The Uselessness Of The Rational Method

[Robert F. Smith]

So quickly?! It seemed like a whole week in there!

I thought that things went sour primarily at the end. There was a lot of frustration from those who just didn't get it, and so they started lashing out.

I would have thought there was something really wrong with my mind. Why with something close to my house? I would ask them to give me a whole list of things I would encounter in a trip to Argentina that are so uncommon and unlikely to be there at the exact moment in which I go by, that then I would have much MUCH better evidence to corroborate that they were real. But a written list, not just a spoken list. You might think this is a little too much but, for heaven's sake! it's my mind that seems to be going off the rails! If they (the angels) tell me to keep it all quite and stuff then I would tell them that if they know me then they know my intentions are good.

All that is understandable, and you would no doubt have the same problem that St. Thomas had with a resurrected Jesus: He wouldn't believe it until he could personally feel the wounds. Perhaps there is an advantage in being young and unsophisticated -- easier to accept belief or faith in unseen powers.

So for modern times all it takes to falsify Joseph Smiths incredible claims is one false claim in the BoM or of some revelation he made. Of course, you have an army of lawyers to indefinitely reinterpret "God's words" (apologists) so I don't hold my breath for that to happen. Until then, however, JS and the apologists' words are blown by the wind for me and have no relevance.

"One false claim"? Of course, as you say, the sophistry on either side of the debate might leave one cold and uninterested in even considering the issue, just as a courtroom filled with lawyers can make a mockery of careful, rational inquiry. So I can understand why you might find the prospect of checking truth claims irrelevant. However, is it reasonable to allow any sort of claim of falsity to prevail without a careful appraisal of it?

Perhaps you have seen some TV episodes of "Time Team" or "The History Detectives." I like to follow their very interesting (and well-funded) quests to make sense of

artifacts and/or claims about those artifacts. No perfection is sought for (a fallacy anyhow), but rather an effort to derive some credible explanation for the circumstances surrounding the question at issue (sometimes very extraordinary claims are made). In so doing they call upon various experts and typically arrive at a meaningful conclusion.

This is the way crime scene investigators and detectives approach the task of solving a crime and preparing reports for the D.A. The same applies to archeologists at an excavation and later in the lab -- trying to make sense of the data. Sometimes decades are invested before any clearcut explanations or correlations are possible, and even then archeologists with rival, pet explanations will call your careful work into question. Since I have worked in both law enforcement and archeology, I have a particular affinity for approaching historical issues in this way. Does the improbable nature of the Joseph Smith quest make it a priori impossible to approach?

As for our personal religious quests, I sometimes think that Buddhists sitting zazen for years can certainly learn some extraordinary methods of self-control -- including being able to generate alpha or theta brain waves on demand, slowing the heart rate, and perhaps achieving an enviable level of calm and equanimity, despite all the hullaballoo going on around him. Is this in some way comparable to our learning how to pray effectively, even though we may not at first have any concrete notion of what it is we are to learn? None of that can be achieved overnight, nor without difficulty. Perseverence and faith are called for, even if that seems silly at first.

[Jeff K.]

The wikipedia link was a good one and reflects what I have been trying to tell the guante et al.

[Brian 2.0]

Jeff K,

I am speechless... I am completely baffled by your response. Please re-read your post #72 and please read my quote that you included in that.

You go on an on about poking holes in my "group #1" by saying it's a lousy control group, even with a smug smiley face "nice control group... it God interacts you control group is gone". Did you even read the quote you quoted. Take a look one more time. Did you not read the first sentence of mine that you quoted? In it I say that Group #1 is NOT A CONTROL GROUP!

You have shown no understanding of what I am talking about. You fill your posts with smug "Can't you see... Are you getting it now... Take a statistics class, boy" smugness while your post clearly show that you are not reading or understanding what I am saying. You quote me, then fight against points I'm not even making.

I can't have a discussion with you when you don't even read what I am saying. You can scroll up and and re-read my posts and in them I clearly say what is my control group and what is my test group (and it's not 1,2,3,or 4) I've explained it multiple times, but you keep misquoting me and arguing the wrong points.