jkwilliams Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 41 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: When significant, genuine parallels show up in the Book of Mormon, potentially linking it to these two ancient settings, then the tables are turned and the critics are the ones who are forced to rely on absence of evidence arguments in order to defend their position. However, their arguments necessarily rely on what is known in the 19th century. If a parallel in the text seems to be far beyond mere guesswork and to be underivable from the available scholarship of the day, (such as Lehi's throne theophany, or King Mosiah's coronation ceremony, or Lehi's poetic couplet at the Valley of Lemuel, etc.), then critics are compelled to find some other way Joseph Smith could have had access to this material in the 19th century (or of course just write it off as a very lucky coincidence). Yet because we have far more data about the 19th century, the critic's reliance on absence of evidence arguments is significantly disadvantaged. As data bases have grown and our ability to digitally search documents has significantly increased, it gets harder and harder to suggest that Joseph Smith got an idea that was just floating around. We have a very good idea about what was floating around, when it was floating around, and often times even where. We don't know absolutely. There is always the chance that Joseph received some arcane text from a book trader traveling along the Eire Canal, but, generally speaking, we know far more about what was and wasn't in Joseph Smith's immediate environment than we know about what was or wasn't present in ancient Mesoamerica or the ancient Near East. Maybe it's just me, but you seem to be grossly overstating the strength of these "genuine parallels." Sure, some interesting stuff has shown up from apologetics, but you can't seriously argue that these parallels force critics to rely on absence of evidence, much less that they are "significantly disadvantaged." The apologists I respect the most are those who acknowledge that the evidence is tenuous at best, as it really is just trying to find parallels with the ancient world. An overstatement of the value of these parallels gets one into a lot of trouble (see Douglas Salmon's essay). Perhaps the reason no one is engaging you on the evidence is that you can't acknowledge that the evidence is tenuous and ambiguous in the first place. For whatever reason, you seem to have decided that there is all this solid evidence, and we critics are just ignoring it. This isn't exactly a great starting point for discussion. 1 Link to comment
stemelbow Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 38 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: I think we have already been through this. Yes, I get that absence of evidence arguments work both ways. I get that what seem to be great parallels may actually not be and that sound methodologies must be used in order to reach conclusions based on shared or similar features. These issues are fundamental to essentially all discussions of what was in the past and when. However, it's not like you can just wave the "Texas Sharpshooter fallacy" wand at whatever claim you want and easily prove that it has no merit. Your approach would basically undermine all historical and archaeological methods of dating except for the scientific dating of physical remains (like radiocarbon dating). It's not about proving that something comes from a certain time period. Absence of evidence arguments will always leave room for doubt. It's about making the most reasonable inferences possible, based on the available data. And these inferences are all about similarities and dissimilarities of content--in other words about parallels or the lack thereof. I think you raise a fair point in that no matter how hard we try we're going to be misled and we're going to misrepresent ancient civilizations and cultures. THat's the fallible nature of humanity and the sometimes subjective nature of historical analysis. But that doesn't take away the notion that the parallels are only significant if one assumes first the ancient source of the Book of Mormon story. 38 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: There is actually some fundamental reasons that absence of evidence arguments generally play into the apologists' favor. We know far more about what was in the 19th century than we do about what was in the ancient world. This is because the number of available historical documents, and the ability to digitally search them, is way larger for the 19th century. When critics bring up anachronisms, such as horses or the lack of Nephite remains in Mesoamerica, it doesn't mean a whole lot. Why? Because that time and place creates significant sampling problems. Most evidence disintegrates over time, especially in Mesoamerican jungles. This, in turn, makes it very difficult to prove a negative--meaning to prove something didn't exist in this setting. The Middle East is actually a different ball game. You don't hardly see critics attacking the Book of Mormon on that front any more (they mostly try to defend on that front). Part of it is because only a small portion of the text takes place there, but part of it is also because we have made a number of significant finds which make the Book of Mormon very believable in this setting--it has better strengths and essentially none of the weaknesses of the Mesoamerican setting. When significant, genuine parallels show up in the Book of Mormon, potentially linking it to these two ancient settings, then the tables are turned and the critics are the ones who are forced to rely on absence of evidence arguments in order to defend their position. However, their arguments necessarily rely on what is known in the 19th century. If a parallel in the text seems to be far beyond mere guesswork and to be underivable from the available scholarship of the day, (such as Lehi's throne theophany, or King Mosiah's coronation ceremony, or Lehi's poetic couplet at the Valley of Lemuel, etc.), then critics are compelled to find some other way Joseph Smith could have had access to this material in the 19th century (or of course just write it off as a very lucky coincidence). I'm more of the opinion that parallels aren't very helpful unless there is an explainable connection. 38 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: Yet because we have far more data about the 19th century, the critic's reliance on absence of evidence arguments is significantly disadvantaged. As data bases have grown and our ability to digitally search documents has significantly increased, it gets harder and harder to suggest that Joseph Smith got an idea that was just floating around. We have a very good idea about what was floating around, when it was floating around, and often times even where. We don't know absolutely. There is always the chance that Joseph received some arcane text from a book trader traveling along the Eire Canal, but, generally speaking, we know far more about what was and wasn't in Joseph Smith's immediate environment than we know about what was or wasn't present in ancient Mesoamerica or the ancient Near East. There is another very fundamental problem facing the critics. The Book of Mormon may have been written in the ancient world, but it was written for a modern audience and even directly addressed to a modern audience. I would call that a far bigger challenge to the apologist. Each and every parallel is possibly created in the modern world. Guesswork still happens, or source material can still guide. We already know, for instance, that Joseph used a bible commentary to compose much of his translation of the Bible. And we really didn't seem to learn that until approximately 2 years ago when it was discovered to the be case. 38 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: Its prophetic authors claimed to have seen our day in vision and that God specifically inspired them about what content they should include. In other words, if it was written for us and God specifically selected the content for us, then there is a good chance that God selected the content that would be the most relevant to us, and have the most resonance with us. That is quite a challenge for the defender. It could be rather convenient to say they saw our day therefore wrote for our needs, when all it really could be was it was written in our day, or closer to our day, addressing the concerns of Joseph's day. 38 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: There is also another fundamental problem facing the critics. The Book of Mormon is a translated text, and many translations are functional to one degree or another. As opposed to a literal translation, a functional translations caters to the language and idiom of the target audience. Critics, to my knowledge, simply cannot provide any evidence proving that much of translation wasn't functional in nature. There is virtually know way to discount a dynamic translation--with a large degree of functionality in it--as a viable possibility. Every thing you are calling a problem for the critics is really, in my estimation, a problem for the apologist. Have a dynamic translation, but the burden to prove historicity still remains. 38 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: The above two factors--(1) the fact that the text claims to be divinely crafted for a modern audience and (2) the uncontestable possibility that much of it could have been functionally translated --negates the significance of many 19th century parallels. In other words, thematic and linguistic parallels with the 19th century are essentially meaningless, because the nature of the text arguably predicts they should be there. And this creates a significant disparity in the overall argument. The only types of 19th century parallels with any degree of significance are things that seem to be arbitrary or obscure--like Captain Kid stuff (which has serious problems with it, by the way). General themes like 19th century patriotism and democracy, and specific word-level arguments like the use of "secret combinations" don't have any real evidentiary value. And lots of arguments for 19th century origins rely on these types of irrelevant evidences. It seems to me you are only preferring one set of parallels (ancient ones) over another (modern ones). If there is good reason the text was written to address the modern audience, that does not vindicate the claim that ancients saw our day and magically wrote it to address our audience. That's just a matter of convenience written into the text. We still have yet to see good reason to accept that it was written anciently. The burden, as it were, still remains. 