Why Does Everything Need Evidence Now?

[blackstrap]

Evidence almost always comes with a dose of explanation. We the people have a need to know "why" and many in the academic communities do not hesitate to voice opinions,often given as fact. Objective evidence rarely exists,or at least is rarely allowed to exist without some comment on what it means.

For example: a hair sample taken from a bush in the Pacific northwest is presented to a lab in LA for analysis.The hair sample and arguably the lab results are evidence.Now come the explanations as to what that hair sample means.Some will look at that evidence and say"Bigfoot" .Some will say"unknown primate",others will say "hoax"

[Storm Rider]

Just a thought. It seems to me that in the world of mormon apologetics, mormons are strongly transitioning towards the modern concept of there needing to be evidence in all things. For example, we now have arguments centered around evolution, pre-adamites, polygamy issues, negros and the priesthood, and a thousand other things, all because of the evidence that is now present. So I guess my question would be thus:

What is the line we should be drawing between the evidence, and faith in the prophets? It SEEMS to me that the original mormonism was geared towards believing in the prophets regardless of their being contradictory evidence, as the evidence is almost never flawless, whereas the words of the prophets, when spoken by the Spirit, ARE flawless. Would it be better to take the words of the prophets and believe them, and to stop trying to find and rely on evidences as much as we are?

I can appreciate your comments. Some of our greatest statements of faith start simply with, "We believe". All people of faith relate to these types of statements because their own faith forces them into such an appreciation. However, apologetics exists as a method to explain, counter, and discuss topics of faith in a more secular manner or in relation to other positions of faith.

The LDS faith is somewhat unique in that we are comfortable with the statement that "This is the true Church of Jesus Christ", but we also do not denigrate the Christian faith of others. The invitation is clear, bring what you have and let us add the fullness of the gospel of Christ to your understanding so that you might be able to live closer to your God and our Lord and Master. This does not happen in other Christian churches or groups.

Our efforts to "prove" the reliability of the Church's history has come as contradictory information has been highlighted by detractors and critics. We have complicated the process by some of our own leaders causing confusion by their own statements. Would that men were perfect and could have a uniform understanding and expertise when discussing doctrinal topics; unfortunately, it is obvious these were men that were every bit as frail and weak as we ourselves are. They are but men called of God rather than God's puppet mouthpiece in all things on the earth. It sounds a little silly when we state clearly what would be necessary to meet the standard so many critics demand of prophets and apostles. They so quickly forget the theological history that Christianity comes from. The first apostles were all weak and lived imperfect lives. The ancient prophets were of similar stock.

We need both; we need to speak from faith and we need to speak from intellect. John Paul II wrote a wonderful Encyclical entitled Fides et Ratio that addresses this very topic. It is a short read and it is a shame that not more Catholics, much less LDS, are familiar with it.

[why me]

Just a thought. It seems to me that in the world of mormon apologetics, mormons are strongly transitioning towards the modern concept of there needing to be evidence in all things.

This is true. But I believe that it is the sign of the times where evidence is needed to prove that the lds church is true. What is overlooked in this is: if the church were proven true, then the knowledge of god is not based on faith but on evidence of truth. It is a catch 22 situation. For example, people want evidence that the book of mormon is true based on artifacts from mesoamerica. They need something that would give definite proof that the nephites actually existed. But again, if this happens, god would also be proven true and we can all relax and do good because we know that there is an actual god.

The most that the lds church can accomplish in all this is to rely on the holy ghost and on the evidence that now exists, evidence that doesn't prove the church definitely but doesn't discount it either.

[Maidservant]

They need something that would give definite proof that the nephites actually existed. But again, if this happens, god would also be proven true and we can all relax and do good because we know that there is an actual god.

Oddly enough I'm not sure that "doing good" would be the result of KNOWING evidentially that the Book of Mormon is true (although for me, I think there is plenty already, so again, what has it mattered?). And I think that's the point. Knowing that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate does not! lead to charity and repentance. Reading the Book of Mormon and hearing the testimony of Christ in it along with the personal choice can help a person to be sanctified.

An atheist can also be in the path of sanctification if she lives a cleanly and in charity, which many do. Any who do the best they can with the light they have, will have opportunity to add to that with priesthood covenants eventually. So sanctification can take place without the Book of Mormon, per se.

