The State of the Evidence

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Now you are insulting the intelligence of Stargazer.

History of Pluto as a planet.

SEE http://www.space.com/43-pluto-the-ninth-planet-that-was-a-dwarf.html

Please expound on how I am insulting Stargazer's intelligence.? If indeed I am I sincerely apologize for that, and it certainly wasn't my intention to do so.

By the way here is a quote directly out of a link in your article you cited on Pluto;

"Less than 5 percent of the world's astronomers voted." When they decided to unclassify Pluto as a planet. A consensus doesn't make science fact.

[James Tunney]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Although you appear to misunderstand both Kuhn and Christensen, it occurs to me that you may want to consider the cognitive science views of Prof Guy Claxton on the value of intuition for the very best scientists -- listen to the interview of Claxton by Doug Fabrizio on Radio West, July 1, 2016, podcast online http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/intelligence-flesh-1 at 19:34 - 21:19.

Aren't you and Mr. Christensen the ones who misunderstand Kuhn and how his ideas should be applied?  The state of the evidence regarding the historicity of the book of mormon, be it external or internal, strongly argues against a historicity conclusion that you and Mr. Christensen need to reach despite the evidence.  Isn't your believing paradigm the one that needs to shift therefore?  Don't the supposed anomalies of dna, the lack of anthropological and archaeological evidence as well as the internal problems with dependency on the KJV, deutero-isaiah, etc. show that your believing paradigm should shift? 

I submit that if one merely allows for the possibility that the book of mormon is not historical, then looks at the evidence or lack thereof, the conclusion against historicity becomes obvious. It then becomes obvious that the believing paradigm of privileging a believing conclusion despite the evidence is the paradigm that needs revision. 

[Jeanne]

Didn't the apostle, Nelson, recently state himself that the Book of Mormon was not historical?  It was in his talk to elder missionaries and their wives going on their missions.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Didn't the apostle, Nelson, recently state himself that the Book of Mormon was not historical?  It was in his talk to elder missionaries and their wives going on their missions.

No, he did not,  I am very surprised that anyone took what he said in that way (he said it was about real people and just shouldn't be read like it was a science or history text, iirc).

[Calm]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865657216/The-Book-of-Mormon-is-a-miraculous-miracle-says-President-Russell-M-Nelson-at-2016-Seminar-for.html?pg=all

“There are some things the Book of Mormon is not,” President Nelson said. “It is not a textbook of history, although some history is found within its pages. It is not a definitive work on ancient American agriculture or politics. It is not a record of all former inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, but only of particular groups of people.”

 

[Glenn101]

28 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Didn't the apostle, Nelson, recently state himself that the Book of Mormon was not historical?  It was in his talk to elder missionaries and their wives going on their missions.

“It is not a textbook of history, although some history is found within its pages. It is not a definitive work on ancient American agriculture or politics. It is not a record of all former inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, but only of particular groups of people.” 

The full article can be found at the Deseret News.

So, no, he did not say that it is not historical.

Glenn

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, waveslider said:

Please expound on how I am insulting Stargazer's intelligence.? If indeed I am I sincerely apologize for that, and it certainly wasn't my intention to do so.

By the way here is a quote directly out of a link in your article you cited on Pluto;

"Less than 5 percent of the world's astronomers voted." When they decided to unclassify Pluto as a planet. A consensus doesn't make science fact.

You didn't insult my intelligence, don't worry.  That's just TSS making a little joke, I think.  Since I'm obviously "into" astronomy.

You're right that a consensus doesn't make science fact, but in the case of Pluto's planethood, it's a bit of a non-issue with respect to scientific method, since it's a matter of classification rather than a matter of fact.  Pluto remains Pluto, and nothing can change that, but whether we deign to call it a planet or not is another matter.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, when the asteroid Ceres was discovered, it was accorded the status of a planet, but fifty years later they changed its classification because as tiny as it was (despite being the largest asteroid), there was no way to compare it with, say, Mercury.  Pluto's reclassification occurred because additional information about very large numbers of similar bodies suggested that calling it a planet was a misnomer.  To wit, more bodies of about the same size in even further orbits, including at least one that was larger than Pluto.

