Faith Vs. Science

[WalkerW]

From what I can see, I am not the one who is avoiding the questions on this thread. If Walker or others were to answer the questions I posed back in post #82, I would be glad to provide specifics regarding the shortcomings of Mormon scholarship related the Book of Mormon as I see them (and they are legion).

Brant answered you in this thread.

You asked if I had beliefs that had "overwhelming evidence to the contrary." The answer is no, not that I can think of. You haven't presented any "overwhelming evidence to the contrary" of any particular belief. All you've done is declared how stupid Mormons are, even the ones with Ph.D.s in the this field (i.e. Mesoamerican archaeology, history, and anthropology) of expertise. As I said, you're overwhelming bigotry doesn't count. And frankly, I'm quite disgusted with it. But what do I know? I'm just an irrational Mormon.

Feel free to read John Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. Or perhaps check out the two previous links to Sorenson's Sino-Platonic article or John E. Clark's FARMS article that I provided for Walden.

[WalkerW]

I happen to agree with Brant that you narrowly define "evidence."

[Vex]

I'm tempted to compile a list of previous scientists that 44Foxtrot would feign to hire based on their understandings of religion and science... Me thinks it would prove an interesting list with some of the names consisting of;

Boltzmann

Euler

[WalkerW]

In making this claim, Dr. Sorenson again fails to acknowledge the obvious problems with his assertion, including the fact that Joseph Smith himself claimed that the Lamanites ranged widely over North America. He fails to mention that Smith's identification of the remains of Zelph (a "white Lamanite") and the claimed location of the Hill Cumorah are two problems for his " It is essentially certain that only Mesoamerica could be it." statement.

See the following regarding Joseph Smith's geography comments:

John L. Sorenson, "The Book of Mormon as a Mesoamerican Record," in Book of Mormon Authorship: The Evidence for Ancient Origins (FARMS, 1997).

The newest FARMS Review has some great articles on this very subject.

Finally there are the references used for his article. In criticizing the Smithsonian statement Dr. Sorenson states that "knowledge has expanded vastly" and implies that the Smithsonian somehow lags behind this expansion. Yet, when one looks at the references for the article, one sees no reference to work published after the Smithsonian statement was made. Dr. Sorenson does, however, reference his own unpublished book, which is not very scholarly thing to do.

They revised their statement nonetheless.

I take this as an indication that the later findings of mainstream scientists are less favorable to his cause than those of 30 years ago or more. If the expansion of knowledge is really mitigating in favor of the Book of Mormon as he implies, why not cite some of the newer secular scientific findings?

Why not check out the links I've provided?

[WalkerW]

I also find Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (Oxford University Press, 2002) to be impressive. The professor of literature and religion at the University of Richmond reviewing much of the Book of Mormon scholarship and publishing it through one of the most prestigious secular universities in the world isn't too shabby.

[Daniel Peterson]

Along with its companion, the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Mormon has been shown to have less basis in reality than many, if not most, other religious texts.

By whom? Where? And who (besides You, of course) has determined this to be so?

Mormons, and especially the apologists among them, should simply acknowledge this fact.

It doesn't seem to me like much of a "fact." It's just an assertion, and a pretty dubious one at that.

Mormon apologists, and especially those with a Ph.D., should stop pretending that what they are currently doing when it comes to defending the Book of Mormon is science.

Actually, I don't know of many who claim it to be "science" in the typical English sense of that word. So You appear to be beating a straw man.

But, of course, as Volgadon has noted, it would probably be called "science" in many languages with significant intellectual traditions behind them (e.g. German Wissenschaft and Arabic

[44Foxtrot]

Once again we have an example of how you aren't nearly as clever as you think you are. In most every other language I know of, science includes the things you are disparaging.

Science can be described as the process of observation, generation of falsifiable hypotheses, and testing and evaluation of these hypothesis based on all available and credible relevant data, including that from experimentation and exploration. This best hypotheses, as determined by this process, are then refinement and re-tested. The best hypotheses are those that can explain, or are consistent wit,h the most relevant data and are eventually shown to be predictive of results from future observations and experimentation.