38 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: Therefore, you can't meaningfully argue that the Book of Mormon doesn't fit its claimed ancient contexts because absences of evidences in the ancient world makes proving a negative nigh to impossible. And, for the most part, you can't argue that the Book of Mormon belongs exclusively to the 19th century because the text itself leads us to expect that it would be oriented toward 19th century themes and that it would be understandable to a modern audience. Much to the critics' dismay, I am sure, this situation makes it so that the only evidence that really counts very much is positive evidence for its ancient context. Either it has sufficient positive evidence to be believable in its claimed ancient contexts or it doesn't. And, unfortunately for the critics, it has loads of it. In my view here is what we have: 1. A text that is filled with parallels to ancient Near Eastern content, much of it underivable in Joseph's day and not likely to be guessed. THe level of likelihood could be argued though. No matter how likely if it was written in the modern day, then it was as unlikely an event it might have been. 38 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: 2. A text that is at least consistent with many features of a Mesoamerican setting, and which has a few parallels that were unlikely to be guessed and which are virtually certain to be unknown in Joseph's day. This remains a pretty debatable point. Because parallels exist does not mean anachronism, or other elements of non fitting don't exist. Weighing in the balance the two sides might drop any soul on either side of the debate, I suppose. But, we're still left concluding based on our own subjective positions. 38 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: 3. A text which is very long, extremely complex and consistent, and well beyond anything we should expect from the 23-year-old Joseph Smith. I honestly don't mind the point that it is unlikely Joseph wrote it. But there remains so many possibilities to counteract that that using this to support historicity seems meaningless. The text could be inspired by some higher power and yet not directly tell the history of an ancient people at all. the story itself could still be made up. 38 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: 4. A text which, according to the best historical data available, was dictated in the presence of scribes in no more than 74 days, without any reference materials or revisions. Same as above. Ok. Great. But that doesn't mean this point support historicity, even if one grants the point itself. 38 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: 5. A text which employs a lot of EModE features that Joseph Smith should not have known about, should not have been able to implement, and were very unlikely to be present in his environment--hence giving credence to the idea that the English text of the Book of Mormon was revealed to him in a supernatural way. The presence of EmodE doesn't seem to argue for or against historicity. How did the presence of such features get in there? Any number of possibilities...but claiming this supports it was written a couple thousand years ago, seems silly and it undercuts the point of hebraisms, it seems to me. 38 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: So, on lots of fronts we have a text that seems to be authentically ancient, supernaturally dictated, and which seems to defy the assumption that Joseph just made it up on the fly. There are lots of evidences that critics don't have good answers for (none of which we have discussed yet in any depth), and as discussed before, there are major obstacles that the critics face when trying to prove 19th century origin or the lack of data in the ancient world. Critics don't need to prove the 19th century origin of it. That it seems most likely from whence it came is a valid conclusion though. The burden remains for those who claim it was written anciently. 38 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: At least that's how I see the general evidence for historicity/divine translation stacking up. I am actually interested in testing some of the ancient Near Easter evidences as case studies. They don't get engaged much by critics (I'm not using this term pejoratively by the way), and so I don't know what reasons are typically used for dismissing them. I would be interested in some feedback from members of this board about a few of them (probably only two or three), just to see how it plays out. I would post them, probably just one at a time, on another thread, if anyone is interested to engage. And then you, Cinepro, can explain how your sharpshooter fallacy works in specific situations and why none of the parallels I find to be valid are really valid.😉 Thanks. Cinepro's pretty sharp, moreso than I, so I doubt I've taken anything form his response. But I figured I had a few minutes and wanted to continue the discussion a bit. Appreciate your willingness to this point. Link to comment
Ryan Dahle Posted June 29, 2018 Author Share Posted June 29, 2018 9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Maybe it's just me, but you seem to be grossly overstating the strength of these "genuine parallels." Sure, some interesting stuff has shown up from apologetics, but you can't seriously argue that these parallels force critics to rely on absence of evidence, much less that they are "significantly disadvantaged." The apologists I respect the most are those who acknowledge that the evidence is tenuous at best, as it really is just trying to find parallels with the ancient world. An overstatement of the value of these parallels gets one into a lot of trouble (see Douglas Salmon's essay). Perhaps the reason no one is engaging you on the evidence is that you can't acknowledge that the evidence is tenuous and ambiguous in the first place. For whatever reason, you seem to have decided that there is all this solid evidence, and we critics are just ignoring it. This isn't exactly a great starting point for discussion. I think you are misrepresenting me. First of all, all parallels are tenuous. I never said otherwise. What I'm saying is that some parallels are better than others and that real scholars use parallels all the time to help date historical material. There are methodologies involved which help attenuate the tentative nature of the parallels and which provide logical, persuasive reasons for trusting in what is inherently an inferential exercise. In other words, I'm suggesting we approach evaluating the validity of parallels in the ways that they are typically evaluated in historical fields that necessarily rely upon them all the time. Maybe critics have all these great reasons to discount lots of these parallels, but I have never read them in any published or online source on the Book of Mormon. Maybe they are out there, and I just have never seen them. Link to comment
Analytics Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 17 hours ago, clarkgoble said: That's fairly trivial to do. I'm surprised that's your hang up. Consider the broad position of non-computationalist functionalists. (Here computation means those who think a complex computer program can product mind) A good example of this type of functionalist would be John Searle who's written a fair bit on mind. (He's famous for his Chinese Room thought experiment) This type of functionalism doesn't necessarily think only animal brains can produce mind, but thinks some material items are needed to produce mind based upon their function. This obviously includes a wide assortments of different views of mind. One type of functionalism would be again Roger Penrose's which sees a moment of mind as arising out of the collapse of the wave equation for a quantum state. While this isn't the only position among physicists (multiple worlds is actually among the more popular surprisingly) it is a major one albeit not usually pushed as far as Penrose puts it. As I mentioned there is an empirical way to get quantum states via nanotubuals in neurons and some fair empirical evidence for anesthesia working in that fashion when it ceases conscious perception. Indeed there's a major paper in the main journal Anesthesiology last month on just that. "Anesthetic Action and “Quantum Consciousness”: A Match Made in Olive Oil" (The olive oil bit is significant because it turns out the chemicals that act as consciousness halting anesthesia are all soluble in oil but not water and that the degree of solubility ends up related to their effect on consciousness) However even just speaking of functionalism broadly speaking and not Penrose's theory of quantum computing and consciousness so long as something material has those functions then it can have consciousness. You'd then need the following: material substrate for a conscious "soul" (I put that in quotes since Mormonism doesn't necessarily embrace a traditional soul - for instance Brigham Young was a physicalist who thought souls could be destroyed and were made out of physical parts) functional equivalent parts that existed prior to birth and after death (I'm being as broad as possible here - all that's needed is some causal and historical connection to the brain) So if one embraces Penrose/Hameroff like solutions (not necessarily their particular ontology but perhaps their broad mechanism) then you've pretty well explained how the Mormon conception of the soul is possible. Hi Clark, First, you've been an incredibly patient and gracious guy to talk to despite my barbs, and I wanted to thank you. My vacation is coming to an end so I'm going to be scaling back my participation here. But before I go I want to address this issue. My point is here is that it the idea of a spirit made out of matter that is more "fine" and "pure" that somehow interfaces with the human brain is dubious. What does this spirit matter mean in terms of the "Core Theory" (by which I mean quantum field theory plus quantum gravity)? According to Carroll, "The Core Theory is not the most