wearing and not facing reality in many situations in the same genuine fashion. In my mind spiritual growth is a spectrum of phases and one must deal with nonbelief issues and critically examine one beliefs or they forever remain in the fundamentalist type phase of growth, atheists and agnostics are in my mind further spiritually progressed than many believers they just have to let go of some of their own "fundamentalism's" as well in my opinion.
Interesting and insightful comments. Thanks. How do you define a fundamentalist? To me, a fundamentalist is someone who has developed a belief system that is immune to evidence and logic. A fundamentalist justifies his/her belief system by piling one unjustified assertion upon another. I do not see how this applies to atheists, except when they make assertions such as "There is no God" or "God is dead".
Previously, I said, "Being delicate is not the same thing as lying. BTW, I noticed that you changed the subject from JS to me. Why avoid answering the question?"
You say, I wasn't attempting to switch from JS to you but to simply answer your questions concerning his credibility in the same way - delicate and using tact and diplomacy is not the same as lying as you readily admit. Certainly we can agree that JS whether a liar or honest prophet understood full well that the reaction to plural marriage wasn't going to be tolerant and accepting? I see him saying the delicate and tactful things even if he had to deny it. His adherants and those plural wives he took obviously saw it that way. But you think I am equivocating I don't understand why, why is JS removed from the sphere of tact and delicacy when dealing with a unquestionably delicate issue?
Because he denied that he was practicing polygamy, and he did so for many years. He was not simply being tactful. It was outright denial, and the denial was a blatant lie. As I said before, that practice helped to establish a culture of "lying for the Lord".
Previously I wrote, ?This article relates to copper and gold foil production. This is nowhere close to steel manufacturing technology. You are comparing apples and pineapples?
And you replied You missed the articles point. Before this discovery the dating of such copper and gold foil production was a difference of thousands of years. The mormon apologist who awaits further discoveries is far from irrational for doing so, more and more discoveries of consequence are being made.
I see. The point I am trying to make is that steal making technology is impossible to hide or cover up and would have easily been discovered by now. It is really very sophisticated. Does it really make sense that we have this small population of people who has steel making technology, and can make better swords than any other group, and this technology never makes it to the wider group of people? It strikes me as entirely contrary to what we know of the diffusion of technology. Moreover, a large size civilization derived from the Mideast would have left an enormous number of relics that would support its existence and origins. In addition to steel artifacts, it would have left thousands or even millions of artifacts supporting other technology described in the Book of Mormon (animal husbandry, agriculture, etc.). Given the prophecies about the Lamanites recorded in the Book of Mormon, it would have left a significant imprint in the DNA of modern Native Americans populations.
Previously I wrote about Sorenson, "This is vintage Mormon apologetics. First Sorenson makes it appear that there is great dispute among experts when there is general consensus. He uses old and outdated source material. He actually twists negative evidence into positive evidence. He mixes evidence from vastly different time periods and cultures. He fails to consider how what we would expect to find if the account if the BoM account were correct and how this stacks up against what we actually find."
And you responded, I think you are confusing "rationalizations" as differing world views and you aren't seeing the rationale from the different viewpoint. I also don't want to make the very same point you are criticizing but craig well read individuals including myself that don't claim to be experts over experts don't see every single aspect of scientific discovery and theory to be so static and find such general consensus opposite any flux. Without saying science is unreliable we can still view it as process oriented without your black and white perspective on it, things in archeology do indeed change and that is not just "vintage apologetics".
You misunderstand the process of scientific inquiry. Typically, it is a gradual approximation process. New theories must account for the evidence used to justify previous theory as well as any new evidence that fails to support the old theory (inclusiveness). Consequently, when an old theory is abandoned, it is replaced by a new theory that is better justified according to the standards of evidence that we have discussed and agreed upon. The longer a theory can withstand attempts to disprove it, the more credible it becomes. The more affirmative evidence a theory can accumulate, the more credible it becomes. An example of an extremely well justified theory is the theory of evolution.
