The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible

[Robert F. Smith]

The Book of Mormon declares itself a history, yet no history can be found.  The Bible makes no such self-claims, yet elements are supported as being founded on real people, places, and events. ..........................................................................................  

I have seen nothing which would indicate to me that you have ever addressed the issue of Book of Mormon historicity.  When have you ever addressed the actual basis for the historicity of the Book of Mormon according to the same rules you would apply to the Bible?  Have you actually read any serious books on the Book of Mormon?  Or only fallacious anti-Mormon literature?

 

I would appreciate a forthright critique of defenses of the Book of Mormon.  It would be a breath of fresh air to find you making factual statements about the ancient world as it relates to the Book of Mormon.  Might be an interesting discussion, and we might both learn something.  What do you say, Gervin?

[rodheadlee]

It is suspected that humans perceive that light travels at 186,000 miles per second.  

[Gervin]

I have seen nothing which would indicate to me that you have ever addressed the issue of Book of Mormon historicity.  When have you ever addressed the actual basis for the historicity of the Book of Mormon according to the same rules you would apply to the Bible?  Have you actually read any serious books on the Book of Mormon?  Or only fallacious anti-Mormon literature?

 

I would appreciate a forthright critique of defenses of the Book of Mormon.  It would be a breath of fresh air to find you making factual statements about the ancient world as it relates to the Book of Mormon.  Might be an interesting discussion, and we might both learn something.  What do you say, Gervin?

I attempted to get to the bottom of Book of Mormon historicity via the New World Archaeological Foundation thread and discussions with Brant Gardner.  His assumptions and methodologies appear vague to me. I would have a bit more confidence in his conclusions if his assumptions were spelled out clearly. They are not and don't appear to be worth his time to share.   It's fine for what it is - a layperson's attempt to correlate his scripture with archaeology.  

 

Posited: Any approach to Book of Mormon historicity that begins with the assumption that the Book of Mormon is historical, is whimsy. 

 

Here are some ongoing academic outlets where theories, findings, conclusions get hashed out.  If you want your claims to be taken seriously - that the Book of Mormon has a mesoamerican setting, then you will have to demonstrate engagement and discourse on a serious level.   

http://www.utmesoamerica.org/

http://www.wayeb.org/conferencesevents/emc_nowsymposium.php

Edited February 21, 2015 by Gervin

[Tacenda]

Well for those who want history for the BOM, there is plenty, it's just in Mayan according to the latest theories.u

But history proves nothing spiritual.

Talk to any atheist and he will tell you the same. It would take a fool to believe in God while accepting an atheist's theory of truth.

Why would anyone do that?

That is precisely what you are doing. All the stuff about religion and science conflicting USE PRECISELY THE THEORY OF TRUTH YOU ARE USING HERE.

If you really want to argue that science proves religion, I wish you well on the atheist boards.

WHY DO EVANGELICALS DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS?????

Well that's calling the kettle black. Or did I jump to fast on that statement? Edited February 21, 2015 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

Well, given that we want to exclude the supernatural or boastful claims made in any ancient document (including those of King Mesha of Moab, or of any Egyptian king), where does that leave us? Based on your assumptions, we are therefore left with no forensic evidience for Abraham, for Moses, for the Exodus, or for the Resurrection. That is Bukowski's point, and these conclusions are the bulwark of atheism and the death of god in our own time.

On what, therefore, do you posit a basis for faith? If you reply that the Bible actually came from the ancient World (which it did), then we must therefore accept the gods of Olympus simply because the Iliad and Odyssey came from the ancient world. Or do you have a more nuanced basis for faith? You usually seem unable to come to grips with such problems.

I think there's scripture somewhere that prove Christians don't go by blind faith. Maybe EV's are too pragmatic for some people.

[mfbukowski]

It is suspected that humans perceive that light travels at 186,000 miles per second.  

Yeah.

I should have left it as "x"

[ERayR]

Huh?  Which one of these is not the like the other?  

 

The Moabite Stone depicts historic elements described in the Bible. Same with the Hittite Monuments from Boghz-Keui.  Biblical historicity is a fact - absent any spiritual elements described - it just depends on the degree.

 

Do they attest to and prove the divinity of Jesus Christ and the atonement?