elegant concoction that has ever been dreamed up in the mind of a physicist, but it's been spectacularly successful at accounting for every experiment ever performed in a laboratory here on Earth. (At least as of mid-2015--we should always be ready for the next surprise.)" So what is spirit matter? Can it be described in terms of the fermion and boson fields of the Core Theory, or is it something else? If spirit matter can interact with the physical stuff of our brains, how come it hasn't been detected? I'm fine with the idea that there are forces and things in other dimensions, but as soon as those things somehow interface with the matter in our realm (e.g. our brains), they should be detectable. The problem is, as far as I'm aware, there is nothing going on in the brain that isn't completely explained by the Core Theory. So to your point, if sprit-matter is real, that easily explains where consciousness happens. I would love for that to exist. However, I'm hung up on how a hypothesized spirit could interface with our brains without us being able to detect it--or at the very least with us having failed to detect it so far. In the words of Carroll, "There are no vague or unspecified pieces waiting to be filled in; the equations predict how matter and energy behave in any given situation, whether it’s the Earth revolving around the sun, or electrochemical impulses cascading through your central nervous system... "To address [questions of the soul] seriously, we wouldn’t necessarily need to have a “Soul Theory” that is as rigorous and well developed as the Core Theory of physics. We would, however, need to be specific and quantitative about how the Core Theory could possibly be changed. There needs to be a way that “soul stuff” interacts with the fields of which we are made—with electrons, or photons, or something. Do those interactions satisfy conservation of energy, momentum, and electric charge? Does matter interact back on the soul, or is the principle of action and reaction violated? Is there “virtual soul stuff” as well as “real soul stuff,” and do quantum fluctuations of soul stuff affect the measurable properties of ordinary particles? Or does the soul stuff not interact directly with particles, and merely affect the quantum probabilities associated with measurement outcomes? Is the soul a kind of “hidden variable” playing an important role in quantum ontology? "If you want to be a dualist and believe in an immaterial soul that plays any role whatsoever in who we are as human beings, these questions are not optional. We’re not rigging the game by demanding a full-blown mathematical theory of the soul itself; we’re simply asking how the soul is supposed to affect the mathematical theory of the quantum fields that we already have." 17 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Again, not to be pedantic but we have to be careful to distinguish between "there isn't public evidence for X" from "X contradicts our well established theories." My sense is you're conflating the two. However if you actually do think there's a contradiction could you clearly explain what it is? The position I'm trying to articulate is somewhere in-between. Yes, there is no public evidence for X. But further, if X existed, it probably should have been detected by now; "there are no vague or unspecified pieces waiting to be filled in." I do happily grant that X is ill-defined. Maybe in terms of the Core Theory spirit matter is simply matter that interacts with fields exactly as the theory says it should, but somehow we've just failed to be looking at the right place at the right time and haven't seen it? Or maybe there are forces in the real world that have never been experimentally detected but if they were, the Core Theory would prove to be missing something? I grant that in principle some surprise like that is possible, and like the devote scientismist that I am, I believe all that science has revealed, all that it does now reveal, and I believe that it will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the nature of reality. But until that happens, I'm going to cautiously believe that the vaguely undefined substance referred to as spirit matter vaguely contradicts the Core Theory. 17 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Again while several prominent GAs have rejected evolution you're making a stronger claim above than I've even seen the strongest anti-evolutionists like Joseph Fielding Smith or Bruce R. McConkie make. Certainly there have been prominent figures like Talmage and others who've adopting much more compatible views. As for the claim humans aren't animals, that certainly is incompatible with what we know of DNA but I've not seen anyone making that claim. The following quote is from the Bible Dictionary, which is a primary reference to a lesson about God in a current Sunday School manual that I happened to see: "Although God created all things and is the ruler of the universe, being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent (through His Spirit), mankind has a special relationship to Him that differentiates man from all other created things: man is literally God’s offspring, made in His image, whereas all other things are but the work of His hands (Acts 17:28–29)." That's a current, authoritative teaching of the Church (but of course as Robert F. Smith would point out, has nothing to do with Mormon theology and is not worthy of a scholarly discussion on this forum). So, is man different from all other created things? He is literally God's offspring and not a creature that gradually evolved from other animals? 17 hours ago, clarkgoble said: What Harris ends up being after is consequentialism even if he rejects the Utilitarian form. But he kind of overlooks a lot of the ontological issues involved and ends up with a kind of naive form of consequentialism. I should add that I'm very sympathetic to consequentialism even if I don't think it can really do the job it wants to. Further Harris never really engages in the traditional critiques of consequentialism. There are a lot of subtle thoughts about all of this, and I'm sure there are whole books about how non-utilitarian-naïve consequentialism is different than utilitarian-naïve consequentialism. In that book at least, Harris is taking a huge step back and is merely asserting that ethics must be about how our choices and behaviors affect sentient beings in the real world and not about some orthogonal universe of oughts and ought-nots. Once we grant that it is about real-world choices and real-world consequences, science in principle has a voice about what promotes wellbeing and what does not. The whole thing is pretty dismissive of huge swaths of philosophy and it isn't surprising that people who are into those ivory tower arguments wouldn't like Harris's real world approach, I'm sure. But that doesn't mean that he's wrong, much less doesn't have a good point. 17 hours ago, clarkgoble said: As I said, I was reacting to your claim, "If you strictly believed normative science, you would be an atheist and your beliefs would be like Sean Carroll's." If you no longer hold to that I'll take back the scientism charge. <grin> Fair point. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=schmoyoho+walking+back&&view=detail&mid=F5C8FD0C027EBA68ACA6F5C8FD0C027EBA68ACA6&&FORM=VRDGAR Link to comment
Ryan Dahle Posted June 29, 2018 Author Share Posted June 29, 2018 (edited) 22 minutes ago, stemelbow said: It seems to me you are only preferring one set of parallels (ancient ones) over another (modern ones). If there is good reason the text was written to address the modern audience, that does not vindicate the claim that ancients saw our day and magically wrote it to address our audience. That's just a matter of convenience written into the text. We still have yet to see good reason to accept that it was written anciently. The burden, as it were, still remains. Its not a matter of preference, its about the implications inherent in the assumptions of each theory. The translation layer of the text, as well as its being tailored for a modern audience, could very easily dismiss a large portion of the 19th century parallels. This does nothing to "vindicate the claim that ancients saw our day and magically wrote it to address our audience" as you put it. Only the parallels to the ancient world and the miraculous nature of the translation event can do that. My assumption about the functionality of the translation doesn't offer positive evidence. What it does do is undermine what critics have thought for a long time to be competing evidences for modern origin. Edited June 29, 2018 by Ryan Dahle 1 Link to comment
jkwilliams Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 1 minute ago, Ryan Dahle said: I think you are misrepresenting me. First of all, all parallels are tenuous. I never said otherwise. What I'm saying is that some parallels are better than others and that real scholars use parallels all the time to help date historical material. There are methodologies involved which help attenuate the tentative nature of the parallels and which provide logical, persuasive reasons for trusting in what is inherently an inferential exercise. In other words, I'm suggesting we approach evaluating the validity of parallels in the ways that they are typically evaluated in historical fields that necessarily rely upon them all the time. Maybe critics have all these great reasons to discount lots of these parallels, but I have never read them in any published or online source on the Book of Mormon. Maybe they are out there, and I just have never seen them. So, essentially, you're asking critics to seriously engage parallels that you acknowledge are tenuous and of ambiguous significance. OK, I'll bite: Quote 1. A text that is filled with parallels to ancient Near Eastern content, much of it underivable in Joseph's day and not likely to be guessed. I'd have to know what you're talking about. NHM has been suggested as a strong piece of evidence, but given that Nehem shows up on contemporary maps from Joseph's day, it's difficult to say it was "underivable." Quote 2. A text that is at least consistent with many features of a Mesoamerican setting, and which has a few parallels that were unlikely to be guessed and which are virtually certain to be unknown in Joseph's day. Such as? I've read Brant's work and Sorensen's, and I can't think of