When it comes to actual scientific "facts" that change, however, consider the Pflogiston Theory.  Consider the Geocentric Model of the Solar System, considered scientific fact for over 1500 years.  Albert Einstein's famous reaction to the probablistic nature of quantum mechanics, most often reported as "God does not play dice with the universe", shows that even that which is now considered settled scientific fact is not always arrived at without considerable disagreement.  Scientists are constantly struggling towards the ultimate truths of the Universe, and as limited beings in a for-most-practical-purposes unlimited universe, we are bound to go up the wrong trail now and then.  I think the point that you, waveslider, are trying to make is this: we sometimes err in assuming at a given moment that we know everything, when we are looking through a glass, darkly, to quote Paul, and some of what we think we know today is very possibly going to go the way of Phlogiston or Ptolemy.  Or Piltdown Man.

Also consider Mathematics.  One of the greatest mathematical minds of modern mathematics, Georg Cantor, was opposed mercilessly by other mathematicians of "giant" status, such as Henri Poincare and Ludwig Wittgenstein.  These luminaries dismissed Cantor's work as scientific charlatanism, "utter nonsense", and laughable, and Cantor himself as a "corrupter of youth" and a renegade.  Of course, now we known that Cantor was absolutely correct about Set Theory and the nature of Infinity.  

And then there was Continental Drift, once considered ridiculous, and now known as a cast-iron fact.

Well, I hope the point is clear.

Edited July 4, 2016 by Stargazer

[Calm]

I don't think actual scientists very often (if ever) make the mistake of thinking they know everything, even just everything of value. I think the more common error is thinking they know enough.

[Stargazer]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't think actual scientists very often (if ever) make the mistake of thinking they know everything, even just everything of value. I think the more common error is thinking they know enough.

It depends upon the scientist, probably, but yes.

There is a certain degree of inertia with regard to science, too.  When you have a theory that seems to adequately describe things, there is resistance to abandoning it.  This is perfectly reasonable.  But when the paradigm shifts it can certainly make those who formerly held tooth and nail onto the former, now debunked, theories look like a pack of twits.  Another good reason to resist change!

[Calm]

Putting your life's effort into something that gets replaced has got to be hard on the ego.  It is an interesting career choice, wanting to be involved in the cutting edge, pushing science forward must be thrilling and an ego booster; but then having to anticipate being superceded at some point but someone attempting to do in the future exactly what you are doing today...now that is an uncomfortable contradition.

[Monster]

On June 27, 2016 at 3:44 PM, James Tunney said:

 

 

[waveslider]

35 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You didn't insult my intelligence, don't worry.  That's just TSS making a little joke, I think.  Since I'm obviously "into" astronomy.

You're right that a consensus doesn't make science fact, but in the case of Pluto's planethood, it's a bit of a non-issue with respect to scientific method, since it's a matter of classification rather than a matter of fact.  Pluto remains Pluto, and nothing can change that, but whether we deign to call it a planet or not is another matter.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, when the asteroid Ceres was discovered, it was accorded the status of a planet, but fifty years later they changed its classification because as tiny as it was (despite being the largest asteroid), there was no way to compare it with, say, Mercury.  Pluto's reclassification occurred because additional information about very large numbers of similar bodies suggested that calling it a planet was a misnomer.  To wit, more bodies of about the same size in even further orbits, including at least one that was larger than Pluto.

When it comes to actual scientific "facts" that change, however, consider the Pflogiston Theory.  Consider the Geocentric Model of the Solar System, considered scientific fact for over 1500 years.  Albert Einstein's famous reaction to the probablistic nature of quantum mechanics, most often reported as "God does not play dice with the universe", shows that even that which is now considered settled scientific fact is not always arrived at without considerable disagreement.  Scientists are constantly struggling towards the ultimate truths of the Universe, and as limited beings in a for-most-practical-purposes unlimited universe, we are bound to go up the wrong trail now and then.  I think the point that you, waveslider, are trying to make is this: we sometimes err in assuming at a given moment that we know everything, when we are looking through a glass, darkly, to quote Paul, and some of what we think we know today is very possibly going to go the way of Phlogiston or Ptolemy.  Or Piltdown Man.

Also consider Mathematics.  One of the greatest mathematical minds of modern mathematics, Georg Cantor, was opposed mercilessly by other mathematicians of "giant" status, such as Henri Poincare and Ludwig Wittgenstein.  These luminaries dismissed Cantor's work as scientific charlatanism, "utter nonsense", and laughable, and Cantor himself as a "corrupter of youth" and a renegade.  Of course, now we known that Cantor was absolutely correct about Set Theory and the nature of Infinity.  