What the Book of Mormon does is a couple of things. It teaches us that our Father in heaven speaks to all his children. It clarifies and confirms the Bible especially as relates to the mission of Jesus Christ. It teaches us that God speaks to us now, not just in the past (if we can accept Joseph Smith's mission in helping to bring forth the Book of Mormon). I am sure there is a long list of benefits*. I think all of these benefits are beneficial if we have to trust without a lot of evidence OR if we continue to get evidence. I really don't think heavenly Father has a problem with gaining a lot of evidence on the Book of Mormon or on anything. It can't change much for most people, because they have already decided what kind of people they are going to be with or without the evidence of the Book of Mormon. But I don't think he would want us to wait until the evidence gathering is finished (hundreds of years?) before we and our families and the world can be blessed by the Book of Mormon in the meantime. It's like waiting to turn on the faucet until you learned everything about the plumbing. You'll likely die of thirst.

I personally don't consider my acceptance of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon a matter of faith. I do consider it to be partly a matter of trust. But I often think that if I had sat at a table with Joseph Smith and he told me his experiences and handed me a Book of Mormon to read, I would have just accepted what he had to say. What would be the reason not to? Joseph Smith is a person with an experience, which he told us about; and as soon as I read and every time I read the Book of Mormon, *I* become a person with a direct experience with my Father and with Christ. For me, faith is what I do WITH what I find in the Book of Mormon, for which to me is plainly the truth and is joyous.

= = = = = = = =

*an interesting benefit or purpose to the Book of Mormon, in my opinion. I speak to a lot of Muslim people, and when I get the opportunity to tell them I follow a prophet, they often challenge this; and one of their challenges is what is the sign that he is a prophet, and they say that one of the signs that Muhammad, saw, was a prophet is the Quran. "Did your prophet produce a book?" they say confidently, not being able to imagine an instance where this might be. So then I say, "We-e-e-ll . . . ."

[thesometimesaint]

That's a big loophole you left there.

People who want power over other people's minds love it when you think that way. It is a major tactic of the priestly class especially.

What you suggest is not a virtue.

As far as I can tell all real human knowledge about the world has come by way of evidence. In fact, being very strict about what counts as evidence has allowed an even better understanding of the world. Even so called analytic truths (mathematics) cannot be accepted without something like evidence (usually presented in the form of a deductive proof discovered by someone).

On the other hand, do to time and resource constraints, we often have to act without sufficient evidence and in that sense we have to apply something one might call faith. But that is an unfortunate brute fact of life and not some blessing or planned feature of existence. It sucks like death and taxes.

By the way,...they are just men and have no priveldged access to truth.

It is no vice either. There is nothing mandating that we accept what prophets or scientists say beyond that which we can determine for ourselves.

That is a HUGE assumption that we know all there is to know about religion or science.

Would we neccessarially come to different conclusions based just on the availability of more time?

[rameumptom]

Paul teaches us that faith is the "evidence" of things not seen. So there must be evidence. The problem isn't in discussing evidences, but in insisting there is "proof" one way or the other on certain issues.

That God provided 3 and 8 Witnesses for the Book of Mormon, more witnesses for the D&C, and in many major revelations Joseph Smith was not the only one to receive it, we see the importance of evidence to the Lord. Even with the 1978 revelation on the priesthood, the First Presidency and 10 of the 12 apostles were present.

[Tarski]

That is a HUGE assumption that we know all there is to know about religion or science.

Whose assumption is that?

It is no vice either.

It is.

Just believe me! LOL

[epiginosko]

Paul teaches us that faith is the "evidence" of things not seen. So there must be evidence. The problem isn't in discussing evidences, but in insisting there is "proof" one way or the other on certain issues.

I'd be interested in knowing what the original Greek text said and if the term for evidence is the same that we would consider from a scientific standpoint, given that the age of science was pretty far coming at the time Paul was writing.

[Bikeemikey]

The exercising of faith requires that we look for evidence. God does not want us to have faith. He wants our faith to become knowledge. This happens when we use faith as a motivator to study the evidence.

The spirit is evidence. We should seek for evidence, weigh all evidence. We should not discount the essential evidence of spiritual discovery.

If we are not looking for evidence our faith is diminishing.

Alma 32 is the best summary of the scientific method of faith.

(null)

Edited April 25, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[CV75]

What is the line we should be drawing between the evidence, and faith in the prophets?

I would say that scholarly pursuits should hold the same line that must be held in any other temporal endeavor that is accompanied by faith and prayer (Alma 34:17-41). Note verse 33 refers to "many witnesses" that are rightfully brought forth just like any otehr true principle that benefits mankind. All good things eventually lead to Christ, no matter where someone may think they came from, and no matter how long they enjoy them before finding out.