With regard to New World history between about 2500 BC and 600 AD, the best hypotheses, the ones supported by the data, are those described by the Smithsonian in their statement as referenced in an earlier post, which causes so much consternation among the faithful.

Now consider the Mormon apologist. His or her basic premise must be that the Book of Mormon is an accurate account of history in the New World between approximately 2500 BC and 600 AD. No other premise or foundational hypothesis can be allowed. If apologists were to construct an alternative hypotheses, they would be forced to conclude that the evidence in support of the alternative hypothesis was, you guessed it, "not conclusive."

They would need to say or imply that there is still room for the Nephites and Lamanites to fit in somewhere. They conveniently forget that the original introduction the book they are trying to defend as factual included the statement that the Lamanites were the ancestors of Native Americans, period.

What apologists do is not science. When one attempts to defend the claimed historicity of the Book of Mormon, they are engaging in apologetics, not science.

[Daniel Peterson]

They conveniently forget that the original introduction the book they are trying to defend as factual included the statement that the Lamanites were the ancestors of Native Americans, period.

They don't "conveniently forget" such things. They are quite familiar with the preface to the 1989 edition, for example.

But they understand them.

Peter Peterson is the ancestor of Daniel Peterson. Do You imagine that that makes him the only one?

What apologists do is not science. When one attempts to defend the claimed historicity of the Book of Mormon, they are engaging in apologetics, not science.

Do You object to all disciplines that cannot be considered "science" in the same very limited English-specific way that, say, physics is science? Do You discount history, literary studies, and philosophy, for example? Are they worthless? Are thinkers in such fields merely "thinkers," to borrow Your own rigorously scientific language? Can You identify any apologist who has claimed that apologetics is a close approximation to physics or biochemistry? Do You understand the concept of a "straw man"?

But what of Wissenschaft and

[44Foxtrot]

Brant answered you in this thread.

You asked if I had beliefs that had "overwhelming evidence to the contrary." The answer is no, not that I can think of. You haven't presented any "overwhelming evidence to the contrary" of any particular belief. All you've done is declared how stupid Mormons are, even the ones with Ph.D.s in the this field (i.e. Mesoamerican archaeology, history, and anthropology) of expertise. As I said, you're overwhelming bigotry doesn't count. And frankly, I'm quite disgusted with it. But what do I know? I'm just an irrational Mormon.

Feel free to read John Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. Or perhaps check out the two previous links to Sorenson's Sino-Platonic article or John E. Clark's FARMS article that I provided for Walden.

WalkerW,

I would maintain that anyone who believes in the historicity of the Book of Mormon does so in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Mainstream science has come up with a great deal of physical evidence in support of an alternative hypothesis to the Book of Mormon narrative. This hypothesis explains all of the relevant physical data of which I am aware, and has certainly been predictive of what was eventually found at any number of archeological sites in the New World. It was also predictive of the genetic evidence that has recently become available regarding the Asian ancestry of Native American populations.

The Book of Mormon historicity hypothesis has no such support in terms of physical evidence - no artifacts of any kind, no "Reformed Egyptian", no genetics, no Hill Cumorah battle field, no chariots, no horses, no swords, no Zarahemla. Zero. When compared to zero, I would say that the evidence for the Smithsonian view of New World history is overwhelming.

[Deborah]

I would maintain that anyone who believes in the historicity of the Book of Mormon does so in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

"Overwhelming evidence" to the contrary? Lack of evidence is not evidence that something didn't exist. Archeologists are even today making new discoveries so your overwhelming evidence to the contrary doesn't mean evidence isn't to yet be found.

recent discoveries

recent discoveries 2

recent discoveries 3

[Daniel Peterson]

I would maintain that anyone who believes in the historicity of the Book of Mormon does so in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Poor Professor Clark.

If only he knew as much about the archaeology of Pre-Columbian America as 44Foxtrot does.

[44Foxtrot]

Do You object to all disciplines that cannot be considered "science" in the same very limited English-specific way that, say, physics is science? Do You discount history, literary studies, and philosophy, for example? Are they worthless? Are thinkers in such fields merely "thinkers," to borrow Your own rigorously scientific language? Can You identify any apologist who has claimed that apologetics is a close approximation to physics or biochemistry? Do You understand the concept of a "straw man"?