And then there was Continental Drift, once considered ridiculous, and now known as a cast-iron fact.

Well, I hope the point is clear.

Yes, you got the point I was trying to make exactly. 

P.S. I was by no means trying to keep Pluto classified as a planet. Just for the record.

[Monster]

The problem with evidence for the church is it is never arrived at through any kind of reliable scientific method. It is always done in a backward fashion. A conclusion is reached and then individuals mine what ever area they are trying to prove and look for evidences. That is not a reliable method to provide evidence in support of anything. Never does some outside researcher looking in to say the origins of Native Americans conclude through the evidence that they came form the middle east on a boat.

At some point you would think the evidence against something to be compelling enough that people would have to at least acknowledge their case is weak and accept the more predominant evidence regardless of what it means to their current world view. But humans have a long history of fighting against updated information and clinging tenaciously to past conceptions regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Aren't you and Mr. Christensen the ones who misunderstand Kuhn and how his ideas should be applied?  The state of the evidence regarding the historicity of the book of mormon, be it external or internal, strongly argues against a historicity conclusion that you and Mr. Christensen need to reach despite the evidence.  Isn't your believing paradigm the one that needs to shift therefore?  Don't the supposed anomalies of dna, the lack of anthropological and archaeological evidence as well as the internal problems with dependency on the KJV, deutero-isaiah, etc. show that your believing paradigm should shift? 

I submit that if one merely allows for the possibility that the book of mormon is not historical, then looks at the evidence or lack thereof, the conclusion against historicity becomes obvious. It then becomes obvious that the believing paradigm of privileging a believing conclusion despite the evidence is the paradigm that needs revision. 

To the contrary, James, I always take the open-ended POV on the Book of Mormon and allow the evidence to take where ever it leads.  The scientific standards for evaluating any piece of literature or inscription (any document) is the same in all times and in all places.  I see no reason to privilege any document from being subjected to the full panoply of testing.  One has to use the same rules in evaluating Homeric epic as in evaluating the Bible or Book of Mormon.  A good example of setting aside one's belief system (for the moment) in order to apply such standard analysis is Grant R. Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010).  Bracketing one's belief or disbelief is standard practice among scholars.

The paradigm to be applied is not one of belief or disbelief, but of the scholarly rules of analysis of documents, and of the communal exchange of views on such matters as the scientific analysis proceeds.  These are the same rules applied to archeological excavation, to ethnology, and to forensic investigation of crime by specialists.  Your complete failure to understand and accept those strictures, and your accompanying apriorism are the main reasons why you are in denial on the evidence.  Perhaps like Sterling McMurrin, you take the a priori view that the origin of the BofM is too preposterous to be given the time of day.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

No, he did not,  I am very surprised that anyone took what he said in that way (he said it was about real people and just shouldn't be read like it was a science or history text, iirc).

I just misunderstood then. Thanks for the clarification. 

[Jeanne]

Thank

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

“It is not a textbook of history, although some history is found within its pages. It is not a definitive work on ancient American agriculture or politics. It is not a record of all former inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, but only of particular groups of people.” 

The full article can be found at the Deseret News.

So, no, he did not say that it is not historical.

Glenn

Thank you.  I will read it again.

[rodheadlee]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It depends upon the scientist, probably, but yes.

There is a certain degree of inertia with regard to science, too.  When you have a theory that seems to adequately describe things, there is resistance to abandoning it.  This is perfectly reasonable.  But when the paradigm shifts it can certainly make those who formerly held tooth and nail onto the former, now debunked, theories look like a pack of twits.  Another good reasoht to resist change!

Yeah that and funding.

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Monster said:

The problem with evidence for the church is it is never arrived at through any kind of reliable scientific method. It is always done in a backward fashion. A conclusion is reached and then individuals mine what ever area they are trying to prove and look for evidences. That is not a reliable method to provide evidence in support of anything. Never does some outside researcher looking in to say the origins of Native Americans conclude through the evidence that they came form the middle east on a boat.

At some point you would think the evidence against something to be compelling enough that people would have to at least acknowledge their case is weak and accept the more predominant evidence regardless of what it means to their current world view. But humans have a long history of fighting against updated information and clinging tenaciously to past conceptions regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with you on part of what you're saying, especially the last paragraph.  By example, the Ptolemaic model of the solar system was the accepted theory, despite all evidence to the contrary (epicycles, anyone?), for over 1,500 years, and the scientists who finally tried to break out of the mold (Galileo especially) found great opposition.  But heliocentrism was eventually proven.