[epiginosko]

I would say that scholarly pursuits should hold the same line that must be held in any other temporal endeavor that is accompanied by faith and prayer (Alma 34:17-41). Note verse 33 refers to "many witnesses" that are rightfully brought forth just like any otehr true principle that benefits mankind. All good things eventually lead to Christ, no matter where someone may think they came from, and no matter how long they enjoy them before finding out.

I like your line of reasoning here. I enjoy studying history and sociology, particularly where it relates to American religious movements, but I am not interested in becoming an LDS apologist. For that reason, I have often thought of my academic pursuits as distinct and separate from my faith. However, as you indicated, I would certainly pursue any other temporal endeavor with faith and prayer, and can likewise do so in my chosen field while remaining objective and academically credible.

Edited April 26, 2012 by epiginosko

[wenglund]

I'd be interested in knowing what the original Greek text said and if the term for evidence is the same that we would consider from a scientific standpoint, given that the age of science was pretty far coming at the time Paul was writing.

Consider also the law of witnesses applicable way back then: "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (see all the related scriptures HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mariner]

The question as to "why everything needs evidence now" seems a bit beside the point.

If objective evidence relevant to a certain theory or belief is available, it should be weighed and considered. Why would one not consider available evidence when making a decision or forming a belief? Yet when it comes to religion, humans seem to have no problem disregarding any objective evidence that contradicts the traditional beliefs of their particular brand.

In the rational world, when the weight of evidence for a belief or theory becomes great relative to the evidence (if any) against, then the theory or belief can be given more credence and becomes more useful in determining reality. On the other hand, when the weight of evidence is against a theory or belief, then that theory or belief should be discounted or abandoned in favor of theories or beliefs supported by objective evidence.

Religious beliefs are generally based on little or no objective evidence, but on induced feelings or emotional responses to unfounded assertions by religious leaders.

Theories or beliefs can also be judged and valued according to their explanatory power.

Religious belief has little or no explanatory power when it comes to objective and or scientific evidence. Religious beliefs are highly heterogeneous among religions, and are generally internally inconsistent and subject to change at the whim of religious leaders (just ask any experienced Mormon apologists).

For these reasons religious beliefs unsupported by objective evidence should be viewed with great skepticism.

Asking "why does everything need evidence now" seems to imply that if there is no evidence for one's unfounded beliefs now, one should simply continue to hold those beliefs (often in the face of strong evidence to the contrary) and wait for the "right" evidence (i.e. any scrap of evidence that could possibly be construed to support said beliefs) to become available.

Seems sort of silly, does it not?

Edited April 26, 2012 by Mariner

[epiginosko]

For these reasons religious beliefs unsupported by objective evidence should be viewed with great skepticism.

While I could have commented on much more of your post, I think that this line sums up your point the best. The interesting thing is that the idea of finding supporting evidence (historical, archaeological, natural science) for religious claims is really a fairly recent phenomenon - about the same time that the "age of enlightenment" swept across the west from France. Prior to that, the "reasoning" man did was really based on what sounded like the most compelling philosophical argument - which of course can vary from group to group, region to region, generation to generation.

The question is (and this may bleed into the other thread on the "modern apostasy" of liberalizing scripture) whether or not the Bible is a scientific and historic journal. In our contemporary age, we like to either make the Bible (IE Genesis account, great flood, etc.) fit into our scientific understanding...or vice versa. But that is a recent phenomenon. "Creation Science" as it is called is still a new field - arguably it didn't really become an organized "defensive" effort until after Scope's monkey trial in 1925, and really didn't start making public waves until the 1960's.

Should we be analyzing sacred texts in light of modern science, archaeology, and history? Did the original writers even make the claim of scientific accuracy? From what we know about ancient writings, allegory was just as real as geology to Bronze age man. Revising texts later was not frowned upon. Writing under someone else's name was tolerated. Philosophy and science were essentially the same thing.

When we talk about the "truth" of the scriptures, what are we talking about? Spiritual truths or scientific truths? Or both.

I guess that was a long-winding way to get to this question...does scripture have to be scientifically/historically accurate in order to be true? How would it affect your testimony to discover that the Great Flood of Noah was borrowed from a Sumerian deluge myth and not an actual event?

[CV75]

For these reasons religious beliefs unsupported by objective evidence should be viewed with great skepticism.

