The God of Gaps

[cdowis]

First, the issue here is whether arguing that arguments about Book of Mormon anachronisms are analogous to god of the gaps reasoning. If cdowis's reasoning was taken seriously, then anytime scientists give a date range for extinction of a species in a given area they would be doing something analogous to fallacious god of the gap reasoning.

That is absurd. As McGrath points out, this is the argument of the atheist, that if a believer asks questions about science, the atheist starts shouting that he is anti-science.

It is an argument born of desperation to show the superior intellect of the nonbeliever over the misguided, dilusional believer.

After all, the idea that horses went extinct in the Americas well before BoM times isn't some byproduct of criticism of the LDS religion.

How utterly profound! Such a genius you are. I and all the Mormons thought this whole extinction thing was a conspiracy against the BOM, and you have now set us straight.

What fools we were not to realize this before!

It's just the standard scientific picture that happens to make the BoM look anachronistic. The mere fact that a later discovery can upturn established science does not make inferring an extinction event a form of argument from ignorance. Indeed, all scientific ideas, every last one of them, could theoretically be disproven by some future evidence. That's just the problem of induction. That doesn't make all science like god of the gaps reasoning.

Second, when it comes to things like metallurgy, horses, and the like, those notions weren't anachronistic to an 1830 audience familiar with mound-builder myths. It's only later science that rendered such ideas as anachronisms.

The date when horses went extinct is still a open question to those who accept the BOM. To you it absolute proof of an anachronism, because it is impossible that someday in the future another discovery could be made to change that date dramatically. an anachronism means that nothing can change that date.

When you declare something as an anachronism, you are sayng, "all of the evidence is in, and it is impossible that any other discovery could be made to change that date for the extinction of horses in the entire Western hemisphere."

Again, thank you for giving us a model of antimormon thinking. No discoveries are possible, so these are anachronisms.

Third, I am not one to confuse a growing body of apologetic arguments for the BoM as an ancient document as a body of growing evidence in favor of that position. The way you talk you'd think historians/archeologists were more and more accepting of and completing the picture of the BoM as ancient history.

To those who have actually read the BOM text.

Fourth, there's a perfectly acceptable sense of the word "proof" that just means having sufficient reason to compel a rational person to belief.

Then the difference between proof and evidence is subjective when it comes to the Book of Mormon, since it is a religious text. We are not talking about astronomy or chemistry. What an atheist would consider proof for a book delivered by an angel, translated by a seer stone, is very different from a believer, even when both of them are intelligent, educated, and rational.

Again, that was made clear by McGrawth in his book critical of Dawkins. Rational people can have a very different view when looking at the same data -- one sees God in his majesty, and the other sees natural phenomena.

You would probably argue that you are the rational one, and the Mormons are irrational, so you are the arbiter on what constitutes proof. I used the neutral term evidence so that I do not have to argue with a nonbeliever in trying to convince him of anything. No matter what evidence I present to you, you will reject it as merely coincidence, or irrevelant.

So, to avoid that argument, I just use evidence.

Evidence is proof in that sense when there is enough of it that a rational person who is familiar with it should be persuaded by it. Proof in the absolute, deductive sense doesn't exist for any idea based on observation. There's no proof that the earth exists if you are looking for absolute certainty.

Finally, I think the reason you have confused this situation for god of the gaps reasoning

I am not confused. I used artistic license to make a point, but somehow you think that will discredit my position.

I understand your desperation since your other arguments are so weak and ineffective.

snip

[thesometimesaint]

John Larsen:

That is poor logic.

We do know that the peoples of Mesoamerica knew of the wheel. We have their toys that have wheels. We do not know at the present time if they used them for conveyance, as most if not all evidence would be destroyed by the hot wet conditions that prevail in much of Mesoamerica. We know precious little of that time and place, and who knows what the next archeological dig will uncover

Chariots have been used without wheels elsewhere. There is no logical reason that the Mesoamericans could not have used them as well.

The Spanish describe a highly effective wooden sword called the Macuahuitl. We have no idea as to what the Nephites called them, and only have a translation of that unknown word.