But what of Wissenschaft and

[ERayR]

Dr. Peterson,

I do not discount history or philosophy. Practiced properly, these disciplines have been of be of great value to society. If you wish to claim that defense of the Book of Mormon is merely a literary studies pursuit, then by all means just say so.

I have no problem with religious beliefs, so long as religionists understand that, by and large, their beliefs do not reflect physical reality and do not attempt to impose their unfounded beliefs or the consequences of such beliefs on others.

As you well know, what I do have a problem with is unfounded belief as a basis for a worldview and consequent decision making. As a society, we can no longer afford the luxury of decision making based on unfounded belief and fantasy. The problem goes far beyond the distractions of small debates between small people on small message boards.

Last evening I watched as a member of the Congress of the United States described how he completely ignores scientific facts in his personal worldview, in his decision making, and in his voting as a representative. He proudly stated that he was a creationist, and clearly implied that he would not vote in any way that he felt to be contrary to his unfounded beliefs, regardless of the evidence.

Beliefs have consequences. The consequences of decision making based on unfounded beliefs can be horrendous. Consider, for example, the consequences of the unfounded belief that homosexuality is merely a lifestyle choice. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, from several branches of science, the LDS Church persists in this unfounded belief. Boyd K. Packer stands before the world in General Conference and proclaims that God would never make a homosexual human.

I had dinner in Las Vegas last week with three colleagues. This topic came up and was discussed around the table. The carnage that this unfounded belief has caused in those related to, and acquainted with, the four of us was astounding. One of our little group then noted that homosexuality was simply the latest genetically determined characteristic to be assaulted by the unfounded beliefs of Mormonism, earlier casualties having been blacks and females.

To base one's world view on superstition, myth and hearesay rather than on conclusions logically drawn from physical evidence is nothing short of irresponsible. In many cases it turns out to be immoral.

____________

BTW, you need not lecture me on the meanings of "Wissenshaft" and 'ihm". I speak fluent German and am reasonably certain that I have spent more time doing science in German and Arabic speaking countries than you have.

Doctor Peterson why do you fight it? When Foxy 44 speaks the thinking has been done. All that is left is for everybody to fall in line.

[WalkerW]

The Book of Mormon historicity hypothesis has no such support in terms of physical evidence - no artifacts of any kind, no "Reformed Egyptian", no genetics, no Hill Cumorah battle field, no chariots, no horses, no swords, no Zarahemla. Zero. When compared to zero, I would say that the evidence for the Smithsonian view of New World history is overwhelming.

Really?

William J. Hamblin, "Reformed Egyptian," FARMS Review 19:1 (2007).

Hamblin, "Sacred Writings on Metal Plates in the Ancient Mediterranean," FARMS Review 19:1 (2007).

Stephen D. Ricks, John A. Tvedtnes, "Jewish and Other Semitic Texts Written in Egyptian Characters," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5:2 (1996).

John M. Butler, "Addressing Questions Surrounding the Book of Mormon and DNA Research," FARMS Review 18:1 (2006).

Butler, "A Few Thoughts from a Believing Scientist," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12:1 (2003).

Ugo A. Perego, "The Book of Mormon and the Origin of Native Americans from a Maternally Inherited DNA Standpoint," FARMS Review 22:1 (2010).

Matthew Roper, "Eyewitness Descriptions of Mesoamerican Swords," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5:1 (1996).

Roper, "Swords and "Cimeters" in the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8:1 (1999).

Brian D. Stubbs, "Looking vs. Overlooking: Native American Languages: Let's Void the Void," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5:1 (1996).

Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (Oxford University Press, 2002).

David A. Palmer, In Search of Cumorah: New Evidences for the Book of Mormon from Ancient Mexico (Horizon, 1981).

John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (FARMS, 1985).

Sorenson's Sino-Platonic Papers article linked earlier as well as John Clark's FARMS Review article.

[44Foxtrot]

When Foxy 44 speaks the thinking has been done. All that is left is for everybody to fall in line.

I personally resent such a statement.

Sounds as if you are comparing me to the leadership of the LDS Church, where the "thinking has been done" phrase originated.