[MormonFreeThinker]

yet elements are supported as being founded on real people, places, and events. 

 

Modern scholar and world's leading Book of Exodus defender Dr. James Hoffmeier said there is no direct evidence for the Book of Exodus, where is the hard evidence for the Book of Exodus? What about the doctrine of the Trinity? How is 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 possible? Our doctrine doesn't contradict Math. 

 

 

The Moabite Stone depicts historic elements described in the Bible. 

 

The Moabite Stone doesn't prove that King David had a powerful empire, today most archaeologists no longer believe King David had an empire. 

Edited February 21, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[Uncle Dale]

 

...most archaeologists no longer believe King David had a powerful empire. 

 

 

Apparently he was important enough to have a royal lineage

named after him. There's not much found in old Judah that

would support the idea of his having a great kingdom -- although

some sites bordering upon the "Philistine" area look promising

as being more than "one-donkey-towns." Further excavation

may one day uncover a David-as-king artifact.

 

The northern kingdom is more promising for future discoveries,

I suppose. A "House of David" monarchy actually existed there

and left early evidence for the name, at least.

 

Would have such a David been anything more than a minor

thorn in the side of Philistine and Canaanite administrations?

Probably not -- and probably not in the case of Solomon,

either. But some sort of elevation of Jerusalem began back

in those days. For some reason or another, the most prominent

of the Israelite shrines was developed there. Transitory reign

over both the north and the south may have occurred.

 

But -- a kingdom from the Nile to the Euphrates (or, even from

the Brook of the Nile to a tributary of the Euphrates) seems

to me to have been a Maccabean fiction, projected backwards

into a prehistoric (largely fictional) past.

 

UD

[Kaleb Webb]

 

 

What about the doctrine of the Trinity? How is 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 possible? Our doctrine doesn't contradict Math.

I thought the whole idea of the Trinity was that 1 x 1 x 1 =1

[Robert F. Smith]

I attempted to get to the bottom of Book of Mormon historicity via the New World Archaeological Foundation thread and discussions with Brant Gardner.  His assumptions and methodologies appear vague to me. I would have a bit more confidence in his conclusions if his assumptions were spelled out clearly. They are not and don't appear to be worth his time to share.   It's fine for what it is - a layperson's attempt to correlate his scripture with archaeology.

Gardner, Wright, and Sorenson (none of whom are laymen) have spelled out the evidence and their arguments very clearly in published books, articles, and lectures.  Gardner actually took time and made an honest effort to share with us the basics, of which his books are substantive backing.  He has done this before here as well.  In no instance did I see you actually carry on a rational, fact-based discussion with him.  You do what laypeople frequently do, dismiss everything with a foppish wave of the hand.  But no rational argument.

 

Posited: Any approach to Book of Mormon historicity that begins with the assumption that the Book of Mormon is historical, is whimsy.

Not a very auspicious way to begin a discussion of Book of Mormon historicity, pro or con.  An apriori judgment of "whimsy"?  Really?

Couldn't you merely adopt a non-commital stance on that historicity, the way a detective presumably does on arrival at a crime scene?  Or is that too much to ask?

 

Here are some ongoing academic outlets where theories, findings, conclusions get hashed out.  If you want your claims to be taken seriously - that the Book of Mormon has a mesoamerican setting, then you will have to demonstrate engagement and discourse on a serious level.   

http://www.utmesoamerica.org/

http://www.wayeb.org/conferencesevents/emc_nowsymposium.php

Nice sites.  Of course, Mark Wright obtained his PhD in anthropology at Univ. of Texas at Austin, and he now teaches at BYU.

 

The site dealing with the Maya conference in Bonn reminds me of the annual Maya conferences I used to attend at UCLA, when I was there studying archeology and anthropology.  The greatest scholars on the subject of the Maya would come and present their latest findings.  Great stuff.

 

The question is, why are you so afraid "to demonstrate engagement and discourse on a serious level" here on this board?

 

Edited February 23, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

..............................................................................................   

The Moabite Stone doesn't prove that King David had a powerful empire, today most archaeologists no longer believe King David had an empire. 