[cdowis]

John Larsen:

That is poor logic.

We do know that the peoples of Mesoamerica knew of the wheel. We have their toys that have wheels. We do not know at the present time if they used them for conveyance, as most if not all evidence would be destroyed by the hot wet conditions that prevail in much of Mesoamerica. We know precious little of that time and place, and who knows what the next archeological dig will uncover

Chariots have been used without wheels elsewhere. There is no logical reason that the Mesoamericans could not have used them as well.

But there are no horses. That is an anachronism and absolute proof that the BOM is false. No matter what other evidence exists, THERE ARE NO HORSES!!!!

[Mudcat]

I was recently reading Alister McGrath's "The Dawkins Illusion", and excellent Christian apologetic work, and he had a section of "the God of the gaps", which criticized the technique of pointing out the failure of science, and evolution specifically, for being able to explain certain questions. The logic is that if you cannot explain certain questions, you then need God to fill in the gap.

The problem with that technique is that as science progresses, new discoveries are made, those gaps get smaller and fewer in number. You leave yourself vulnerable to scientific progress.

It is interesting that one of the principle arguments of the antimormons is the use of science, specifically archeology. Among the favorites is steel swords, horses, chariots, etc.

"Is that the best you can do?"

Hi C,

Though I don't self identify as antiMormon, I would agree that there is some sort of similarity in the "God of the Gaps" argument and critical claims about the BoM. The GotG argument would infer that in the absence of evidence, God is the best explanation.. and it is a slippery slope if new evidence to the contrary emerges.

However, I would agree with the "anti" side of this argument in relation to archaeology.

IMO, the absence of evidence against claim X, in this case the BoM being true, is only evidence against X if there is a reasonable expectation that if X were true that there would be more evidence of its truth. In the case of the BoM, the critical argument could be summed up that... If the BoM were true then it is reasonable that there should be considerably more evidence supporting the BoM than is available.

The real dialogue on the issue IMO is on what amount of evidence should be reasonably expected. It is a difficult discussion to have, considering the fact that most LDS rely upon a spiritual confirmation as meritorious instead of archaeological. If there is an a priori assumption on the part of believing LDS that mitigates the actual need for archaeological support. What further confounds discussion IMO is that any evidence that aligns with BoM claims, take cement usage in Mesoamerica for example, is immediately considered as confirmational of the BoM. But to the critic, the same topic doesn't seem that out of place, considering its usage in other classical period civilizations.

To the critic, there isn't enough substantial evidence in a cumulative case.

To the LDS, tangible archaeological evidence isn't highly relevant given their claimed spiritual affirmations of veracity.

Surely you would agree, there is no real apples to apples comparison when we are talking from two different points. One tangible and the other spiritual.

At present, I think the critical case against the BoM from the absence of archaeological evidence is stronger, simply based on observation. That observation being that we don't see many (if any) people agreeing that the BoM is true based upon archaeological findings.

If it is true, then it stands to reason more evidence will be discovered, but I don't think it at all unrealistic for someone who examines archaeological evidence for BoM to say that they feel these claims come up short and there should be more evidence if they were true.

Regards,

Mudcat

[cdowis]

At present, I think the critical case against the BoM from the absence of archaeological evidence is stronger, simply based on observation. That observation being that we don't see many (if any) people agreeing that the BoM is true based upon archaeological findings.

You are saying there is no archeological evidence at all.

That is a remarkable claim, and subject to discussion. I will give you a list, if you wish, and you can tell us why you completely dismiss it as "nothing".

[Mudcat]

You are saying there is no archeological evidence at all.

No I'm not.

Rather that their doesn't seem to be enough archaeological evidence to compel belief in the BoM, in and of itself.

If you read my entire post, I don't think you could draw such a conclusion. In specific,I am referring to the point about cement I mentioned in example.

If you wish to provide a list, that is up to you. (edit add)

That is a remarkable claim, and subject to discussion. I will give you a list, if you wish, and you can tell us why you completely dismiss it as "nothing".

I don't mind giving you my opinion as to why I feel it is insufficient. However, your claim that it I have dismissed as "nothing" is misplaced.