Rather, when viewed with a particle of faith, their truthfulness can be discerned. A persistent lack of common sense and sound judgement would foolishly apply objectivity to matters that are clearly subjective.

Edited April 26, 2012 by CV75

[KevinG]

Are you able to discern when a prophet is speaking by the spirit, and when a prophet is not speaking by the spirit? And secondly, what standard are you using to measure flaws in a prophet's words?

H.

Yes.

"Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not." -Brother Brigham

God's standard as communicated by the Holy Ghost.

Edited April 26, 2012 by KevinG

[epiginosko]

Yes.

"Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not." -Brother Brigham

God's standard as communicated by the Holy Ghost.

And if equally faithful members feel different like they got different answers from the Holy Ghost, how do we resolve it?

[KevinG]

And if equally faithful members feel different like they got different answers from the Holy Ghost, how do we resolve it?

When it happens with my wife and I we return to prayer until we are one with God often finding a third alternative that neither one of us had received prior.

When it happens with a Bishopric they return to prayer until they are one with God. (See handbook on counsels)

When it happens with a Stake Presidency they return to prayer until they are one with God. (See handbook on counsels)

...are you seeing a pattern here?

I would expect anyone who received revelation to check, double check and triple check with the Holy Spirit and then follow the dictates of their conscience.

[epiginosko]

When it happens with my wife and I we return to prayer until we are one with God often finding a third alternative that neither one of us had received prior.

When it happens with a Bishopric they return to prayer until they are one with God. (See handbook on counsels)

When it happens with a Stake Presidency they return to prayer until they are one with God. (See handbook on counsels)

...are you seeing a pattern here?

I would expect anyone who received revelation to check, double check and triple check with the Holy Spirit and then follow the dictates of their conscience.

(Eph 4:13) "Til we all come in the unity of the faith..."

[Mariner]

While I could have commented on much more of your post, I think that this line sums up your point the best. The interesting thing is that the idea of finding supporting evidence (historical, archaeological, natural science) for religious claims is really a fairly recent phenomenon - about the same time that the "age of enlightenment" swept across the west from France. Prior to that, the "reasoning" man did was really based on what sounded like the most compelling philosophical argument - which of course can vary from group to group, region to region, generation to generation.

The question is (and this may bleed into the other thread on the "modern apostasy" of liberalizing scripture) whether or not the Bible is a scientific and historic journal. In our contemporary age, we like to either make the Bible (IE Genesis account, great flood, etc.) fit into our scientific understanding...or vice versa. But that is a recent phenomenon. "Creation Science" as it is called is still a new field - arguably it didn't really become an organized "defensive" effort until after Scope's monkey trial in 1925, and really didn't start making public waves until the 1960's.

Should we be analyzing sacred texts in light of modern science, archaeology, and history? Did the original writers even make the claim of scientific accuracy? From what we know about ancient writings, allegory was just as real as geology to Bronze age man. Revising texts later was not frowned upon. Writing under someone else's name was tolerated. Philosophy and science were essentially the same thing.

Agreed so far. Would humankind be better off if philosophy and science were "essentially the same thing" today?

When we talk about the "truth" of the scriptures, what are we talking about? Spiritual truths or scientific truths? Or both. I guess that was a long-winding way to get to this question...does scripture have to be scientifically/historically accurate in order to be true?

Okay, I am going to have to ask you for a definition of "truth" here. If "truth" is simply an idea or concept that gives one a burning bosom, then pretty much set of beliefs that one has been taught are "holy" will do the trick.

For example, which of the following religious beliefs would you say were "true".

- God created the Earth and every living species found upon it in six days

- Mary the mother of Jesus experienced immaculate conception having been somehow impregnated by God the Father.

- God flooded the entire world to wipe out humankind except for 8 lucky folks and a breeding pair of each species of land animal on the planet.

- Adam and Eve were the first humans and lived in a Garden near Daviss County MO less than 10,000 years ago.

- Trailing behind the comet Hale-Bopp are spaceships that will take Heavens Gate adherents on board and safely away from the wicked Earth allowing them to move to the next level in the evolution of man.

- God commanded that, in order to reach the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom, a man had to hold the higher Priesthood and enter in to the new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage.

- The Galactic Lord Xenu brought millions of his people to Earth and stacked them round volcanoes and killed them with hydrogen bombs. The spiritual influences of the unfortunate space travelers remains on the Earth and one must be a member of the Church of Scientology and pay money to the Church to get cleared of the influence of these entities.