Seriously, if anything I stated in the subject post is factually incorrect, please point it out. Otherwise we are talking about spin. And I readily admit that, when it comes to spin, I do not hold a candle to many on this board.

[WalkerW]

Sounds as if you are comparing me to the leadership of the LDS Church, where the "thinking has been done" phrase originated.

See the Hugh B. Brown quote I provided.

Seriously, if anything I stated in the subject post is factually incorrect, please point it out.

It has been.

Otherwise we are talking about spin. And I readily admit that, when it comes to spin, I do not hold a candle to many on this board.

You have no problem spinning what counts as evidence so that it could never support the Book of Mormon.

[WalkerW]

Dr. Peterson,

I do not discount history or philosophy. Practiced properly, these disciplines have been of be of great value to society.

Is Dr. Peterson doing history properly when he finds similarities between the Book of Mormon and current scholarship on the Israelite symbolism regarding Asherah? Others not of our faith seem to think so.

[WalkerW]

I had dinner in Las Vegas last week with three colleagues. This topic came up and was discussed around the table. The carnage that this unfounded belief has caused in those related to or acquainted with the four of us was astounding. One of our little group then noted that homosexuality was simply the latest genetically determined characteristic to be assaulted by the unfounded beliefs of Mormonism, earlier casualties having been blacks and females.

Matt Ridley, "What Makes You Who You Are," Times (June 2, 2003).

Matt Ridley, "Our Genetic Slaves and Masters," The Wall Street Journal (Oct. 30, 2010).

I wonder if you give any thought to historical horrors brought about by the ever so scientific genetic determinism. See, for example, Garland E. Allen, "The Social and Economic Origins of Genetic Determinism: A Case History of the American Eugenics Movement, 1900-1940 and Its Lessons for Today," Genetica 99:2-3 (1997).

[44Foxtrot]

Really?

William J. Hamblin, "Reformed Egyptian," FARMS Review 19:1 (2007).

Hamblin, "Sacred Writings on Metal Plates in the Ancient Mediterranean," FARMS Review 19:1 (2007).

Stephen D. Ricks, John A. Tvedtnes, "Jewish and Other Semitic Texts Written in Egyptian Characters," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5:2 (1996).

John M. Butler, "Addressing Questions Surrounding the Book of Mormon and DNA Research," FARMS Review 18:1 (2006).

Butler, "A Few Thoughts from a Believing Scientist," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12:1 (2003).

Ugo A. Perego, "The Book of Mormon and the Origin of Native Americans from a Maternally Inherited DNA Standpoint," FARMS Review 22:1 (2010).

Matthew Roper, "Eyewitness Descriptions of Mesoamerican Swords," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5:1 (1996).

Roper, "Swords and "Cimeters" in the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8:1 (1999).

Brian D. Stubbs, "Looking vs. Overlooking: Native American Languages: Let's Void the Void," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5:1 (1996).

Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (Oxford University Press, 2002).

David A. Palmer, In Search of Cumorah: New Evidences for the Book of Mormon from Ancient Mexico (Horizon, 1981).

John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (FARMS, 1985).

Sorenson's Sino-Platonic Papers article linked earlier as well as John Clark's FARMS Review article.

WalkerW,

Let's make a deal. If we are discussing physical evidence, then let's stick to relevant physical evidence. And if we are talking about science and scientific evidence then lets stick to mainstream science and peer reviewed literature. Articles from FAIR or FARMS or Journal of Book of Mormon Studies are not scientific literature, they are apologetics.

Do you realize that among all of the citations you have provided only one is from other than a Mormon apologetics enterprise? This is not science and most of it does not even claim to present physical evidence.

For example the first Hamblin citation is a discussion of possible definitions of "Reformed Egyptian'. It is irrelevant since we have several samples of "Reformed Egyptian" as provided by Joseph Smith, and none of these are it. Since no examples of "Reformed Egyptian" , as described by Joseph Smith, have been found in Mesoamerica or anywhere else (with the likely exception of the Detroit Manuscript), I fail to see the point. This article is irrelevant obfuscation with regard to the issue at hand.