What would be more compelling for the archaeological case would be a list of those people who have come to believe in the BoM based upon archaeological findings.

[Ralph Man]

The date when horses went extinct is still a open question to those who accept the BOM. To you it absolute proof of an anachronism, because it is impossible that someday in the future another discovery could be made to change that date dramatically. an anachronism means that nothing can change that date.

When you declare something as an anachronism, you are sayng, "all of the evidence is in, and it is impossible that any other discovery could be made to change that date for the extinction of horses in the entire Western hemisphere."

Again, thank you for giving us a model of antimormon thinking. No discoveries are possible, so these are anachronisms.

Saying that Dodos are extinct does not, in any way, say that it is impossible that some future discovery might reveal that dodos aren't really extinct. You don't need absolute certainty to have confidence, even overwhelmingly strong confidence in the death of all dodos. The same is true of the generally accepted date ranges for horse extinction in America prior to the post-Columbus reintroduction. It doesn't need to be impossible for some piece of future evidence to upturn a currently held scientific idea for one to have confidence in that scientific idea. Whether you realize it or not, you are saying that the problem of induction means that we can't say anything is an anachronism. After all, future discoveries can theoretically vindicate any idea, no matter how zany it might seem now. Forgive me if I'm not persuaded by such an argument.

[handys003]

While I wouldn't consider myself an "anti", I'll respond as one who doesn't believe in Mormonism. A bigger problem, for me, with advancing God as the answer to complex life on this planet, is the problem of irreducable complexity.

Right, I would simply say that based on our current understanding of the Americas, the BoM does not seem to represent a real history of the region.

I agree with you here

The mesoamerican LGT theory requires a very particular reading of the BoM. this reading was not typical historically in the church and still has many doubters, even among believers.

That's the problem with the BoM text, it is vague enough to be squeezed into any number of places. It sure would be nice if we had prophetic revelation and teachings on where it all occured......

For me, these arguments are not at the top of my list of evidence against mormonism. More persuasive are:

- The Book of Abraham evidence

- The evolution of the priesthood from one to two

- Polyandry, which does not make sense to me in light of current teachings on eternal marriage

- Wordprint analysis indicating Rigdon as the main author

- Changing first vision accounts and teachings on the nature of god

- Kinderhook plates

- Lack of evidence supporting BoM narrative in the united states, which I think was meant as the location. I disagree with the disregarding of revelation and teachings of church leaders, which placed the events in the eastern states.

etc. etc.

I realize that I will now be bombarded with CFR's, however, just thought it was important to point out that not all of us unbelievers base our unbelief on the lack of horse bones.

Well you might go ahead and take this off your list. Such practices were known to exist among ancient Hawaiians, Rapa Nui and Tahitians before European expansion. They also practiced polygamy and incest marriage. Even SSM.

[yesucan2]

But there are no horses. That is an anachronism and absolute proof that the BOM is false. No matter what other evidence exists, THERE ARE NO HORSES!!!!

What is your support for your thesis other than your very loud and demanding declaration?

In central and south America, about 80 percent of known archaeological sites are yet to be dug due to the degree of scarcity of resources necessary to get to them.

Your question begging definition of the situation at least borders on the delusional rant of "if I don't know about it, it can't be".

[Tarski]

I was recently reading Alister McGrath's "The Dawkins Illusion", and excellent Christian apologetic work, and he had a section of "the God of the gaps", which criticized the technique of pointing out the failure of science, and evolution specifically, for being able to explain certain questions. The logic is that if you cannot explain certain questions, you then need God to fill in the gap.

The problem with that technique is that as science progresses, new discoveries are made, those gaps get smaller and fewer in number. You leave yourself vulnerable to scientific progress.

It is interesting that one of the principle arguments of the antimormons is the use of science, specifically archeology. Among the favorites is steel swords, horses, chariots, etc.