As for the first, you're not quite correct as to the backwardness.  In the scientific method there seems to be two pathways.  In one, an observation is made, a theory explaining the observation is developed, and is proven (or disproven) by experiment.  Sometimes that which is observed is incorrectly reported or recorded, and then scientists fruitlessly seek to explain it.  The second pathway is first, a new principle is propounded, a prediction about an observation based on the principle is made, and then experimental results (or observations) are sought to verify the principle.  We've seen both pathways at work over time.  For example, Einstein propounded the principle that mass and energy were equivalent (E = mc2), and thus predicted that gravity could bend light.  In a solar eclipse in 1919 Eddington observed this experimentally, and thus proved it.    

As for the Church, there are likewise two pathways.  The first corresponds with the first pathway of the scientific method: the Book of Mormon is observed (encountered), but since no scientific evidence exists to prove or disprove it, the book itself contains the experiment which is available for proof of its truthfulness: read it and pray to God to know if it is true.  If it is found to be of God, this then logically proves that the book's apparent source to be a true prophet of God, and the Church is true.  The other pathway is that a man claims to be a Prophet of God and by commandment of God has organized a Church that is the only one with His authority.  There being no scientific proof of this, one must judge by the fruit of the prophet, and happily there is one: the Book of Mormon. Read it and pray to God to know if it is true (because there's no scientific evidence for this either).  If God confirms the Book of Mormon is His word, then the Church is true because the prophet is a true prophet of God.

The methods bear comparison, and they both tend towards proving the truth.  I concede that one of them is objective, and the other is subjective.  But just because a truth is subjective does not make it any less true.  You're entitled to reject the subjectivity, of course, and I am sure you do.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Aren't you and Mr. Christensen the ones who misunderstand Kuhn and how his ideas should be applied?  The state of the evidence regarding the historicity of the book of mormon, be it external or internal, strongly argues against a historicity conclusion that you and Mr. Christensen need to reach despite the evidence.  Isn't your believing paradigm the one that needs to shift therefore?  Don't the supposed anomalies of dna, the lack of anthropological and archaeological evidence as well as the internal problems with dependency on the KJV, deutero-isaiah, etc. show that your believing paradigm should shift? 

I submit that if one merely allows for the possibility that the book of mormon is not historical, then looks at the evidence or lack thereof, the conclusion against historicity becomes obvious. It then becomes obvious that the believing paradigm of privileging a believing conclusion despite the evidence is the paradigm that needs revision. 

Of course you misunderstand the point

The paradigm (language game) under which the BOM is "true" is neither the historical nor scientific.  It applies within a religious community.  Belief in its historicity is itself a religious belief like your belief in the redemption through Jesus

Please provide scientific evidence that Jesus forgave your sins or that the resurrection was a historical even instead of a fable.

These paradigms we are discussing protect your religious beliefs as much as they protect ours.  An atheist could easily make the same points you make against the existence of God or the folly of the belief in the resurrection

You do not understand that you should be protecting these paradigms because you use the same ones every time you utter a religious proposition which cannot be scientifically verified.

It is amazing to me that theist critics of Mormonism do not realize they are arguing against their own position using the same logic uneducated atheists use.  It is absurd!

Edited July 5, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Monster said:

The problem with evidence for the church is it is never arrived at through any kind of reliable scientific method. It is always done in a backward fashion. A conclusion is reached and then individuals mine what ever area they are trying to prove and look for evidences. That is not a reliable method to provide evidence in support of anything.

Please provide evidences that we should not all murder each other for fun.

Go ahead and look for them.   I am waiting.  The point is of course that moral beliefs and their "truth" are arrived upon the same way that religious beliefs are.

You live in a Cartesian dualistic universe 500 years old.

Edited July 5, 2016 by mfbukowski

[strappinglad]

Did the electromagnetic spectrum ( as we know it ) exist in the tenth century BC or the tenth century AD ? Was its existence dependent on the belief of anyone? Was there evidence for it available ? Only a tiny part of the spectrum was ' obvious ' and yet the rest was still there humming along without human knowledge, belief , or ability to discern . It was only when our ability to produce the instruments that could ' read ' the other parts of the spectrum arrived  that we began to accept its presence.