The process can be compared to the gradual recovery of a wooly mammoth from ice. Suppose that as we dig into the ice, we first hit the tusks. We hypothesize that we have hit a giant boar. We dig further and find the trunk, and change our hypothesis: we now postulate a male elephant. Further digging reveals a shaggy body, and we now know we have a mammoth. At this point, further digging is unlikely to change our theory. We gradually zero in on the truth.
Previously I commented on Sorenson's meteoric argument. "Meteoric alloys! You have got to be kidding. How much meteoritic iron do you think there is on this planet? Sufficient deposits to make the swords needed for armies that numbered in the hundreds of thousands? Was the hill that Shule used to make his swords made out of meteorites (Ether 7:9)."
And you responded, I think I either misunderstand Sorenson or you do. I didn't take meteoric alloys to mean - meteors from the sky. I took it as a particular categorization of steel. Nickel-iron was an example he gave of that such categorization that is listed as a type of steel experts categorize as.
Meteoric iron is called "meteoric" precisely because it is an extraterrestrial Fe-Ni alloy derived from meteors.
Please see this commentary:
http://www.exmormon.org/2nephi5.htm
Upon doing some additional research, I found that there is evidence of significant deposits of meteoric iron around the world (wherever meteorites have landed), and there is evidence that some ancient societies were able to make implements with these deposits. So you have a point, howbeit a weak one. It is weak because the reason we know today that these ancient people did this is because implements made of meteoric iron have been discovered. This is not the case with the BoM peoples, which somehow managed to hide their steel (a.k.a. meteoric) implements and weapons.
Therefore Joseph Smith using the word "steel" wouldn't be anachronistic.
I think Joseph understood full well what steel was. If he wanted to say iron, he could have said iron. In Jarom 1:8, iron and steel are differentiated in the same verse, and mention is made of manufacture of "tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the javelin, and all preparations for war." Where did all these implements go?
Also every instance in the BoM of swords doesn't necesarily correlate to "steel" because of the other references that do so.
This begs the question as to why steel technology would not have diffused rapidly throughout the Americas.
The amount used is in question even from the text itself. Wood swords is the more plausible interpretation of many parts of texts such as the Anti-Nephi-Lehis who use the word "stain" in regards to their swords, much more plausible if they actually had wood or some other substance that would stain unlike "steel".
You are really stretching things here. There is mention in the BoM of rusting swords (Mosiah 8:11). Which is more plausible - stained steel or rusting wood?
Other type weapons that the spanish called "swords" could also offer explanation for the use of the word not being anachronistic.
Why would Joseph use a Spanish definition for the word "sword"?
Previously I wrote, "Please. The linguistic data is in no way confirmatory. Quite the contrary. The DNA evidence is rolling in and the results do not support past positions of the Church leadership."
Why is it that past leadership is the consensus among critics and nonbelievers of the church for truth, especially in a religion that is process oriented and believes that many new truths and ideas will come to it via many different avenues including science? If past leadership simply being shown to historically been in error is our falsifier you win hands down craig.
OK I win. The problem is that if past leaders were not credible why should the current leaders be credible?
Continuing you say, I just have never viewed such a thing outside of a historical lens, even religions craig, even true religions are found within history and to expect them to somehow remove themselves from the confines of history is naive, even if the movement believes in continuing revelation.
What do you mean by "true" religion? (Should I simply substitute "my" for "true"?). How do you determine which religion is true and which is not?
You say, Concerning the DNA it is simply problematic for those last remaining few that hold to some forlong conception that the book of mormon migrations to the new world were solely responsible for the population of the new world and are directly the only descendants of the modern day Indian.
It is a problem for the BoM because the book makes no mention of other inhabitants or their cultures. It is not plausible that encounters with native peoples with completely different cultures and languages and traditions would go unrecorded, especially given the level of detail that the BoM contains on culture. Why doesn?t the BoM mention the animals and crops that we know actually were a rich part of ancient American cultures?
We knew before DNA of the migrations concerning the bering straight, DNA has not even in fact told us anything new but simply confirmed what we already did know in this general sense.
More evidence means more certitude. Less evidence means less certitude.
I have asked several mormon friends after I read your post if they ever conceived of the new world being without any other population when the Jaredites or Lehi arrived, none of them answered in the affirmitive and all of them gave me answers such as that just wouldn't make sense.