The problem with that argument is that they leave themselves vulnerable to new discoveries in archeology. Many of these "missing things" have been discovered, so these gaps get smaller and fewer in number as archeology advances. One of the antis recently stated that the BOM "contradicts what we know of the history of mesoamerica". I pointed out there is a difference between "contradict" and "unsubstantiated". For example, at first glance the DNA argument contradicted the BOM story, but the claim for BOM time period horses is unsubstantiated.

I then asked him for a list of those specific contradictions, excluding undiscovered steel, horse bones, etc. So far he has been silent.

While I think there will always be a lack of such things as horse bones, I believe that other side of the equation where archeology has moved closer to the BOM text has accelerated over the decades. Acceptance of transmigration has probably been the most exciting in the recent decade. Regarding the BOM, we now have now proposed several probable geographic locations for BOM events.

Perhaps the antis will always have their "missing horses, steel, and chariots", but that argument is getting to be very weak and unpersuasive.

"Is that the best you can do?"

You seem to me to be quite confused about the thrust of the "god of the gaps" criticism. Indeed, you apply it exactly backwards. Those who support thier BoM belief by arguing that future archeology will or may prove what they now take on faith and without evidence are the ones sucumbing to "god of the gaps" thinking.

Indeed, future archeology could just as easily provide evidence for something else entirely. We are still only justified in believing what CURRENT best evidence and reason suggest.

[LeSellers]

What is your support for your thesis other than your very loud and demanding declaration?

In central and south America, about 80 percent of known archaeological sites are yet to be dug due to the degree of scarcity of resources necessary to get to them.

Your question begging definition of the situation at least borders on the delusional rant of "if I don't know about it, it can't be".

You need to spend some time recognizing to whom you are speaking.

Dowis is being sarcastic here.

Lehi

[yesucan2]

You need to spend some time recognizing to whom you are speaking.

Dowis is being sarcastic here.

Lehi

Oh.

You are right. I haven't yet become familiar here with who is who except I know obiwan from cf.

That site is about 6 to 1 LDS, and we are used to comments like that was. Sorry Dowis.

[cdowis]

You seem to me to be quite confused about the thrust of the "god of the gaps" criticism. Indeed, you apply it exactly backwards. Those who support thier BoM belief by arguing that future archeology will or may prove what they now take on faith and without evidence are the ones sucumbing to "god of the gaps" thinking.

Of course this reasoning could apply to either side, but I have never encountered any LDS who believes in the BOM because of archeology, much less on future discoveries. But I have had many discussions with the antis who use this logic, indeed, in this very thread we have excellent examples of that thinking.

Over the recent decades I have noted with satisfaction the increasing evidence for the BOM, and expect that trend will probably continue. But that has no influence on my personal testimony nor acceptance of the BOM.

[cdowis]

Your question begging definition of the situation at least borders on the delusional rant of "if I don't know about it, it can't be".

Congratulations, you have totally convinced me. My logic was totally idiotic.

This Sunday I think I will attend the local Mormon church.

[cdowis]

Whether you realize it or not, you are saying that the problem of induction means that we can't say anything is an anachronism. After all, future discoveries can theoretically vindicate any idea, no matter how zany it might seem now. Forgive me if I'm not persuaded by such an argument.

Again, horses lived in the American continent. The issue is **when** they went extinct, not that they lived there.

It is not an anachronism to question whether they lived a few thousand years later than the scientific community thinks.

Anachronism implies "impossible", but that claim cannot be extended to this situation. An anachronism is claiming that there was polar bears in the Sahara Desert -- there is no evidence that they had ever lived there and the climate makes that unlikely. Horses lived in the American continent. How can you claim that it is impossible that they lived in the Americas in 400BCE? Tell us what makes that impossible, and you can then claim it is an anachronism.

[cdowis]

Rather that their doesn't seem to be enough archaeological evidence to compel belief in the BoM, in and of itself.

I do not know anyone who believes in the BOM because of archeology. So I completely agree with you.

But the evidence is beyond interesting, it is compelling in my view. You can't just take one piece of the evidence, but need to look at the tapestry.

Just too many to be a coincidence.

[Tarski]

Of course this reasoning could apply to either side, but I have never encountered any LDS who believes in the BOM because of archeology, much less on future discoveries. But I have had many discussions with the antis who use this logic, indeed, in this very thread we have excellent examples of that thinking.