  The scriptures say that all things are spiritual. JS said that spirit is actually matter but very fine. Apparently our spiritual eyes can see spiritual things so to me there is no ' religious ' stuff and ' scientific ' stuff. There is just stuff we can currently see and stuff we can't yet. Just like the  electromagnetic spectrum visible in the 10th century BC and now. Perhaps , as mfb says , our language is not adequate to explain it. Computer programing languages were created to do certain tasks and most of us find such language pure gibberish . And yet some people ( can they be considered seers ? ) do comprehend them and try to ' translate ' them for us.

[canard78]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Please provide evidences that we should not all murder each other for fun.

Go ahead and look for them.   I am waiting.  The point is of course that moral beliefs and their "truth" are arrived upon the same way that religious beliefs are.

You live in a Cartesian dualistic universe 500 years old.

I think you know that this thread is about something else. I know you prefer to talk about moral beliefs, but that's not the question here. 

The queation here is whether there is evidence that the historical events that those moral teachings and beliefs are based on, actually happened. 

No evidence other than experience is needed to say the application of King Benjamin's sermon, for example, is effective, I agree. 

But what if the question is: what is the evidence that King Benjamin was anything more than a figment of Joseph's imagination combined with ideas he had heard at local sermons?

There are a few American parallels that can be drawn for both for and against, but there's nothing conclusive that establishes he existed. 

I know your answer to would probably be: "who cares."

Even if you don't, others do. I do.

[Monster]

8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with you on part of what you're saying, especially the last paragraph.  By example, the Ptolemaic model of the solar system was the accepted theory, despite all evidence to the contrary (epicycles, anyone?), for over 1,500 years, and the scientists who finally tried to break out of the mold (Galileo especially) found great opposition.  But heliocentrism was eventually proven.

As for the first, you're not quite correct as to the backwardness.  In the scientific method there seems to be two pathways.  In one, an observation is made, a theory explaining the observation is developed, and is proven (or disproven) by experiment.  Sometimes that which is observed is incorrectly reported or recorded, and then scientists fruitlessly seek to explain it.  The second pathway is first, a new principle is propounded, a prediction about an observation based on the principle is made, and then experimental results (or observations) are sought to verify the principle.  We've seen both pathways at work over time.  For example, Einstein propounded the principle that mass and energy were equivalent (E = mc2), and thus predicted that gravity could bend light.  In a solar eclipse in 1919 Eddington observed this experimentally, and thus proved it.    

As for the Church, there are likewise two pathways.  The first corresponds with the first pathway of the scientific method: the Book of Mormon is observed (encountered), but since no scientific evidence exists to prove or disprove it, the book itself contains the experiment which is available for proof of its truthfulness: read it and pray to God to know if it is true.  If it is found to be of God, this then logically proves that the book's apparent source to be a true prophet of God, and the Church is true.  The other pathway is that a man claims to be a Prophet of God and by commandment of God has organized a Church that is the only one with His authority.  There being no scientific proof of this, one must judge by the fruit of the prophet, and happily there is one: the Book of Mormon. Read it and pray to God to know if it is true (because there's no scientific evidence for this either).  If God confirms the Book of Mormon is His word, then the Church is true because the prophet is a true prophet of God.

The methods bear comparison, and they both tend towards proving the truth.  I concede that one of them is objective, and the other is subjective.  But just because a truth is subjective does not make it any less true.  You're entitled to reject the subjectivity, of course, and I am sure you do.

 

An observation is made and yes a theory is developed to explain it. But we do not bend evidence to continue to explain the observation and theory. We start at the beginning and if the evidence leads us to our original theory great if it does not we must change our theory. Apologetices never concedes any ground on their theroy. In the case of the BofM we have one persons word that it was translated from gold plates and is a history of the native Americans. So we have a book that might be a history of America. We have made an observation and now have a theory. So prove it. But the problem is you can not. In fact the evidence leans so much the other way that this theory no longer holds any weight. You must set it aside it if you want to get at the truth. Perhaps you can come back to it if more evidence comes forth, but you can not continue to demand that this theory is accepted truth.

So many critics of the church never set out to claim fraud, they went looking for truth. They were taught the theory and then looked at the evidence and had to conclude the theory was wrong. Yet so many still insist the theory is correct in spite of the evidence. This is why the concept of spiritual truth is so important to believers. It can trump any amount of evidence to the contrary, It can explain away the evidence and create a reality where none exists. But this is backwards also. Spiritual truth should confirm the evidence not ask you to ignore it.