Let's take Palmer's 1981 work. Palmer claims that the Jaredites were making steel in the New World approximately 1000 years before ironworks were developed in their purported homeland of Mesopotamia. And we are talking about iron in Mesopotamia, not steel. Palmer has no physical evidence for his claims. He also apparently has no clue about what is involved in steel making let alone the production of steel swords. His work has been given exactly as much attention in the scientific community as it deserves. The accounts of swords made from flint or obsidian are also irrelevant since the BoM specifically mentions steel swords.

As for the work by Givens, I have not read it.

With the highly unlikely exception of the Given's work, which does not appear to present any physical evidence, I will stick by my claim of zero credible physical evidence for the Book of Mormon narrative in the New World.

[WalkerW]

If we are discussing physical evidence...

We are discussing "overwhelming evidence to the contrary." And these particular articles were in direct response to your list.

peer reviewed literature

They are peer-reviewed.

FARMS or Journal of Book of Mormon Studies are not scientific literature

It is academic literature and it is the main literature that actually discusses the Book of Mormon in relation to significant findings.

I will stick by my claim of zero credible physical evidence for the Book of Mormon narrative in the New World.

If you are wanting a sign that says, "Welcome to Zarahemla," then no. If you are wanting findings that fit what the text of the Book of Mormon says, there are plenty. For example,

...the geographic correlation in Sorenson's work suggests that the land of the Jaredites corresponds to an area within the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. The Book of Mormon tells us that in this location we should find a major civilization with advanced architecture and political structures and that we should find them by at least 1200 bc. The Book of Mormon tells us where to look and what to look for. ...the Isthmian region is the location of what has been called the mother civilization of Mesoamerica, a civilization present in that area since at least 1200 bc (and earlier). The culture has been given the name Olmec (what they called themselves is unknown). The Olmec undertook massive building projects and developed an artistic style that influenced Mesoamerican art for centuries. In the Mesoamerican region, which would have been their whole world, they were clearly the greatest of nations.

While it would not be accurate to equate the Jaredites with the Olmec, it is certainly plausible that the Jaredites participated in that culture. The Book of Mormon predicted an ancient high civilization in a certain location and time. Archaeology has found one that fits the geographical, architectural, and temporal description of the Book of Mormon. (Brant Gardner, "Behind the Mask, Behind the Curtain: Uncovering the Illusion," FARMS Review 17:2, 2005).

No, you don't get to determine the rules.

[44Foxtrot]

We are discussing "overwhelming evidence to the contrary." And these particular articles were in direct response to your list.

They are peer-reviewed.

It is academic literature and it is the main literature that actually discusses the Book of Mormon in relation to significant findings.

If you are wanting a sign that says, "Welcome to Zarahemla," then no. If you are wanting findings that fit what the text of the Book of Mormon says, there are plenty. For example,

No, you don't get to determine the rules.

Fair enough. If Mormon apologetics is what it takes to allow you to maintain your belief in the Book of Mormon and your faith based world view, then I wish you the best.

In spite of your claim that the research you cited is peer reviewed and therefore academic, you and I both know that in open peer review most of this stuff would not make it off the editor's desk.

Standards for Mormon apologetics research are clearly not high enough so that it garners attention from mainstream science. I have worked in controversial areas of science and have experienced firsthand that, if the data are there, the mainstream scientific community eventually gets around to paying due notice to the work.

This process can take several years from publication of the initial findings that support a new hypothesis, but scientifically valid work eventually gets the attention it deserves. So does the rest of it.

B.H. Roberts started the process for Book of Mormon related research near the turn of the 20th century. Mormons have been at it for more than 100 years. The fact that mainstream science is still not payng attention should tell you something.

[Daniel Peterson]

The fact that mainstream science is still not payng attention should tell you something.

It certainly does. But I do not think that it means what You think it means.

If you wish to claim that defense of the Book of Mormon is merely a literary studies pursuit, then by all means just say so.

I by no means claim that study or defense of the Book of Mormon is "merely a literary studies pursuit." But I do treasure that inadvertently revealing "merely." It speaks so eloquently of a smugly scientistic mindset.