Over the recent decades I have noted with satisfaction the increasing evidence for the BOM, and expect that trend will probably continue. But that has no influence on my personal testimony nor acceptance of the BOM.

We (the critics) are not asserting the existence of something so there really isn't a god to hide in the gap you think you see.

We are simply claiming that there isn't credible evidence to support what is a rather fantastic story and that there is actually evidence against.

I find your post ironic. If you want to know what is shrinking itself as if to fit into a smaller and smaller gap, then just think about why we have the Limited Geography Theory

as well as what I see as

The Limited Genetic Influence Theory

The Limited Political Influence Theory

not to mention

The Limited Literalness Theory wherein we now occasionally hear that the grand numerical claims in the text about numbers of warriors and so on were just understandable wild exaggerations.

So who is really trying to fit their unscientific notions into a gap?

[cdowis]

We (the critics) are not asserting the existence of something so there really isn't a god to hide in the gap you think you see.

We are simply claiming that there isn't credible evidence to support what is a rather fantastic story and that there is actually evidence against.

Antimormons are proclaiming that there are anachronisms -- that the BOM text *contradicts* archeology, or, as you say, "evidence against". You are hiding in the gaps of scientific knowledge, and these are shrinking, and getting fewer in number.

The evidence is gradually accumulating into a broad tapestry of significant evidence, and I expect that trend to continue.

I find your post ironic. If you want to know what is shrinking itself as if to fit into a smaller and smaller gap, then just think about why we have the Limited Geography Theory

as well as what I see as

The Limited Genetic Influence Theory

The Limited Political Influence Theory

not to mention

The Limited Literalness Theory wherein we now occasionally hear that the grand numerical claims in the text about numbers of warriors and so on were just understandable wild exaggerations.

So who is really trying to fit their unscientific notions into a gap?

That is the nature of science, to adjust theories to fit new observations. For example, the Mayan are now longer the peaceful forest people, but they were very violent and had frequent wars. I realize you find this very annoying that we follow the scientific method of adjusting our ideas of the BOM not only from archeology but also with a better understanding of the text itself.

There have been many very simplistic assumptions, and we are now adjusting our views according to what the text actually says instead of traditions. We are not blind, dumb followers that you want us to be, but educated, intelligent, and willing to follow the evidence. We are seriously studying the text and the archeology, and follow the evidence rather than those old assumptions.

The BOM text makes it clear, for example, that the hill in NY was not the same as the hill mentioned in the BOM. The NY hill just did not fit the text. We follow the text rather than the assumptions.

Another example, the BOM text reveals that "others" lived in the Americas when Lehi arrived, that there was domesticated animals, and we reject the simplistic old assumption that the entire American hemisphere was empty.

You are annoyed and frustrated, and I understand why. We are not dumb, stupid sheep.

[Ralph Man]

The term anachronism does not imply it is impossible for the anachronism to actually be historical. It does nothing of the sort. That's just a strawman argument. There is a greater than 10^-100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000% chance that horses existed in your preferred LGT location in BoM times. There you go. That doesn't mean horses in that time and place aren't anachronistic. In fact, if your argument held any water there would be nothing could be called an anachronism. If I shared a story purporting to take place in 1978 that had me riding on top of dinosaurs, the existence of dinosaurs wouldn't be an anachronism because there technically is a greater than 0% chance that dinosaurs lived in 1978. Again, that's just the problem of induction. But I have enough warranted confidence that dinosaurs were unlikely to be living in 1978 to confidently state that their appearance in my story is anachronistic.

[cdowis]

Ralph,

In all of my posts, all of my points, this is the best you can do? A silly quibble over what "impossible" means.

[Ralph Man]

Ralph,

In all of my posts, all of my points, this is the best you can do? A silly quibble over what "impossible" means.

Your entire logic turns on whether someone can say something is an anachronism if it isn't impossible that it isn't. You've argued in more than one post the mere act of calling something an anachronism states that it is impossible that it isn't. You reason that it's wrong to say X, Y, and Z are anachronisms because it's possible, no matter how unlikely, that they aren't. The appropriate reply to this reasoning is to point out it is a gross misunderstanding of how language can and should be used.