I could accept subjective truth if I had ever experienced it to bring some kind of concise agreement on truth. Yet here I am with a multitude of religions using basically the same source material and arriving at different conclusions using subjective truth. With objective truth you tend to at least get a consensus of truth.

 

 

 

Edited July 5, 2016 by Monster
spelling

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, canard78 said:

I think you know that this thread is about something else. I know you prefer to talk about moral beliefs, but that's not the question here. 

The queation here is whether there is evidence that the historical events that those moral teachings and beliefs are based on, actually happened. 

No evidence other than experience is needed to say the application of King Benjamin's sermon, for example, is effective, I agree. 

But what if the question is: what is the evidence that King Benjamin was anything more than a figment of Joseph's imagination combined with ideas he had heard at local sermons?

There are a few American parallels that can be drawn for both for and against, but there's nothing conclusive that establishes he existed. 

I know your answer to would probably be: "who cares."

Even if you don't, others do. I do.

What you are not understanding is that it is BELIEFS, not facts, that drive everything.

No moral or religious beliefs are based on facts which can be verified, period. NONE.

We believe in "freedom".  Nice words which we then translate into laws to give us rights to give us what we BELIEVE will make the world a better place.  Not a single scientific fact has anything to do with it

We want to have a family, we want to be in love.  We find someone we have an emotional bond with and do so.  We find the highest joys in an emotional decision not based on facts in any way shape or form.

We use our currencies in our respective countries- pieces of paper which somehow magically represent value because we THINK they are valuable

We buy stocks and worry about retirement based on paper as well, which our legal system tells us ( with no laws based on facts) will be worth something some day/

Then a fact happens.  Britain leaves the EU.  Suddenly everyone sees the light that these are all just promises not based on facts- and the market drops.

People think it through- then forget about it.  Back to no facts, just belief that it will all work out in the long run, and it will.  WHY?  Because nothing we do is based or hard evidence

What is reality itself?  Strings?  Quarks?  Particle / waves /fields buzzing around??   Those are the "FACTS" of science.  But guess what??  Science can't even tell us what reality "really is"!!!

Yet we get up in the morning, "get out of bed, drag a comb across our heads.  Find our ways downstairs and have a cup, look up and notice we are late," all based on what?

BELIEFS that work and get us through the day

No facts prove God.  No facts prove morals.  No facts show we should have families.  No facts back up our beliefs in freedom, communism, that we should work or should not work, that Jesus existed, that Buddha really said what he supposedly said, that there was a resurrection, that freedom is a good thing or that it is not pure folly to die for your country.

Terrorism?  Horrific!  How do we know that?  The belief that terrorism is horrific is not based on facts.

Racism is bad?  Why?

And the totally most insane belief of the all is that we live our lives- or even "SHOULD" - whatever that means- live our lives based on facts.  That is a total faith position.

The reality is that we live our lives based on non- confirmable BELIEFS that work well for us and humanity.  This is evolution here- we are scrambling around with incorrect perceptions of what might be out there, all based on what works- NOT based on "reality"

We BELIEVE that freedom and morality and decency is "good"- we even invent that word to describe what FEELS right to us

I really should write a book called "THE FACT DELUSION"

It is the greatest mistake mankind ever made- and it started with the Greeks.  Thank God we are now over it- at least in philosophical circles.  It will trickle down.  Your great grandchildren won't have this problem.

[consiglieri]

13 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I just misunderstood then. Thanks for the clarification. 

Actually, I think President Nelson is trying to have it both ways.

He is aware there is no New World archeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon.  He may even be aware that the Book of Mormon sounds an awful lot like a product of 19th Century America.

And yet, he believes it is "true" and that it really happened to "real people."

So what does he do?

He says on the one hand that it is about "real people," and on the other it is not a history "textbook."

Now, everybody knows the Book of Mormon is not a history textbook, so why bother saying it?

It is because he is creating a straw man of what the Book of Mormon is not in order to justify the fact that there is no archeological evidence in support of its historicity.

All the while still saying it is about "real people" in order to continue to argue that it is, in fact, historical.

The whole purpose of this segment of his talk seems to me an apologetic exercise in explaining how the Book of Mormon can be historical with little to no evidence in support of its historicity.