any significant parallels meeting your description. Quote 3. A text which is very long, extremely complex and consistent, and well beyond anything we should expect from the 23-year-old Joseph Smith. I have no idea why people downplay Joseph's ability to put his thoughts down or tell a story. He was a bright man, apparently well-versed in the scriptures. Quote 4. A text which, according to the best historical data available, was dictated in the presence of scribes in no more than 74 days, without any reference materials or substantive revisions. Why assume that? We already know that Joseph used a KJV Bible as a reference material (hence the revisions coinciding with the italics in the KJV), and the only reason to believe the production was done in 74 days with no revisions is that the producers said so. Quote 5. A text which employs a lot of EModE features that Joseph Smith should not have known about, should not have been able to implement, and were very unlikely to be present in his environment--hence giving credence to the idea that the English text of the Book of Mormon was revealed to him in a supernatural way. I'm not going to argue this one, as I've already offended Stan enough (though unintentionally). Putting that aside, I will say it's quite a leap to say that because such linguistic features were rare in Joseph Smith's day, that points to a supernatural explanation for the Book of Mormon. Time after time I've seen people making the same bold claims you are making, only to find themselves humbled in the end that the evidence wasn't really as solid as they thought. I'm with Jenkins: if these Book of Mormon evidences are as plentiful and strong as you claim, they should withstand the scrutiny of outside scholars. As far as I know, no one has even attempted to present these evidences to anyone other than a faithful LDS audience. 2 Link to comment
Ryan Dahle Posted June 29, 2018 Author Share Posted June 29, 2018 (edited) 29 minutes ago, stemelbow said: The presence of EmodE doesn't seem to argue for or against historicity. How did the presence of such features get in there? Any number of possibilities...but claiming this supports it was written a couple thousand years ago, seems silly and it undercuts the point of hebraisms, it seems to me. The presence of EModE argues for a supernatural translation, which is really the same thing that the historicity argument is ultimately all about. We are testing to see if something about Joseph Smith's text is supernatural. One way it seems supernatural is that it correlates with the ancient world in ways that are highly unlikely to be a coincidence or to be derived from a 19th century environment. Another way has to do with the complexity and sophistication of the translation itself, especially when taking into consideration what we know about Joseph Smith's minimal education. And finally EModE also suggests a different line of evidence which indicates Joseph Smith wouldn't have been able to produce the text. So it isn't directly related to historicity, but it works with historicity and the sophistication of the text as another line of evidence arguing for the supernatural nature of the translation, which if accepted, would obviously support Joseph Smith's divine calling as a prophet. Edited June 29, 2018 by Ryan Dahle Link to comment
hope_for_things Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: Hope for things said: So it is important to understand the nature of paradigm choice, and whether that choice is made ideologically or based on criteria that are not ideologically based. Notice that the sentence "even conspiracy or alternative medicine proponents all operate using differing paradigms" is both accurate on the surface and rhetorically loaded because the contextual implication is that Mormonism or "old guard" Maxwell institute can be understood through that lens of conspiracy theory lunatics or alternative medicine nut jobs and snake oil sellers. Think Alex Jones of InfoWars who embodies the worst aspects of both in a single body, pushing out shameless conspiracies that not coincidentally provide lead-ins to his sales pitches for his "health" products. He creates anxieties that he then offers to solve where the solution happens to enrich him. And remember that Kuhn explains that paradigms are defined by "standard examples of scientific work." Does the implicit comparison of LDS scholars to conspiracy nuts and alternative medicine work as a viable framework in which to understand and view them? Is that paradigm apt for the work of John Sorenson and Hugh Nibley and Jack Welch? It is testable? Are its key predictions accurate? (Remembering that part of what makes any issue key involves the particular door we want to open, whether that happens to be an entrance or an exit.) Is it comprehensive and coherent, offering breadth, depth, and internal and external consistency? Is fruitful? That is, if we follow up, will we discover important things about top LDS scholars and scholarship that we would not have seen otherwise? Is it aesthetically pleasing and beautiful and simple and consistent? Does it provide the best future promise as a framework to explore any unsolved issues? Does it solve the problems that are most important to have solved? Is it better than any available alternatives what we can find? Just saying, to clarify how all this works in practice. I very much prefer the Perry Scheme to Fowler because the focus is on how a person processes information, rather than the conclusions that a person reaches. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Let me clarify, I used the example of conspiracy theorists, not to suggest that a certain segment of apologists are akin to conspiracy groups. There is a wide spectrum of paradigms that people operate under. Also, I imagine all groups and individuals have paradigms that are informed by ideological orientation, is anyone actually capable of complete 100% dispassionate and unbiased evaluation? I don't think its even possible. I'm not trying to denigrate this segment of apologists or orthodox members or any group in particular. Many great people align with these tribes of thinking. Same with other religions, which unfortunately seem to be denigrated often enough in this world. None of that changes the practical reasons why this particular group and the work they produce doesn't appeal to the broader Mormon Studies community. To me those reasons are apparent and understandable. Link to comment
Ryan Dahle Posted June 29, 2018 Author Share Posted June 29, 2018 3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: So, essentially, you're asking critics to seriously engage parallels that you acknowledge are tenuous and of ambiguous significance. OK, I'll bite: Sorry. I meant "tentative" not "tenuous." My bad. I'm saying that all parallels are "tentative" and "provisional" in nature, just like all science. That shouldn't stop us from using the best methods possible to identify their value and worth. Link to comment
jkwilliams Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 2 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: Sorry. I meant "tentative" not "tenuous." My bad. I'm saying that all parallels are "tentative" and "provisional" in nature, just like all science. That shouldn't stop us from using the best methods possible to identify their value and worth. I guess I just haven't seen many that are particularly valuable or worthwhile. Perhaps you can point me to them. Link to comment
Ryan Dahle Posted June 29, 2018 Author Share Posted June 29, 2018 9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Time after time I've seen people making the same bold claims you are making, only to find themselves humbled in the end that the evidence wasn't really as solid as they thought. Well I think it is good to be humbled. We all need humbling. If the evidences are't what I think, then that's fine. It's already happened over and over again as I have assessed them. Lot's of times I've had to reassess what I think different pieces of evidence are worth. As for your rejections of my 5 points, I assume you would. And I understand your reasons for rejecting them, and have my own reasons to reject your rejections. 😜 However, those types of discussions would take way too long. I am interested, though, in how you will respond to some of the evidences. I'll choose one, and see where we get. Link to comment
jkwilliams Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 Just now, Ryan Dahle said: Well I think it is good to be humbled. We all need humbling. If the evidences are't what I think, then that's fine. It's already happened over and over again as I have assessed them. Lot's of times I've had to reassess what I think different pieces of evidence are worth. As for your rejections of my 5 points, I assume you would. And I understand your reasons for rejecting them, and have my own reasons to reject your rejections. 😜 However, those types of discussions would take way too long. I am interested, though, in how you will respond to some of the evidences. I'll choose one, and see where we get. Fair enough. I'm a very humble and modest person, much more so than most. Link to comment
Rajah Manchou Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Fair enough. I'm a very humble and modest person, much more so than most. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R42mFx3_ss 🤣 Link to comment