I have no problem with religious beliefs per se, so long as religionists understand that, by and large, their beliefs do not reflect physical reality

So You're willing to tolerate religious belief as long as it isn't actually belief.

How magnanimous of You.

and so long as they do not attempt to impose their unfounded beliefs, or the consequences of such beliefs, on others.

And You will not tolerate theocrats -- a very menacing prospect here in the United States these days -- nor even any who seek to act in their daily life or in their interactions with others or in their lives as citizens on the basis of their religious beliefs.

Take that, Roger Williams, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Lech Walesa, John Paul II, Harriet Tubman, Asoka, William Penn, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and all you other meddling religious "reformers"!

As you well know, what I do have a problem with is unfounded belief as a basis for a worldview and consequent decision making. As a society, we can no longer afford the luxury of decision making based on unfounded belief and fantasy.

Please prove that scientifically.

Using publicly testable, objective, empirical facts, give precise meaning to the concept of "affordability."

The consequences of decision making based on unfounded beliefs can be horrendous.

Using only objective scientific data, define "horrendous."

Consider, for example, the consequences of the unfounded belief that homosexuality is merely a lifestyle choice. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, from several branches of science, the LDS Church persists in this unfounded belief.

Using no "beliefs," but only empirical scientific data, demonstrate to us why any of us should care.

On the basis of what objective scientific data should I care about the interests of homosexuals or blacks or women or, for that matter, anybody else? Please introduce no "beliefs," no "feelings." Just the facts. Derived from quantifiable matters like length and breadth and atomic weight.

To base one's world view on superstition, myth and hearesay rather than on conclusions logically drawn from physical evidence is nothing short of irresponsible. In many cases it turns out to be immoral.

Please define "responsibility," and "morality" and "immorality," on the basis, solely, of conclusions logically drawn from physical evidence. Do not surreptitiously attempt to smuggle any "beliefs" or "feelings" into Your answer. Just clear logical deductions from purely physical data.

BTW, you need not lecture me on the meanings of "Wissenshaft" and 'ihm".

I assume that You intended to write Wissenschaft and

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel Peterson:

I wonder if he knows the meaning of hubris?

[44Foxtrot]

-- but am always willing to be tutored by my betters.

So am I. I did not pick up the missing "c" in "Wissenschaft" or the missing quotation marks in "'ihm". Since these were not English language words, I did not pay enough attention to the red line on the spellchecker.

We can debate about the quality of Mormon scholarship as reated to the Book of Mormon all day. The fact of the matter is that mainstream science does not pay much attention to it.

As for a response to the rest of your post, I would simply state, for the nth time, that facts matter and that basing one's decision making on unfounded belief and fantasy instead of logic and evidence does not lead to the best outcomes for individuals or societies.

In spite of all you have said on the subject, I doubt you would claim that unfounded belief is a better basis for a worldview and decision making than is evidence based belief.

Of course, I am often surprised by what gets said on this board.

_____________________

BTW (again): Please note that I refrain from using personal mockery when responding to your posts. The fact that you do not refrain from using mockery when responding to mine serves to underscore my point about the tactics of Mormon apologists when responding to positions that they see as threatening or with which they are not allowed to agree.

[Daniel Peterson]

We can debate about the quality of Mormon scholarship all day. The fact of the matter is that mainstream science does not pay much attention to it.

A fact that is not in dispute.

Its significance is.

As for a response to the rest of your post, I would simply state, for the nth time, that facts matter

And I would simply say that you've constructed a self-serving straw man to the extent that you believe anybody is arguing that they don't.

and that basing one's decision making on unfounded belief and fantasy instead of logic and evidence does not lead to the best outcomes for individuals or societies.

And yet you apparently decline to explain to us how morality can be deduced from the chemical analysis of a mutton chop, the population density of cheetahs in east Africa, or the strength of the weak nuclear force.

In spite of all you have said on the subject, I doubt you would claim that unfounded belief is a better basis for a worldview and decision making than is evidence based belief.

Quite so. Which rather undercuts your attempt to portray people like me as blithely irrational fantasists, doesn't it?

Of course, I am often surprised by what gets said on this board.

We exist for the entertainment of our masters.

.