[Ariarates]

One of the antis recently stated that the BOM "contradicts what we know of the history of mesoamerica".

Hey, I'm an anti! All it takes, apparently, is not believing the BoM is literal history. That's got to be the narrowest definition ever. Oh well...

I then asked him for a list of those specific contradictions, excluding undiscovered steel, horse bones, etc. So far he has been silent.

I told you I'd need some time to write down my thoughts. You're just gonna have to be a little patient, some of us have lives too. Moreover, steel and horses will be mentioned. You can avert your eyes if that hurts your sensibilities.

[cdowis]

Hey, I'm an anti! All it takes, apparently, is not believing the BoM is literal history. That's got to be the narrowest definition ever. Oh well...

I think I know the difference. If one uses antimormon logic, e.g. makes absurd claims that the BOM totally *contradicts* the history of mesoamerica, and rejects any "evidence" but demands "proof", now that is an antimormon.

Do you fit my definition? There are those critics here in the forum who do not fit.

I told you I'd need some time to write down my thoughts. You're just gonna have to be a little patient, some of us have lives too. Moreover, steel and horses will be mentioned. You can avert your eyes if that hurts your sensibilities.

No hurry. I look forward to the education. You will need to show that these are contradictions, and not just something unsubstianted. For example, in the example of steel, you need to prove that there was no meteoric source of steel, explain why iron was considered a precious metal in the book of Mosiah, and how steel and iron would survive in a tropical forest -- that the laws of physics would be suspended. When Nephi spoke of "many" steel swords, how many did he make, considering that number of fighting age males that would have been in his group. Thousands, hundreds, 50, a few dozen? When was the last mention of steel in the BOM? How much excavation has been done from that time period in mesoamerica?

No need to avert my eyes, but to stand toe-to-toe and ask you a few such questions. So, be prepared with some answers.

[Ariarates]

A few months ago, I reached the conclusion that the BoM is not literal history. Since that time, I have been engaged in a few discussions on this board on various topics related to BoM historicity, where I have consistently been making the following points:

A. There is no evidence for any BoM event to have actually occurred. In itself, that doesn

[Mudcat]

I do not know anyone who believes in the BOM because of archeology. So I completely agree with you.

But the evidence is beyond interesting, it is compelling in my view. You can't just take one piece of the evidence, but need to look at the tapestry.

Just too many to be a coincidence.

I agree here, at least in part.

Looking at various things in a cumulative case approach at least gives a person some degree of pause. Jeff Lindsay's website does a good job of drawing together a lot of things that are often viewed in the abstract.

NHM, Bountiful, finding information recorded on plates elsewhere on the globe.. to give a few example. They are not without interest and certainly worth consideration.

As to if there are to many to be coincidental? Well that's the million dollar question and perspective seems to have a great deal to do with how one answers that exactly.

To offer a poor analogy in respect to archaeology and the BoM. I am no scholar or archaeologist, just simply my lay observations for what they are worth.

At least as I see it archaeology, at least in a secular sense, seems to be like putting a puzzle together without any clear picture of what the puzzle is actually supposed to look like. There isn't a box cover that one can cross examine to say "Ah.. this is where this piece goes!" However, we are dealing human cultures, so it is not as though archaeology is left with no ideas on the matter. Ultimately the goal is to figure out what exactly happened.

I think LDS believe they have a puzzle box cover so to speak, that box cover being the BoM primarily. So it seems a natural conclusion that any and all information that could be considered as a puzzle piece is applied to the puzzle. Ultimately the goal would be to archaeologically confirm what LDS already claim to know has happened.

I don't think its irrational for LDS to do so. I mean LDS do believe that BoM is true, so it would stand to reason that information that confirms that belief would be exactly that. It also stands to reason that if information confirmed such belief that alternate explanations for the presence of such information wouldn't have much if any weight to LDS.

But to a non-LDS there is sort of an "all roads lead to Rome" bias to it.

Regards,

Mudcat