champatsch Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 21 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I don't think that's a fair statement. I spent a good deal of time a few years back looking at the linguistic data you sent me. At the time, I reached two conclusions: these archaic usages were not used consistently enough to be statistically significant, and even if they were, I wasn't sure what we could conclude from the data. I suppose my examination was quick and cursory compared to the time you have spent, but I did not just wave off what you had with a glib dismissal. As you might recall from that prior discussion, the data we were discussing were not meant to show exclusive archaism. The items were taken from early 19c criticisms of Book of Mormon language by antagonists, and I was going over with you examples of correspondence with earlier English, but not necessarily exclusive correspondence with earlier English. While most of that exchange is irrelevant to what I am referring to here, some of what you found and gave me was helpful. In particular, I'm thinking of plural mights. Book of Mormon usage is almost all non-contextual, and rare modern usage is contextual (by this I mean linked to a serial plural noun). Between Malory (written about 1469, published 1485) and the Book of Mormon there is no other book I've seen that has the amount and the kind of noncontextual plural mights found in those books. Yet the Book of Mormon is not a complete knock-off of Malory, since it never uses all in the phrase "in/with our/your/their mights", and that is almost all that we see in the modern era. (There are also other interesting correspondences between the books.) Plural mights can be classified as another philological achievement on the part of Joseph Smith. The part in bold above strikes me as ideological thinking (maintained regardless of the evidence). Even if there were dozens of non(pseudo)biblical correspondences with archaic usage, systematic and individual, for the ideologue these things have nothing conclusive to say about authorship. However, since you seem at least mildly interested in engaging with Book of Mormon linguistic evidence, you're welcome to help me in my request below. Request for help For anyone who might be interested in these things, I've presented in this thread and in fairly recent threads a few systematic linguistic features, such as the complex finite causative. (There are many features I haven't mentioned.) So far I have found complex finite causative constructions to be incongruous with a 19c view of the text. (The past-tense of the Book of Mormon may be the most salient such feature, not mentioned in this thread, and I won't get into any details now.) It would be helpful if anyone could look for examples of the complex finite causative in the 1700s, to verify that I haven't missed something. So far the latest example I have is 1725, reprinted from 1697, coming from a 1679 text which has "cause it that it be read", a biblical paraphrase. But it can of course be any example of "cause X that X (<auxiliary>) <verb>". I would appreciate any help, because I am about finished with what I can do. Doubled pronominals are a good place to start. Also, it would be helpful if someone could look for the bare constituent "of which has/hath been spoken" in the 1700s, but not passages that start with "one of which" or "every word of which", etc., which are distinguishable. What is on point is the following kind of language (this is the kind of bare usage that is found a few times in the Book of Mormon): 1654 Johan Schenck (translator) | Fedro von Rodach [ fl. 1566 ] Physicall and chymicall vvorks [ EEBO A90637 ] Though the wound or ulcer must be kept clean from all impurity, after these herbes are buried, however for a speedier healing, inward and outward medicaments are to be admini⸗stred; of which hath been spoken. [ page 71 ] 1683 John Pettus (translator) [ 1613–1690 ] | Lazarus Ercker [ died 1594 ] Fleta minor [ EEBO A54597 ] Fluss (of which hath been ſpoken) is made thus, [ page 119 ] Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: None of that changes the practical reasons why this particular group and the work they produce doesn't appeal to the broader Mormon Studies community. To me those reasons are apparent and understandable. I think academic respectability is a big part of it. I think at least some have their own doubts as well. So I agree it makes sense although I think the divide that happened at the Maxwell Institute was unfortunate. However the Interpreter seems to be doing fine in a more FARMS like direction. I do worry about some issues at MI such as pushing too much solutions that allow easy bracketing that have longer term implications. Things such as so heartily embracing Taves' model of the plates. But that's probably an other discussion we've already had. 4 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: The presence of EModE argues for a supernatural translation, which is really the same thing that the historicity argument is ultimately all about. I don't see how that follows. It pushes (IMO) for Joseph not being the author which doesn't entail the supernatural. 7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I'm not going to argue this one, as I've already offended Stan enough (though unintentionally). Putting that aside, I will say it's quite a leap to say that because such linguistic features were rare in Joseph Smith's day, that points to a supernatural explanation for the Book of Mormon. I think it's pretty well established it wasn't in books apt to be available to Joseph Smith. The main counterargument (which I've made before) is whether there were pockets of speakers using archaic language in Joseph's vicinity in New York. That seems harder to establish given there weren't good ethnolinguistic studies/records at the time. Although given it's odd 15th century usages I think we can say that's unlikely and where the burden of proof ought be. (I recognize those who doubt the Book of Mormon don't think they have a burden of proof given the lack of positive evidence - I'm speaking of the narrow claim) From my perspective it's pretty unlikely Joseph could have written the book and those pushing for it end up pushing unlikely possibility arguments. Which is fine. That's most of what apologists do as well. From the more naturalistic perspective though there are lots of odd elements in the book that suggest an earlier than 19th century origin - not just the linguistic elements Stan's brought up. "Jarman," who posts here occasionally, notes all the early Arminian elements, for instance. While obviously Arminian theology was available and even influential to Joseph in the 19th century, the amount is significant. There's also other elements he brings up such as the influence of Milton's satan, ties to Grotius' writing and so forth. Now there's ways to respond, but were I a naturalistic critic I think I'd be giving more weight to this. Heaven knows critics have raised both direct plagiary (Spaulding Manuscript) and indirect heavy borrowing (View of the Hebrews) in the past. Now of course for a naturalist there are problems with this as well - you also want to get the mound builder theology that Vogel brings up in there. I confess that while I completely understand being skeptical of the text due to apparent anachronisms and the obvious huge influence of the KJV text, I just don't understand thinking Joseph could have written it. Even if one thinks he had the capability, it requires a lot of prepratory work and I'm quite skeptical he had the resources to engage in the fraud. For the more Taves model of actualizing a quasi-spiritual conception it gets even worse since there'd be less reason to engage in the more apparent fraudulent process. i.e. having the hidden KJV he copies from, hiding pages so people think he's using the seer stone, etc. The alternative is pure unconscious faith writing but the book just seems too complex for that. (IMO) 52 minutes ago, stemelbow said: We already know, for instance, that Joseph used a bible commentary to compose much of his translation of the Bible. And we really didn't seem to learn that until approximately 2 years ago when it was discovered to the be case. That's not actually the case. There's been a fair number of papers over the years noting the influence of Clarke on the JST. The BYU project you allude to is just more exhaustive and shows how much of especially the later work was heavily influenced by Clarke. Take for instance some of Ronald Huggins work like "Joseph Smith's Inspired Translation of Romans 7" from 1993. (I find a lot of Huggins work dubious in its parallels - probably how most critics see apologetic parallels. But I think some of his arguments and data are persuasive) There have been others as well and I think it's been long acknowledged there was influence. Back when I was at BYU in the 90's it was widely assumed even if there was a more "traditionalist" group such as Matthews arguing still for restoration of an ur-text rather than more an inspired commentary/correction. But even then a Clarke influenced pesher/targum made the most sense for many people. Particularly those of a more apologetic bent. I think what's been exciting the past 5 years is how that's been systematized and clarified empirically a bit more. Overall Clarke has been raised a lot. For the naturalistic position though I think the evidence is now strong as to when Joseph first came into possession and knowledge of Clarke. (Sometime early in the NT JST work) So suggesting access to Clarke for the Book of Mormon production seems far less likely now. Again indirect and likely not persuasive to critics, but I find the Clarke issue actually rather persuasive for Joseph not having access to all these esoteric texts critics assert relative to the Book of Mormon. We see that a basic resource, Clarke, Joseph didn't have access to and when he had access he used it heavily and obviously. Contrast this with say esoteric neoplatonic texts, hard to find Enochian texts, and all the other texts claimed for the Book of Mormon and JST of Genesis. Link to comment
Ryan Dahle Posted June 29, 2018 Author Share Posted June 29, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: I don't see how that follows. It pushes (IMO) for Joseph not being the author which doesn't entail the supernatural. Well you can always assume that some 16th or 17th century author translated the text, but that has enormous historical hurdles to pass through--how did the text get into Joseph's possession, how did Joseph dictate it without the manuscript, what about the plates, etc. Or you can assume that God used a dynamic EModE translation for his own unknown purposes, which is obviously a much economical theory, as far as Occam's razor goes. Edited June 29, 2018 by Ryan Dahle Link to comment