- One must pay tithing to the LDS Church equal to 10% of one's increase in order to qualify for the Celestial Kingdom.

- Transubstantiation: the elements of the Eucharist, bread and wine, are transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus and that they are no longer bread and wine, but only retain their appearance of bread and wine.

The average Mormon I know would say that one must use "spiritual discernment" to determine which of these religious beliefs is "true" or "truly of God the Eternal Father".

Do you think that even among the Mormons you know there would be any agreement on what was "true" and valid among the ever changing teachings of Mormonism over the years, let alone the teachings of other religions as sampled above?

I am the only only individual in my company with a Mormon background and the only atheist. The main scriptural sources underpinning the "spiritual experiences" I encounter here each day are the Bhagavad Gītā and the Quran. Leaving the former aside for now, and turning to the Quran, we have a sacred text that claims a number of objective truth claims that can be easily falsified, just as we find in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon, and in the Book of Abraham.

Adherents to Islam take time out of their day to pray five times, including rising around 5:00 am in the morning at the call from the local mosque. They (mainly men) slowly and dutifully make their way to the mosque well before dawn. They appear out of the the darkness like silent ghosts in white robes and quietly wash themselves before entering the mosque to pray. Moslem men I know and work with consider this early morning prayer a profound spiritual experience and believe that Allah blesses them during the day for having made the effort to worship Him.

Yet no Mormon would agree that strict adherence to the teachings of the Quran would get one to the Celestial Kingdom. Same with the Bhagavad Gita. Yet the hindus on our team here are some of the most gentle, kind and humble folks one could ever hope to meet.

No one could reasonably deny that these folks have genuine spiritual experiences. So if the Bible, Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, Bhagavad Gita, Quran and other holy texts through time, know and unknown, can be the guides to these experiences, why does it make any difference whatsoever which one a spiritually inclined individual chooses to use?

There is no objective truth in "spiritual truth". "Spiritual truth" is culturally and religiously determined. It has no basis in objective reality. The consequences of relying on these spiritual truths unsupported by the weight of objective evidence can be disastrous. Men have followed their "spiritual truths" to, among other things, take dozens of wives against the laws of the land, willingly drink poison kool-aid and force their young children to do the same, and surgically mutilate and even murder their innocent daughters.

How would it affect your testimony to discover that the Great Flood of Noah was borrowed from a Sumerian deluge myth and not an actual event?

I can honestly say that the flood of Noah and the other 'truths" taught to me as a young and faithful member of the LDS Church helped make me what I am today.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Mariner

[Log]

I can honestly say that this and the other 'truths" taught to me as a young and faithful member of the LDS Church made me what I am today.

Nevermind. Mad Libs is fun, but this...

Edited April 27, 2012 by Log

[Mariner]

Nevermind. Mad Libs is fun, but this...

Glad you enjoyed it.

Just so you don't misunderstand, what I am today is someone who does not need to continually try to rationalize the the illogical and unfounded (but nonetheless canonized) beliefs of their religion with the abundant objective evidence that continues to accumulate every day contrary to those beliefs. Without the associated intellectual dishonesty and cog dis to contend with, one can be healthier, happier, and free to realize their potential to understand the world as it really is, based on objective reproducible evidence. As a consequence, one can better understand how to best contribute to the world.

(You can rest assured that my staff and I are not out here trying to convert folks from the religion of Muhammed (peace be upon him) to the religion of Joseph Smith Jr., or to build upscale shopping malls in the desert with other people's money.)

_________________________________

BTW: Are you an insomniac? Just asking because insomnia really can damage one's health. My #45 above got posted about 2:30 am EDT, as I recall, after which i immediately edited the passage you quoted. You only had a window of a few minutes to catch it as originally written. So if you live in the US you must have been up writing your response in the middle of the night. Perhaps you should try getting a good night's sleep.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Mariner

[Log]

Just so you don't misunderstand, what I am today is....

Oh no, please don't tempt me....

[Mariner]

Oh no, please don't tempt me....

Go right ahead, Log.

Your glib one-liners and laughing smilies indicate hesitancy to address the real issue here.

You have not yet refuted a single point I have made.

Why don't you go ahead and explain to me the great advantages of unfounded beliefs held in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Edited April 27, 2012 by Mariner

[Log]

You have not yet refuted a single point I have made.

You've made points? I thought you were letting people score them off you! What game are you playing?

No, no, please continue to tell us how great you are!

Edited April 27, 2012 by Log