Actually, archeologists are quite divided into partisan positions on that:  There are the minimalists, like Israel Finkelstein, and the maximalists, like Elath Mazar (I studied under her grandfather at the Hebrew Univ. in Jerusalem).  Based on the excavation evidence now available, perhaps most Israeli archeologists take the view that David ruled over a much more powerful kingdom than Finkelstein will allow.  Just too much stuff now from the Davidic period.

[Calm]

I thought the whole idea of the Trinity was that 1 x 1 x 1 =1

Explain what standing three persons next to each other and saying 'I am multiplying you by you by you' means.  It makes no sense.

 

Does Jane x Michael x Mark=anything at all?  No, of course not unless you define them as a numerical value.  Last I heard God wasn't a number.

 

You can do it with addition because addition is a different process (when one recognizes that what one is counting is people and the name stands for one unique person)….but multiplying by one, all those ones cannot be defined as a different person because that is not how the one operates as it is the multiplicative identity…it means nothing is added to it, it is there by itself and only itself.  You can explain multiplication by translating it to addition, but those who think that 3 persons times each other equals 1 being has anything to do with math need to be able to explain what it actually means, whether in using addition or something else.

Edited February 22, 2015 by calmoriah

[MormonFreeThinker]

Actually, archeologists are quite divided into partisan positions on that:  There are the minimalists, like Israel Finkelstein, and the maximalists, like Elath Mazar (I studied under her grandfather at the Hebrew Univ. in Jerusalem).  Based on the excavation evidence now available, perhaps most Israeli archeologists take the view that David ruled over a much more powerful kingdom than Finkelstein will allow.  Just too much stuff now from the Davidic period.

 

 It seems that I exaggerated, but Gevin exaggerated too. There is no direct evidence for the Book of Exodus, for the Book of Genesis, and many other historical parts of the Bible, and archaeologists are divided about the land of David.  Dr. James Hoffmeier said there is no direct evidence for the Book of Exodus. 

 

[Stone holm]

While I do not believe that historicity of the Book of Mormon is all that important, namely proving that what is described in the Book of Mormon actually happened. It is important that the existence of the Book itself is important. There does appear to be some intrinsic importance to faith. I suspect that it has something to do with our ability to transcend. Kind of like Yoda explaining levitating the space ship to Luke and Luke's inability in that regard. So being able to verify with historical evidence could be counter productive. On the other hand, assigning everything to myth and metaphor ultimately tends to destroy our need for it to be perceived as a true reality. It is a conundrum.

[Robert F. Smith]

While I do not believe that historicity of the Book of Mormon is all that important, namely proving that what is described in the Book of Mormon actually happened. It is important that the existence of the Book itself is important. There does appear to be some intrinsic importance to faith. I suspect that it has something to do with our ability to transcend. Kind of like Yoda explaining levitating the space ship to Luke and Luke's inability in that regard. So being able to verify with historical evidence could be counter productive. On the other hand, assigning everything to myth and metaphor ultimately tends to destroy our need for it to be perceived as a true reality. It is a conundrum.

It is a conundrum, but one which is well-known:

It is a practical matter, as Neal A. Maxwell used to note by quoting Austin Farrer:

 

Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish. (Austin Farrer on C. S. Lewis)

[mfbukowski]

While I do not believe that historicity of the Book of Mormon is all that important, namely proving that what is described in the Book of Mormon actually happened. It is important that the existence of the Book itself is important. There does appear to be some intrinsic importance to faith. I suspect that it has something to do with our ability to transcend. Kind of like Yoda explaining levitating the space ship to Luke and Luke's inability in that regard. So being able to verify with historical evidence could be counter productive. On the other hand, assigning everything to myth and metaphor ultimately tends to destroy our need for it to be perceived as a true reality. It is a conundrum.

You underestimate the choices.

 

Because something cannot be proven, that doesn't mean it's "false" and what is considered a "myth" might be literal history.

 

The entire issue here is an epistemological one and has nothing to do with what "really happened" BECAUSE THAT IS UNKNOWABLE.  The issue is more a question of what one does to construct a reasonable belief system in the face of uncertainty.

 

Since what really happened becomes irrelevant in such a case, one makes the best guess that makes sense to them and then lives with the ambiguity of knowing that we really know very little about anything.

 

So for me, there's no puzzle here at all.  ANYTHING might have really happened, and in reality, my guess is as good as anyone's in the face of uncertainty about anything.

 

You might be right, I might be right, but none of it matters.  We get to pick and construct our own reality because what is not "likely" to happen actually happens all the time.

 

In 1950 who could have predicted that Kennedy would be assassinated?  And then Bobbie? That the World Trade Center would fall?  That practically everything we buy is made in a capitalist China and that their currency could eclipse the dollar?  That the sum of the world's knowledge would be on a device you could hold in the palm of your hand?  That in that same culture we are worrying about a medieval Islamic Caliphate which beheads people with swords becoming a world threat?  Who could predict that we have missionaries in Russia?  And that the climate could change?  And that we still don't have flying cars? 

[mfbukowski]

 

It is a conundrum, but one which is well-known:

It is a practical matter, as Neal A. Maxwell used to note by quoting Austin Farrer:

 

Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish. (Austin Farrer on C. S. Lewis)

 

Argumentation produces a structured view of reality which "might have been" the case and that is how its lack destroys belief.  Without the dialectic process of argumentation and "stirring the pot", the process of creating a "rational" world view is not possible.

 

Indeed this is the ultimate importance of Judaism and the meaning of the myth, which might have "actually happened" of Israel wrestling with the Lord 

[Stone holm]

You underestimate the choices.

 

Because something cannot be proven, that doesn't mean it's "false" and what is considered a "myth" might be literal history.

 

The entire issue here is an epistemological one and has nothing to do with what "really happened" BECAUSE THAT IS UNKNOWABLE.  The issue is more a question of what one does to construct a reasonable belief system in the face of uncertainty.

 

Since what really happened becomes irrelevant in such a case, one makes the best guess that makes sense to them and then lives with the ambiguity of knowing that we really know very little about anything.

 

So for me, there's no puzzle here at all.  ANYTHING might have really happened, and in reality, my guess is as good as anyone's in the face of uncertainty about anything.

 

You might be right, I might be right, but none of it matters.  We get to pick and construct our own reality because what is not "likely" to happen actually happens all the time.

 

In 1950 who could have predicted that Kennedy would be assassinated?  And then Bobbie? That the World Trade Center would fall?  That practically everything we buy is made in a capitalist China and that their currency could eclipse the dollar?  That the sum of the world's knowledge would be on a device you could hold in the palm of your hand?  That in that same culture we are worrying about a medieval Islamic Caliphate which beheads people with swords becoming a world threat?  Who could predict that we have missionaries in Russia?  And that the climate could change?  And that we still don't have flying cars? 

Although what might be, by consensus, considered a myth, yet be historical doesn't matter if everyone simply considers it a myth. But you are right, given all the fear rhetoric my generation was subjected to, it is a bit amazing that once the American industrialists discovered how profitable a Communist totalitarian government could be in controlling labor the music changed.

[mfbukowski]

Although what might be, by consensus, considered a myth, yet be historical doesn't matter if everyone simply considers it a myth. But you are right, given all the fear rhetoric my generation was subjected to, it is a bit amazing that once the American industrialists discovered how profitable a Communist totalitarian government could be in controlling labor the music changed.

Which proves the folly of communism.

 

It is supposed to be inevitable and yet capitalism triumphs every time.

[The Nehor]

Which proves the folly of communism.

 

It is supposed to be inevitable and yet capitalism triumphs every time.

 

Actually the US system is becoming more socialist for the rich and more capitalist for everyone else. If capitalism was wonderful the powerful would want more of it.

Edited February 23, 2015 by The Nehor

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually the US system is becoming more socialist for the rich and more capitalist for everyone else. If capitalism was wonderful you would the powerful would want more of it.

To control it. Duh. You can't control capitalism. BTW the US is headed for some really dark times because of all of the socialism that you admit is currently there. Soon you will see that things are not all that dandy.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[thesometimesaint]

“You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or you can have democracy; you cannot have both.” The late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.

[mfbukowski]

Actually the US system is becoming more socialist for the rich and more capitalist for everyone else. If capitalism was wonderful you would the powerful would want more of it.

Still needs another edit- not clear

[The Nehor]

Still needs another edit- not clear

 

I need to not post while delirious. Thanks.