cinepro Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said: One way it seems supernatural is that it correlates with the ancient world in ways that are highly unlikely to be a coincidence or to be derived from a 19th century environment. You're correct in that it seems supernatural. But that's a cognitive error (and one that is easy to take advantage of). "Highly unlikely" does not indicate supernatural influence, and highly unlikely events happen every day. In fact, even if Joseph Smith made the whole thing up on his own, it would be even less likely for him to write a 500+ page book in a Biblical style trying to tell the story of ancient civilizations and not get a bunch of stuff right. Especially if we cast the net for "evidences" wide enough (for example, Old Akkadian). So the first thing to do is figure out how big the "bunch of stuff" is that we would expect him to get right just by chance within the scope of possible parallels, and then use that as a baseline for determining what is "highly unlikely." The "highly unlikely" argument is essentially the theory of Evolutionary Intelligent Design applied to The Book of Mormon. They both rely on presenting evidences that we believe are too complex to have anything other than a supernatural origin. The fatal flaw in both applications, of course, is the possibility that a natural explanation will present itself, or their misapplication of probability theory will be understood. Edited June 29, 2018 by cinepro 1 Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Analytics said: My vacation is coming to an end so I'm going to be scaling back my participation here. I really should post less too. I've spent way too much time here this week. Plus it's my daughter's baptism this weekend so that'll be taking most of my attention going forward. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: My point is here is that it the idea of a spirit made out of matter that is more "fine" and "pure" that somehow interfaces with the human brain is dubious. That's the part I just don't think is dubious. While it's still speculative that nanotubules are the seat of consciousness there's now fair evidence they are related to consciousness in some fashion. Nanotubules in cells are ridiculously small and fit the "fine and pure" criteria. Further if consciousness is this quantum computing within nanotubes within neurons, then presumably we have something that fits Searle's type of functionalism. It's easy to assume this could be instantiated in other similar objects made up of differing materials. All we really need is a causal connection between objects and you have the Mormon conception of soul. That said, I should note that I think the idea of spirits as material is heavily influenced by folk theology conceptions of spirits & ghosts as gas that manifest much like water vapor does. That's a common folk view throughout the world of spirits even if it goes against the formal theological and philosophical views from late antiquity through the medieval era up to the time of Joseph. (Especially by the 13th century Aquinas' view of spirit as a substantial immaterial soul dominated - Descartes' type of dualism really is mostly a variant on that) There were some Renaissance thinkers like Telesio who were pushing material souls and of course Stoic views would have a resurgence every now and then. There's a strong case to be made that at least Orson Pratt's views of material spirits arise out of reading about Tertullian (a Church father who was more of a stoic than a platonist). An indirect case for Joseph's ideas catalyzing out of encountering Tertullians and/or Stoicism seems quite plausible. I'm not saying nanotubes are the only way to conceive of this. I've always liked the quantum field conceptions. Of course field theory didn't really arise until Maxwell several decades after Joseph's death. However the difference between Stoicism and field theories isn't huge. Spinoza really is adopting a fairly Stoic like conception and there's a direct influence of Spinoza on say Einstein's field theories like general relativity. (Einstein's conception of God that gets so misquoted is really Spinoza's pantheistic stoic God) 1 hour ago, Analytics said: If spirit matter can interact with the physical stuff of our brains, how come it hasn't been detected? If spirit matter is quantum fields actualized inside small proteins containers then wouldn't we have to say it has been detected? The issue isn't whether it's been detected but how on earth we'd know it was a spirit/soul. That is the issue isn't detecting something but rather establishing its properties. It's not hard to find small stuff we know is there but we're largely ignorant of the properties. We know dark matter is out there but only know it via it's large scale gravitational influences. We have zero knowledge of what a dark matter particle is - although heaven knows there's no shortage of hypothesis. So this seems a rather odd argument - especially given it's basically an argument from silence. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: I'm fine with the idea that there are forces and things in other dimensions, but as soon as those things somehow interface with the matter in our realm (e.g. our brains), they should be detectable. But of course saying something is in principle detectable and actually detecting it are two radically different questions. For instance it's only been around 10 years since we first started detecting significant quantum mechanical effects as key to many processes necessary for life. I think it was only 8 years ago that big quantum mechanical processes key to photosynthesis were discovered for instance. The possible quantum effects in nanotubes are even more recent with the exact chemistry still getting worked out. So I think a bit of humility in the face of what we don't know of biology is in order. It's only been recently that scientists have been moving away from seeing neurons as the basic unit of the mental down to recognizing the place of entities within the cell as contributing to things like memory and so forth. And the neuron model is still surprisingly dominant despite these fairly established studies on things like memory. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: If you want to be a dualist and believe in an immaterial soul that plays any role whatsoever in who we are as human beings, these questions are not optional. But of course Mormons are somewhat unique in that for us a soul isn't immaterial. Some admittedly did adopt a tripartite model that distinguished intelligence from spirit in the 20th century with intelligence being quasi-Cartesian in nature. However that was one speculative model among others and I doubt most people even knew about it. There's certainly no reason to assume intelligence is Cartesian. Further that intelligence/spirit distinction arises after Joseph Smith and different thinkers have very different conceptions of it. So Brigham Young is, like Carroll, a physicalist who just sees intelligence as material stuff out of which spirits are formed. Orson Pratt has this odd mixture of Leibniz, Preistly and Tertullian's stoicism where intelligences are atoms of spirit and a spirit bodies is made up of a collective of these. B. H. Roberts largely follows William James' psychology in his manuals perhaps laying the groundwork for a more Cartesian tripartite view (even though Roberts didn't hold to it). McConkie when he becomes dominant just pushes a "we don't know" view of intelligence. For all of them though spirits are material. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: I grant that in principle some surprise like that is possible, and like the devote scientismist that I am, I believe all that science has revealed, all that it does now reveal, and I believe that it will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the nature of reality. But until that happens, I'm going to cautiously believe that the vaguely undefined substance referred to as spirit matter vaguely contradicts the Core Theory. Again I think you're conflating "don't have evidence for" with "contradicts." 1 hour ago, Analytics said: The following quote is from the Bible Dictionary, which is a primary reference to a lesson about God in a current Sunday School manual that I happened to see: "Although God created all things and is the ruler of the universe, being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent (through His Spirit), mankind has a special relationship to Him that differentiates man from all other created things: man is literally God’s offspring, made in His image, whereas all other things are but the work of His hands (Acts 17:28–29)." That's a current, authoritative teaching of the Church (but of course as Robert F. Smith would point out, has nothing to do with Mormon theology and is not worthy of a scholarly discussion on this forum). So, is man different from all other created things? He is literally God's offspring and not a creature that gradually evolved from other animals? Well the Bible Dictionary was overseen and mostly written by McConkie and largely reflects his theological dogma. So I think Robert is right that this doesn't define our theology. My understanding is that it's being rewritten although it'll probably be some years before we see the new entries at lds.org. So again I'd note the distinction between a fallible resource that affects normative belief and what is the acceptable range of Mormon theology. However to your question, of course humans are different from other animals in that we have the connection. While some like Jonathan Stapley have tended to dismiss all 19th century post-Nauvoo theology, I think the common 19th century view of spirit birth has something to it. In that case there's something physical going on that then ends up connected to our regular flawed bodies. However the theology is pretty vague and as I noted, it's not a necessary theological commitment even though I think it accurate. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: There are a lot of subtle thoughts about all of this, and I'm sure there are whole books about how non-utilitarian-naïve consequentialism is different than utilitarian-naïve consequentialism. Yes as you might well imagine since Utilitarianism came on the scene in the early 19th century a lot has been written about it. Until the rise of Rawlsianism in the 1970's, Utilitarianism was the dominant ethical stance. (You also had ethics with fewer meta-ethical commitments such as G. E. Moore's famous and influential ethical works) Since the rise of Rawlsianism there's far more diversity in Ethics with a resurgence of virtue ethics as well. Given the incentives of the "publish or perish" mindset for professors seeking tenure it's no surprise that a lot has been written both pro and con on consequentialism. I think the general consensus among philosophers is that Harris could have benefited from reading more of this literature. A lot of the New Atheists write on philosophy, often don't see just how much philosophy they are doing, and then don't realize they're reinventing the wheel and need to respond to long established critiques of these positions. That said, I think most see these criticisms and are starting to recognize they need to engage with the formal philosophy more. I think you've seen that especially with Harris since his book came out and was heavily criticized. But you see it in other areas as well such as with Lawrence Krauss' Why is there Something Rather than Nothing book that again tended to miss that he was doing metaphysics and doing it poorly. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: In that book at least, Harris is taking a huge step back and is merely asserting that ethics must be about how our choices and behaviors affect sentient beings in the real world and not about some orthogonal universe of oughts and ought-nots. But of course that's exactly the kind of naivete that set philosophers off against Harris. First off its not like consequentialism is new. As I said until the 1970's it was the dominant form of Ethics particularly in political philosophy. Second it's not like the variants of deontological ethics care nothing about how behaviors affect real humans. It's like Harris never read Rawls at all - not exactly an unknown thinker. Rather Harris appears to have been tilting against windmills of his own creation rather than engaging with how people writing about ethics really think. (Again, I think the backlash to his book made him aware of this) Now my personal stance is to be pretty skeptical of philosophical ethics in general. But if Harris thinks he did something novel then it just showed how poorly read he was on the subject - not exactly a ringing endorsement for a book about ethics. Put an other way, it'd be like someone writing a book on physics and being largely ignorant of most papers/writings on physics of the past century. Edited June 29, 2018 by clarkgoble 1 Link to comment
Ryan Dahle Posted June 29, 2018 Author Share Posted June 29, 2018 13 minutes ago, cinepro said: In fact, even if Joseph Smith made the whole thing up on his own, it would be even less likely for him to write a 500+ page book in a Biblical style trying to tell the story of ancient civilizations and not get a bunch of stuff right. Especially if we cast the net for "evidences" wide enough (for example, Old Akkadian). So the first thing to do is figure out how big the "bunch of stuff" is that we would expect him to get right just by chance within the scope of possible parallels, and then use that as a baseline for determining what is "highly unlikely." Well there's stuff, and then there is stuff. We would expect him to get a bunch of general stuff "right" (people fighting battles, getting married, traveling, naming things, etc.), but then there is some very specific stuff about the ancient world that is actually fairly limited. For instance, there is a limited number of known literary features used within and sometimes exclusive to the ancient Near East. One can ask oneself how many of these limited number of features might show up in a book like the Book of Mormon by random chance? We also can compare the Book of Mormon to other 19th century texts in this regard. And we can look to see how much people in his day knew what we know now about these features, if they knew anything at all. From there, we can make reasonable inferences about how likely it would be for an individual like Joseph Smith to have implemented such things. And this reasoning, in turn, helps inform us about the plausibility of Joseph Smith's claims about the text's ancient origins. The less likely it is that Joseph could have produced the literary features in the text that match its claimed ancient Near Eastern context, the more likely it is that he was telling the truth about its origins. Link to comment
hope_for_things Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 27 minutes ago, cinepro said: You're correct in that it seems supernatural. But that's a cognitive error (and one that is easy to take advantage of). "Highly unlikely" does not indicate supernatural influence, and highly unlikely events happen every day. In fact, even if Joseph Smith made the whole thing up on his own, it would be even less likely for him to write a 500+ page book in a Biblical style trying to tell the story of ancient civilizations and not get a bunch of stuff right. Especially if we cast the net for "evidences" wide enough (for example, Old Akkadian). So the first thing to do is figure out how big the "bunch of stuff" is that we would expect him to get right just by chance within the scope of possible parallels, and then use that as a baseline for determining what is "highly unlikely." The "highly unlikely" argument is essentially the theory of Evolutionary Intelligent Design applied to The Book of Mormon. They both rely on presenting evidences that we believe are too complex to have anything other than a supernatural origin. The fatal flaw in both applications, of course, is the possibility that a natural explanation will present itself, or their misapplication of probability theory will be understood. Yes, this is exactly right. This is a problem that many people across multiple disciplines have is that they don't understand coincidence and they don't understand probability. I recommend reading this best seller, it is very interesting and talks about how seemingly unlikely random events occur all the time and how our intuitions about their likelihood is frequently wrong. https://www.amazon.com/Drunkards-Walk-Randomness-Rules-Lives/dp/0307275175/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1530296666&sr=1-1&keywords=the+drunkards+walk 1 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Gray said: I wouldn't even say that Paul is the author of normative Christian theology. Paul and Jesus are of course used as sources. Mormonism is heavily dependent upon Christian orthodoxy from the so-called apostasy, however. That is utter nonsense, Gray. Although Mormonism is in line with early Jewish Christianity (the primitive church), it is completely opposed to Hellenistic Christian orthodoxy -- as any modern Christian denomination will affirm. Why do you think that mainstream Christianity considers Mormonism as heresy? It is no accident that non-Mormon scholar Ernst Benz says Quote Regardless of how one feels about the doctrine of progressive deification, one thing is certain: Joseph Smith's anthropology of man is closer to the concept of man in the primitive church than that of the proponents of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, who considered the idea of such a fundamental and corporeal relationship between God and man as the quintessential heresy.[1] [1] "Der Mensch als Imago Dei," in Eranos Jahrbuch 40 (1971), and also published in Urbild und Abbild: Der Mensch und die mythische Welt: gesammelte Eranos-Beitrage (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 326, Quote Man mag zu dieser Lehre von der progressiven Vergottung stehen wie man will, eines ist sicher, Joseph Smith steht mit dieser seiner Anthropologie der altkirchlichen Anschauung vom Menschen näher als die Vorkämpfer der augustinischen Erbsündenlehre, die den Gedanken an einen so wesenhaften Zusammenhang zwischen Gott und Mensch als die eigentliche Haeresie betrachtet haben. English version in Benz, "Imagio Dei: Man in the Image of God," in T. Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism (Provo, 1978), 201-219. Quote ......................................I don't think secular scholars have any trouble with visions at all, in one sense at least. Simply not true. Secular scholars do not believe in visions. Where are you getting this stuff, Gray? Edited June 29, 2018 by Robert F. Smith Link to comment
CA Steve Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 15 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: For instance, there is a limited number of known literary features used within and sometimes exclusive to the ancient Near East. One can ask oneself how many of these limited number of features might show up in a book like the Book of Mormon by random chance? Here is where I think belief prevents people from recognizing the problem and seeing how highly unlikely random events are not evidence of anything. The other day my home teacher was telling me about an incident in the past where he was visiting his long inactive son in another state when the missionaries knocked on his son's door. The missionaries had no idea his son was LDS or that the father was visiting. After a short visit described as a wonderful spiritual event by home teacher, the missionaries left. My home teacher considers this a miracle and a sign from God to his son to come back to the church. "What are the chance they would show up at that exact time when I was visiting him?" he asked. Now I am sure someone can probably do such a calculation and that it would be highly improbable but that is not proof of a miracle or even of God's involvement in my view, random chance can easily account for that happening to someone somewhere sometime. So when you ask how many of these random features might show up in the Book of Mormon, as if there is some fixed number of such examples which would prove your preferred origin theory, I think you are self selecting specific features that meet your expectations of rarity and ignoring all those that don't. 2 Link to comment