They are of course correct. It does not make sense. The problem is that your friends are not applying the same logic to their analysis of the BoM text. They are compartmentalizing.
You say, It is a perfect example of the fundamentalist and literalists defining the whole religion and the critics concentrating on them and proclaiming an easy and false victory.
I think it is more correct to say that as science establishes certain things to be correct, the Church intelligentsia attempt to force fit that evidence into a paradigm that becomes increasingly more deformed and exaggerated. Instead of drawing straight lines to connect the dots, they draw squiggles in a desperate effort to make the evidence fit the picture that they desire. The Fundamentalists simply reject the science outright ? they denigrate it as "trusting in the arm of flesh".
You say, I will hold off on the language as we are obviously diametrically opposed and I don't want to make any mistake in my response before catching up my now several year old study regarding that.
Fair enough.
You say, When you say, "and the BoM makes no mention of other inhabitants" that is simply false. It was assumed that way by early members of the church - big deal - a closer examination of the text shows otherwise.
Please show me how the BoM establishes this. Please also provide the scriptural evidence of contact with new cultures and the belief systems of those cultures. It is not plausible that the BoM would fail to contain this information.
Previously I wrote, "You underestimate Joseph's capabilities for fraud. It's that simple. The complexity of the BoM can be explained as a result of the evolutionary development forced upon Joseph by the lost pages episode. Desperation gave rise to inspiration."
You replied, I don't underestimate the capability for fraud, but also allow for the capability of honesty which you don't seem to do.
I would allow for honesty if Joseph?s life demonstrated honesty. It does not.
You say, The BoM complexity can hardly be explained the same way I put a pleading together the day before a deadline. I also assure you my work under desperation is hardly as inspired and well done as my timely and responsible work.
The evolutionary model of BoM complexity makes sense to me. It helps to explain many aspects of the BoM structure - particularly the many different plates.
Previously I said, 'The "simple facts" that you have presented are a far cry from the kind of evidence needed to support the BoM. To me, it is patently obvious that this was a fraud, and Joseph went to great lengths to prevent it from being uncovered.'
And you replied, Great lengths that could easily be identified and seen in the historical record. I recently discussed quickly the magical and alchemical ingredients in early mormonism after I have read the now decade released McClellin Diaries. These intimate portrayals of the early movement and of the leaders themselves including Joseph Smith and their comversations and how they talked about the BoM and the restoration flies in the face of your whole theory. He not only must have went to great lengths Craig he masterfully did as has never been seen before successfully went to great lengths - your theory is so subjective it makes me wonder as to what you mean by the term.
I have not read the McClellin diaries that are so convincing to you, but when I weight the evidence pro and con regarding the historicity of the BoM, it is simply overwhelming in the negative.
Previously I write, "Nibley is perhaps the most dishonest scholars the Church has ever produced. Among other things, he mixes time periods and cultures to create the illusion of a unified ancient world belief system. He has a sharp tongue, so apologists have made him a kind of folk hero."
And you responded, It is your use of the word dishonest that really repels me from your interpretation of him. Wrong I can accept but dishonest is absurd. How do you know nibley is dishonest?
You are correct that I cannot know his motives. So I will retract the word "dishonest". Would "sloppy" be preferable? I have no doubt that Nibley misrepresents evidence and is entirely ignorant of science. He writes with biting sarcasm, but he fails to satisfy the standards of evidence we have discussed.
You say, I doubt very much he has ever even attempted the unified construction of the ancient world belief systems and am sure he would laugh at even the suggestion of such a heculean task.
In his writing, Nibley often makes statements such as "The ancients believed...". He makes little effort to disciminate among the "ancients".
You say, His main evidences are simply parallels to evidence anyone can read in the Nag Hammadi or other ancient sources - if mormonism is true with a serious waxing and waning - coming and going - evolving and devolving of the true conception of god and priesthood then the type of evidence Nibley presents from the ancient world is exactly what we would expect to see in a world belief system that no one would claim could be unified especially Nibley.
The problem is that Nibley creates unjustified parallels. He conjures up relationships where there is no reason it should exist. I wish now that I had not thrown out my extensive collection of Nibley works, so that I could give you a few concrete examples. Unfortunately, I must simply rely on my memory.
You say, And I don't care how liberal one becomes on the sources JS had available to him these were not. Why can I so easily respect Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan, and many other nonbelievers but you must dismiss mormonism's best and brightest with simple folk hero hominens and dishonesty.
As a young TBM, I once commented to my uncle (also LDS) that Nibley was such an impressive scholar. My uncle (a professor of biochemistry at a top university) responded that the LDS scholars he knew in Nibley's field at his university had very low regard for Nibley's scholarship. Nibley is by no means Mormonism's "best and brightest". The best and brightest were men like Henry Eyring Sr., B. H. Roberts, Hugh B. Brown, and Lowell Bennion. There are many more, but not Nibley.
Previously I wrote, "Let's consider application of Occam's razor to your god sense: what is the most simple and straightforward explanation for this god sense? (1) God instilled it within you to provide proof of his existence or (2) It is the result of evolutionary pressures on the brain of primitive hominids. I think the most straightforward answer is number 2."
And you responded, My answer is Occam's Razor clearly cuts my way. Let me further elaborate.
Please do.
Previously I wrote, "I tend to believe that the worldview that can be constructed using solid, high quality scientific evidence (an abrupt origin of the Universe in the Big Bang, evolution of life forms over billions of years, emergence of hominids about 1 million years ago, and subsequent patterns of human migration) is diffficult to reconcile with the worldview that emerges from Church teachings (Garden of Eden, Global Flood and Noahs Ark, Tower of Babel, BoM's implausible origins of American Indians). I also find that there are plenty of other issues where I disagree with past or present Church teachings - including accceptance of homosexuality, plural marriage and its coverup, blood atonement practices in the days of Brigham Young, the idea of Prophet infallability, the idea of American origins for the Polynesians, condemnation of free-thinking (though I love Hugh B. Brown's views on this), and the racist priesthood policy that was finally lifted the very same day that I returned from my mission to South America (where I had wasted considerable time and effort trying to justify why we avoided teaching and baptizing perfectly nice people because they were "juiced" - to use the offensive racist venacular common within my mission). Moreover, unlike some people, I was never moved by the temple experience, and, in fact, quite the contrary - I found it harshly offensive, weird, and uncomfortable. All these issues weigh into my current feelings regarding the Church (of course. I do have plenty of positive feelings and experiences as well)."
And you replied, You seem to believe that science and religion are enemies and you can't accept a believer finding true reconciliation through the two in faith of a later convergence of the two - true sciene is true religion and vice versa.
I have yet to hear of a successful reconciliation and quite frankly I do not believe that one is possible or forthcoming.
You say, Take physics for example - it is successful precisely because it is an abstraction.
No. Physics is successful because its theories satisfy the standards that we have previously agreed upon.
You say, Quantifiable features of the universe are abstracted into probabilistic laws. It's greatest stength is its very limitation.
I disagree. Its greatest strength is its ability to explain so much of what is observed.
You say, The uniqueness of individuals is ignored in order to see better the general ways in which individuals fit into groups and patterns of group relationships.
What individuals are you referring to? I doubt that physicists I know would agree that they ignore the uniqueness of individuals.
You say, This mathematical approach is highly successful as a means to understand and control physical features of our environment but why suppose they are the most important questions - why is what more important than why?
I do not understand what you are saying.
You say, The fundamental difference between science and religion does not entail that they must be in conflict.
Explain to me how Mormonism can be reconciled with the modern scientific worldview - espcially the evidence written in our genes.
You say, While scientific humanism does preclude religion, religion does not preclude a scientific understanding of the physical world - mormonism certainly doesn't preclude this.
I see no possibility of reconciliation. I see one conflict after another, particularly as we proceed deeper and deeper into molecular biology.
You say, Any choice even according to your criteria for a world view should be the epistemologically MOST powerful for acting in the world, which accounts for the most significant and the greatest variety of relevant experience, and which solves what are taken to be the most significant problems. Religion in my eyes can simply accept the findings of science and not preclude them and additionally add explanations concerning meaning, value and love that science cannot. People hold the worldviews they do because of values - you must value something before constructing a congruent worldview concerning it. You offer me faith in science alone - why should I trade in for that when I already have it and all that it offers me and MUCH MUCH MORE?
The problem is that Mormonism (and many other religions) make historical claims that can be examined using the tools of science and invalidated.
You are making an incorrect assumption when you say that the choice you have is between faith in science alone and your faith as it currently stands. The choice is between a worldview that fully incorporates and accepts the findings of science and one that does not. I believe that your current worldview fails to accommodate the big picture that is revealed by science, particularly as it relates to biology. I also suspect that one reason you may feel that your current view offers you much much more is because you have not yet obtained a deep appreciation of biology. Of course, your current worldview does allow you to be participate in an extensive social support system, and that would likely be less accessible if you did not have your current worldview.
Some religious claims do not contradict science and probably cannot be refuted by science. I would never argue against a worldview that includes such beliefs as a "leap of faith" provided that the resulting belief system helped that person to be kinder, nobler, more ethical, more virtuous.
You say, I don't believe science can answer adequately the following:
Religious Genuis and other forms of genuis that have affected and effected great amounts of mankind.
What I call seraphic love - a dynamic pair of both agape and eros.
Meaning and universal values and morals - not ethics or reasoning about morals but morals per se.
Logic and rationality.
I am willing to bet that many if not all of these phenomena will eventually be understood as an outcome of evolutionary biology and neurobiology.
You say, All of the above could be simply construed as transcendental arguments for the existence of god and maybe they are but I simply assert when disagreement goes to the level of presuppositions as our's does they add depth to the criteria you desire to follow. You already pointed out in your own journey that a change of worldview is what happened - you decided the proverbial "egg" was developed critical thinking, I disagree and suppose it to be other attitudinal elements - our disagreement although goes to a level of fundamental presuppositions or world views and these arguments can't be resolved in the same manner as, "what color is that car across the street?". I believe the world view that cannot account for preconditions of our experience fails under occam's razor by reductio ad absurdum.
What do you mean by "preconditions of our experience"?
You continue, For instance and all the above could be further examples, you obviously accept logic. I call it a universal. You probably would call it a convention like Martin did with me previously to avoid the very self-evident argument you would face.
Again I do not understand what you are saying.
You continue Regardless logical laws are not based on observation or empirically as scientific laws are, science assumes it. Some logical truths are so complex it is difficult to believe that anyone has perceived their instances in experience or empirically. But you obviously would accept that the one of us who uses logic consistently would be more right or right in this very dialogue yet if it is just a convention the very fact of which of us is right or wrong could not be determined because convention would be all that is determining such.
I have tried to consistently use the language of "justified beliefs" and "unjustified beliefs" - not "right" and "wrong".
You say, To me craig parsimony cuts my way for these and many more reasons that include and add greater depth to a scientific alone world view. The first step in conflict resolution is to take the person on the other side of the negotiating table at their best, at our best believers have a sensibility that nonbelievers lack.
You are clearly convinced that this is the case, so you make these assertions. I see no reason to believe that "our best believers have a sensibility that nonbelievers lack". What special sensibility do you see in "our best and brightest"? The "best and brightest" people I know are mostly agnostic, and they are wonderful caring people, certainly no less thoughtful and kind than the religious people I have known.
Previously I wrote, "I am relieved that you hold the position you do regarding homosexuality (though I have to admit that I wonder about the congruity of your views when you sustain Gordon B. Hinkley as a "Prophet, Seer, and Revelator"). I have come to similar views using logic and a consideration of the genetic and environmental evidence."
And you responded, Sustain as in.....? Certainly you don't mean checking my brain at the chapel and trading it in for a carbon copy of his?
I do not understand how you decide which of his council is worth following and which should be rejected. I do not understand your criteria. I do not understand why God is telling Gordon B. Hinkley one thing and you another. Please explain.
I also have a nagging feeling that just living and experience was additionally added to your consideration with the use of logic and evidence.
Yes, you are correct. Living and experience also played a role.
Thanks, Mike. I have enjoyed discussing things with you.
Craig
(edited to correct a few stupid things, and some problems with the posting of quotation marks)