Analytics Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 (edited) 53 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: That's the part I just don't think is dubious. While it's still speculative that nanotubules are the seat of consciousness there's now fair evidence they are related to consciousness in some fashion. Nanotubules in cells are ridiculously small and fit the "fine and pure" criteria. Further if consciousness is this quantum computing within nanotubes within neurons, then presumably we have something that fits Searle's type of functionalism. It's easy to assume this could be instantiated in other similar objects made up of differing materials. All we really need is a causal connection between objects and you have the Mormon conception of soul. It sounds like your conception of the Mormon conception of the soul is pretty-much exactly like my naturalistic conception of the soul. The soul isn't some mystic thing that's out there. Rather, consciousness is a natural thing that somehow emerges out of the natural processes of the brain. Either we basically agree, or we aren't communicating at all. In Chapter 27 of The Big Picture, Carroll goes into some detail about how the brain works from the perspective of the Core Theory, and then explaining how the Core Theory precludes pretty-much everything that is paranormal, which would include things like, say, priesthood blessings having the potential to miraculously heal or the Holy Ghost having the ability to transmit information. As one final quote from that chapter, I offer this: "There's nothing wrong with doing elaborate double-blind studies to look for parapsychological or astrological effects, but the fact that such effects are incompatible with the known laws of physics means that you would be testing hypotheses that are so extremely unlikely as to render it hardly worth the effort..." "There is a much more profound implication of accepting the Core Theory as underlying the world of our everyday experience. Namely: there is no life after death. We each have a finite time as living creatures, and when it’s over, it’s over. "The reasoning behind such a sweeping claim is even more straightforward than the argument against telekinesis or astrology. If the particles and forces of the Core Theory are what constitute each living being, without any immaterial soul, then the information that makes up “you” is contained in the arrangement of atoms that makes up your body, including your brain. There is no place for that information to go, or any way for it to be preserved, outside your body. There are no particles or fields that could store it and take it away. "This perspective can seem strange, because on the surface there appears to be some kind of “energy” or “force” associated with being alive. It certainly seems as if, when something dies, there is some thing that is no longer present. Where, it seems natural to ask, does the energy associated with life go when we die? "The trick is to think of life as a process rather than a substance. When a candle is burning, there is a flame that clearly carries energy. When we put the candle out, the energy doesn’t “go” anywhere. The candle still contains energy in its atoms and molecules. What happens, instead, is that the process of combustion has ceased. Life is like that: it’s not “stuff”; it’s a set of things happening. When that process stops, life ends." Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 218-219). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. I've enjoyed chatting with you this week. Have a great weekend and congratulations on the baptism of your daughter. Edited June 29, 2018 by Analytics Link to comment
cinepro Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 34 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: Well there's stuff, and then there is stuff. We would expect him to get a bunch of general stuff "right" (people fighting battles, getting married, traveling, naming things, etc.), but then there is some very specific stuff about the ancient world that is actually fairly limited. For instance, there is a limited number of known literary features used within and sometimes exclusive to the ancient Near East. One can ask oneself how many of these limited number of features might show up in a book like the Book of Mormon by random chance? We also can compare the Book of Mormon to other 19th century texts in this regard. And we can look to see how much people in his day knew what we know now about these features, if they knew anything at all. From there, we can make reasonable inferences about how likely it would be for an individual like Joseph Smith to have implemented such things. And this reasoning, in turn, helps inform us about the plausibility of Joseph Smith's claims about the text's ancient origins. The less likely it is that Joseph could have produced the literary features in the text that match its claimed ancient Near Eastern context, the more likely it is that he was telling the truth about its origins. Again, you need to establish your baseline and clarify your assumptions. Probability theory would tell us that there would even be "very specific" stuff as well. And again, if you cast the net wide enough, the "very specific stuff" becomes much easier to find. And as I've pointed out before, one of your problems, especially in the context of this discussion, is linking the evidences to the "ancient Near East" and then complaining that scholars of Ancient America aren't taking you seriously. The Book of Mormon doesn't claim an "ancient Near Eastern context" after the Lehites make landfall. You have ~1,000 years here in the New World, so your theory involves some convoluted idea the Lehites joined with the existing native populations and adopted their language, technology and culture, but still maintained their "Near Eastern" culture as a subset to the degree that that is the focus of the evidences. Akkadian "sheum" is interesting, but when it pops up in the Book of Mormon after the Lehites had been in the New World for 400 years, it raises more questions than it answers. I know apologists can posit all sorts of answers to those questions (Akkadian language school for all the record-keepers?), but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it's not very convincing to the non-Mormon scholars of Ancient America. 3 Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, Gray said: I'm not saying her work has no merit, but she does seem to be way out on the fringes. Is anyone out there making similar arguments to her? I agree, her work seems more theological than historical. However, that's not much of a statement - that's based on reading summaries only. I think Barker is influential, although her views certainly are not dominant. I'm not sure what constitutes a "school" so I can't comment on that. But surely there's a middle ground between "not the dominant view" and "fringe." Her writings are pretty influential even among those who disagree with her. You don't become president of The Society for Old Testament Study, a pretty significant UK scholarly group, if you're merely on the fringe. That said though, it's not hard to find many scholars in the field who dismiss Barker. Many think her lack of a true PhD keeps her from being as rigorous as she could be. Others are critical of how she writes her books more for a wide audience rather than the more narrow rigorous scholarly approach. Others yet note her focus is on theology rather than historical nuance. Within the broad Mormon Studies arena there are certainly those who've been pretty critical of Barker. The folks at Faith Promoting Rumor for instance have criticized her and particularly uncritical apologetic use of her quite a bit. There's also a lot of people who consider themselves apologies who are far more cautious in how they view Barker's arguments. As for whether others follow her, from my admittedly limited reading they have. Although those who tend to be most influenced by her tend not to be the folks trying to get the dry historical facts right but rather theologians. (Here meaning in the broad scholarly sense - not Mormonism) However if you do a citation search you'll find lots of references to Barker in more historically oriented papers as well. However I'm probably not the one to defend Barker since I'm much more cautious in my views of her than many here. Although I think the criticisms of Barker apply more broadly to much of the field. Everyone is largely trying to recreate a hypothetical history of pre-exilic texts utilizing texts from the 2cd temple period. That's just inherently weak speculative argument. Even if some views do become dominant, it's not that typically the arguments are strong, just that they're persuasive. But what's persuasive has more to do with peoples expectations and presuppositions than anything inherent to the arguments themselves. Now some particular arguments are better but they vary a lot overall. (Of course I'm saying this as someone not deeply versed in the field - so take my thoughts with a grain of salt) 21 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I guess I always saw the NT writers as deliberately using Old Testament imagery and passages to make the new covenant more understandable to potential converts. The writers of the gospels go to great pains to link Jesus' birth with Old Testament prophecies. For example, Terry Eagleton has suggested that the census method described by Luke makes no sense except as a reason to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, as the prophecies had said he would. Is he right? I don't know, but it seems pretty clear that there was an effort to tie the Christian gospel back to the earlier scriptures, as you show pretty clearly in your post above. I guess the question is whether that reflects an attempt to link backward or a restoration of pre-exilic Judaism. Barker apparently believes the latter. There's no doubt NT writers (many of whom are writing to fellow Jews) unsurprisingly make use of the OT as understood in the first century. Paul in particular. I think it's pretty well established that there's a continuity. There was a huge "Jesus the Jew" literature back in the 90's focused on this by authors like Vermes, Crossman and others. The issue isn't what was believed in the late 2cd temple period but rather what were pre-exilic views. I think there are some broad consensus there. So angelology arises out of Persian and Babylonian influence but draws upon elements of the broad Canaanite pantheon changing sons of God into angels. I think Barker is pretty in the mainstream there. The bigger question is about whether there was an ideal of a future Davidic King or Messiah prior to the exile. There are obviously compelling arguments for why there wouldn't be (since despite the problems in post-Solomon kings, there still were kings and kingdom) The big question however is the place of the divided kingdom and whether a messiah motif would arise after the northern kingdom was captured. Those messianic views might not have been popular in the south but one could understand why some might arrive at such notions even while the south was unconquered. Edited June 29, 2018 by clarkgoble 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts