The State of the Evidence

[Gervin]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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

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

We do not need "conclusive" arguments about such matters, and historical evidence never gives that to us in any case.  

Anyone with a basic understanding of archaeology knows that your blanket statement (historical evidence never gives that to us) is wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_figures_identified_in_extra-biblical_sources 

[Jeanne]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Canard

You know when I am on trips or have a lot of time, I read a lot of philosophy.   Lately that's about all I read.

NONE of any of the philosophers I read speak of "facts" or any of these issues.

There is even now a problem called - not the death of God- but believe it or not- called "The Death of Man"

Some of these philosophers think that our concept of "man" as individual agents is irrelevant since we are organisms totally based on our programming by language and society and that this society of course creates science as a linguistic discipline, and that all thought and reality as we know it is socially constructed.

Essentially there IS no reality outside of the social construct, no evidence outside the social-linguistic construct, no perception outside the social linguistic construct, no nothing outside the social linguistic construct.

This is one of the major issues- about whether or not it can even be said that we are "individuals"  or "agents" in ANY sense of any possible way of thinking about it.

I am reading a book now called "Subjectivity After Wittgenstein" by a new and amazing scholar, Chantal Bax who tackles this problem.  I see it as an attempt to save individuality and agency and she gives some very convincing arguments

If anyone wants to read this stuff, I highly recommend it.

If you are looking for "evidence" for the Book of Mormon, I would suggest you first examine whether there is "evidence" for you being you- since you are programmed by the ideas of others, similarly to the idea that "evidence" for religious belief is possible.   

You grow up believing what you have been programmed to believe from the menu society has given you.  You like science?  Good then the illusion you follow is that there is objective "evidence" BEYOND what just plain works.  

Science is the study of what works- not of what is important.

Anyway, the book is available as a pdf, you can search for it, but here is a synopsis.  Great stuff for those seriously engaged in these issues

http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/subjectivity-after-wittgenstein-9781441144102/

 

I have to ask....do you do anything fun on your trips or in your spare time?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

No, George Washington did not chop down a cherry tree.

The point is that George Washington never said that he did.

That was a story made up after the fact by Parson Weems, if I recall.

Now, if George Washington himself claimed that he chopped down a cherry tree when he did not, that would be a problem indeed.

It would throw into doubt his credibility about everything he else he claimed.

The same problem regarding his credibility would have ensued if George Washington had given multiple inconsistent and sometimes contradictory stories about how he chopped down the cherry tree . . . 

 

I don't recall Joseph saying he was a Nephite either.  Your point?

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I have to ask....do you do anything fun on your trips or in your spare time?

Reading philosophy, traveling  and hanging out with family are about the 3 best things I can imagine, quite honestly. And while traveling I get to read.

Beats candy crush, I can tell you that!

Edited July 6, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Teancum]

On July 4, 2016 at 1:54 PM, waveslider said:

The scientific method is simple. I understand it very clearly. It's so simple that I understood it since the 1st grade. It is nothing more than observing something, making an educated guess as to what is causing the observation, in other words forming a theory. Then trying to prove or disprove said theory.

I also know what good science is, and unfortunately I don't see it often enough in mainstream science. (For example the global warming lie, that the last twenty years of data disprove, so much so that they now call it global change. They almost entirely ignore the fact that we are connected electromagnetically to the Sun, yet our overuse of fossil fuels are supposed to be the single most affecting element in global change, ignoring the the changes in all the climates of the other planets in our solar system, directly correlating to the huge changes in our Sun. In other words bad science just because of a consensus instead of relying upon real data. But I digress)

You clearly do not understand the tenets of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints. I have seen encouragement to test it's truthfulness as long as it's been around. Perhaps you should look up Moroni 10:3-5.

You also don't seem to realize that to solely believe in science, as presented to the Western civilization is only placing science as another religion. The prophets and high priests only where a different set of religious clothing in the form of lab coats and the robes of academia.

No matter what form of religion one may chose to worship, critical thinking is a must, and cherry picking facts just won't cut the mustard. Perhaps you should realise that holding to the iron rod (the word of God) isn't the Scriptures as much as being led by revelation, the source of all real truth. Just because the religion of science discredits God and the Holy Spirit of Truth doesn't mean they don't exist.

Perhaps you might be scared to find real truth and hold to the religion of science to help you feel secure in remaining close minded to a more pure form of truth, but I'm assuming so please forgive me if I'm wrong in that assumption.

I don't feel I'm misrepresenting science at all just because I can critically think about it, and it's imperfect processes for finding truth. When I grew up Pluto was a planet, because science said so. Now it isn't because science says so, even though new data wasn't found, only the interpretation of already existing data as to what defines a planet. I don't think I have misrepresented science in the least bit in my previous post.

Since you are apparently new here I can pass on your comment that I allegedly do not understand the tenents of the LDS church.   As a life time member and as a totally beleiving member for up till about 6 Years ago of my 56 years I certainly am well versed in thngs LDS.  I still practice and participate even though at least for me I doubt very much so that many of the LDS truth claims are false.

That said based on your post above you don't really understand science and its methods other than from a cursory level.  This is especially true when  you call it a religion which is typical of religious apologists when defending faith over the methods of science.  It is a false premise.    But I have no desire to convince a mind that seems already set.  If you are interested in really comparing religion and faith as compares to science I recommend the book Faith vs. Fact by Jerry  Coyne.  

[Jeanne]

44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Reading philosophy, traveling  and hanging out with family are about the 3 best things I can imagine, quite honestly. And while traveling I get to read.

Beats candy crush, I can tell you that!

Well..that is what vacations are for...doing what you want to do.  No doubt that getting this kind of time makes you a better husband and father!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

.  If you are interested in really comparing religion and faith as compares to science I recommend the book Faith vs. Fact by Jerry  Coyne.  

I don't think so

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/book-by-biologist-jerry-coyne-goes-too-far-in-denouncing-religion-defending-science/

He makes all the same mistakes we usually hear.  Cartesian dualism.  I have hit all these arguments a hundred times.

 

Edited July 6, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Teancum]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't think so

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/book-by-biologist-jerry-coyne-goes-too-far-in-denouncing-religion-defending-science/

He makes all the same mistakes we usually hear.  Cartesian dualism.  I have hit all these arguments a hundred times.

 

Have you read his book?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Gervin said:

Anyone with a basic understanding of archaeology knows that your blanket statement (historical evidence never gives that to us) is wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_figures_identified_in_extra-biblical_sources 

Virtually every pretended "conclusive" argument or evidence is really a matter of interpretation and of statistical likelihood, Gervin.  Even in a court of law, where someone's life or liberty is on the line, we can go no further than "reasonable cause" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" in order to reach a verdict.  A cop makes an arrest only because he has "probable cause" to believe that a crime has been committed by the person arrested, and must make a "probable cause declaration" before a judge for any search or arrest warrant.

In math and hard science we can sometimes reach some certainty, but that does not apply to historical evidence.  In archeology, for example, the minimalists doubt nearly everything, while the maximalists attribute far more meaning to any given discovery than is probably warranted.   Of course we can list some figures in the Bible who have been mentioned in extra-biblical sources, but the "conclusive" part of that does not obtain simply because we know so little about those named individuals, i.e., who they really were.  However, you have brought up an excellent suggestion, but can you apply it to more far reaching issues -- such as those we confront when we attempt to write Amerindian history and prehistory?  History is, in any case, not facts, but the interpretation of facts.

And, when Jack Finegan, the eminent scholar who wrote the book on the subject of biblical chronology, says that 2 Addaru in King Nebuchadrezzer's 7th year = 16 March 597 B.C. "is the most exact information to come from cuneiform records for an event recorded in the Bible, and gives us a precise day for the fall of Jerusalem and the capture of Jehoiachin," what does that mean to you?  Do you understand the full implications of that synchronism for establishing the exact year when king Zedekiah ascended to the throne of Judah?  Is that "conclusive" evidence in your parlance?  I try to be more restrained in describing such evidence -- maybe "convincing" or "persuasive," but not conclusive, simply because the discussion does not end there.  Too much else remains to be considered in order to understand the full context.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Teancum said:

Have you read his book?

I have read a dozen like his- here is another review

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/religion-science-coexist-faith-versus-fact-coyne/396362/

One I have read and dissected is this one actually written by a philosopher- not some scientist amateur who does not understand philosophy.  This one puts forth the same thesis, and this guy is a chairman of the philos department of a major university:

Quote

Boghossian goes on to examine the key aspects of the thesis that all knowledge is socially constructed and the strongest available arguments for these aspects, arguments that cover the positions of Wittgenstein and Rorty, Putman and Goodman, Bloor, Kuhn, and Duhem.  Boghossian then rejects these views on knowledge and argues for the 'intuitive view' that "there is a way things are that is independent of human opinion, and that we are capable of arriving at belief about how things are that is objectively reasonable, binding on anyone capable of appreciating the relevant evidence regardless of their social or cultural perspective" (131).

The review continues and finally we reach the author's conclusion- which is repeated again and again by other reviewers

The book was so panned by the journals that Boghossian eventually admitted it was a mistake!

Quote

 

Another drawback of Fear of Knowledge seems to be the following.  As Boghossian points out, the non-constructivist outlook is oftentimes the intuitively plausible one, the one that we rely upon in our day-to-day practices; if this outlook is mistaken, it would follow that "we have fundamentally misconceived the principles by which society ought to be organized" (5).  This intuitive plausibility is quite natural and a constructivist about knowledge (I think) does not need to deny it:  of course within a certain "language game" (or conceptual framework) we take the rules to be quite rigid and important.  But on ameta-level, the constructivist paradigm is also quite intuitively plausible.  E.g., we take the sets of rules and practices that apply to sports, arts, academy, etc. quite seriously -- we live our lives and make vital decisions in accordance with them.  But we have no problem, as it were, in stepping back and in acknowledging that these rules and practices are contingent upon the values of our social group and that these values themselves are contingent (and not necessary).  The appeal of relativism and constructivism is not a mere fad.  It reflects the relatively new understanding of our conceptual frameworks as value-laden:  we no longer think that we merely read off the information about the world, but rather that our values shape what we take to be the salient features of the world in the first place.  It would do good for an inquiry into relativism and constructivism to take an extra step (beyond the standard arguments as they are found in the analytic philosophy) and to examine the plausibility of the view that the relation between our beliefs and reality is more complex than the accepted view in modern philosophy have been suggesting.

Overall, Fear of Knowledge is a text that any instructor of philosophy would find helpful in an introductory course.  It is also bound to interest the students of analytic philosophy who are looking for a technical rebuttal of a classic analytic case for relativism.  The book, however, is unlikely to dispel the appeal of relativism in a serious student of constructivism.

 

http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=4364

That last paragraph says it all about these usual arguments. Introductory arguments.

The problem is that relativists and constructivists know that their positions are constructive and therefore relativist, and relish that view.  It is not a condemnation for a relativist to be called one and to say their views are not scientific.  In fact that is the whole point.  It's like blaming a Republican for not being a Democrat.

Edited July 6, 2016 by mfbukowski
Added citation for long quote

[Gervin]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Virtually every pretended "conclusive" argument or evidence is really a matter of interpretation and of statistical likelihood, Gervin. 

Tell me how you have used "interpretation" and "statistical likelihood" to determine that the linked names and references cannot (and never can) be used to conclude a person mentioned in the Bible existed.  

Edited July 6, 2016 by Gervin

[Robert F. Smith]

23 minutes ago, Gervin said:

Tell me how you have used "interpretation" and "statistical likelihood" to determine that the linked names and references cannot (and never can) be used to conclude a person mentioned in the Bible existed.  

I was originally responding to canard, as follows:

Quote

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. 

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

We do not need "conclusive" arguments about such matters, and historical evidence never gives that to us in any case.  What we want to examine is whether there is plausible or convincing secular evidence for the existence of such a figure somewhere in the Americas in the second century B.C.  First, we want to see whether a literate civilization such as described in the BofM existed at some time and place in the Americas.  If not, that calls into serious question any sort of case for the BofM.  Second, we want to examine the internal characteristics of the text to see whether it contains authentic detailed claims.  Since non-Mormon experts agree that Benjamin's speech is structured in such a way that its contents fit the ancient Jewish feast of Autumn Ingathering (New Year/Tabernacles), in addition to being a standard coregency ritual, that fits the BofM claim that the Law of Moses was still being followed.  Then too there is a short excerpt from the Laws of Mosiah in Alma 11 depicting part of the weights & measures system, which contains stunningly accurate remnants of the Egypto-Israelite system -- only discovered by biblical archeologists in recent decades.  The proper mise-en-scène is not that difficult to establish.

I take "conclusive" to mean settled and final proof -- a luxury which we just don't have in historical studies, even though you are not alone in thinking that some synchronisms are darn good, convincing, and seemingly "conclusive."  I am not a maximalist, and am just not willing to go that far.  I think that a good historical narrative can be written, without becoming too demanding.  However, I am perplexed that you so easily latch on to that type of evidence, but reject other convincing forms of evidence.  As though your selection is agenda-driven.  Is that why you are afraid to respond to substantive arguments?  C'mon, Gervin, fess up.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Ahab]

23 minutes ago, Gervin said:

Tell me how you have used "interpretation" and "statistical likelihood" to determine that the linked names and references cannot (and never can) be used to conclude a person mentioned in the Bible existed.  

This argument looks like fun bit alas I feel that I should just quietly, from now on I mean, watch from the sidelines.

But you do know the "cannot and never can" position on the argument is nothing but silliness, don't cha?

[waveslider]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

Since you are apparently new here I can pass on your comment that I allegedly do not understand the tenents of the LDS church.   As a life time member and as a totally beleiving member for up till about 6 Years ago of my 56 years I certainly am well versed in thngs LDS.  I still practice and participate even though at least for me I doubt very much so that many of the LDS truth claims are false.

That said based on your post above you don't really understand science and its methods other than from a cursory level.  This is especially true when  you call it a religion which is typical of religious apologists when defending faith over the methods of science.  It is a false premise.    But I have no desire to convince a mind that seems already set.  If you are interested in really comparing religion and faith as compares to science I recommend the book Faith vs. Fact by Jerry  Coyne.  

I apologize for being wrong on my assumption that you didn't understand the tenets of the LDS church. I just find it odd that you thought we are taught to not question it.

In all my years as a member I have experienced the exact opposite. We aren't supposed to take anything weak mindedly, but instead are to ask God if everything we are taught is true and actually find out for ourselves if it is right.

Again sorry if I offended you. It is really hard to get the feelings behind the discussions, with only the written word and no facial expressions, or body language to read as ques.

I suppose cursory level can work since I haven't gotten any formal degrees in science education, but it doesn't negate all the years, decades actually, of personal study, observations and experimentations. Just because I don't speak Latin words to describe things and have pieces of paper saying I'm smart, doesn't mean I don't know a lot about somethings.

As far as calling science, as is presented in the Western world, a religion, it isn't because I'm religious, it's because I see philosophies being peddled as science, mostly because of biased fundings, but none the less it is so. Data is skewed all the time.

That all said I can agree to disagree, if need be.

[canard78]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Dude

Your talent is wasted here!   Wonderful stuff

I keep saying he should write more. He doesn't even "copy paste" this stuff into a blog.

[canard78]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

I'm with you mfb... almost.

Is the study of history completely pointless? Are the "houses of history" the only thing you'd be interested in understanding? If that's the case, then that's fine. But that's not the case for me.

Like I said before, I'm not asking whether Benjamin's speech carries value. Should I BELIEVE the words on the pages of the 1830 publication (or 2013, whatever the edition we're up to). Should I BELIEVE that "we are all beggars?" and as such should not stay my hand from giving assistance to the beggar? Of course that's not a question of FACT. Of course that's a question of BELIEF. I get that. For some, they choose to ignore King Benjamin's instruction and not believe it. Or they choose to adapt the message to fit with their BELIEF that beggars should be cared for when certain conditions are met (e.g. if they are sober, or in a shelter, off the streets).

But... (I say again!) just because I accept that BELIEF is not something that requires FACT, doesn't mean that I'm not interested in HISTORY. It remain a valid question, to ME. Can I establish FACTS about history? It depends on your views. From a philosophical viewpoint, I understand the tangent debate about questions of what reality is and whether we're perceiving multiple, conflicting realities due to our personal skewed paradigms. Embracing that challenge, I can still examine tangible evidences. Not as a way of framing my philosophical beliefs, but as a way of understanding the physical world around me. 

The Book of Mormon could either be a modern invention or a translation of an ancient series of actual events. The reality of either the former or latter can have no bearing on whether I choose to add King Benjamin's sermon to my collection of BELIEFs. None at all. But I can still look into the evidences for whether he ever lived as an independent investigation.

[canard78]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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. 

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

We do not need "conclusive" arguments about such matters, and historical evidence never gives that to us in any case.  What we want to examine is whether there is plausible or convincing secular evidence for the existence of such a figure somewhere in the Americas in the second century B.C.  First, we want to see whether a literate civilization such as described in the BofM existed at some time and place in the Americas.  If not, that calls into serious question any sort of case for the BofM.  Second, we want to examine the internal characteristics of the text to see whether it contains authentic detailed claims.  Since non-Mormon experts agree that Benjamin's speech is structured in such a way that its contents fit the ancient Jewish feast of Autumn Ingathering (New Year/Tabernacles), in addition to being a standard coregency ritual, that fits the BofM claim that the Law of Moses was still being followed.  Then too there is a short excerpt from the Laws of Mosiah in Alma 11 depicting part of the weights & measures system, which contains stunningly accurate remnants of the Egypto-Israelite system -- only discovered by biblical archeologists in recent decades.  The proper mise-en-scène is not that difficult to establish

 

13 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Particularly in regard to the question, "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?" my response is here, published several years ago:

http://ldsmag.com/article-1-1644/

It evidence that I think deserves at least a mention as interesting, complex, and deserving acknowledgement as relevant to the question.

Just making sure it is not overlooked in the general hubbub.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Thanks Kevin, FWIW I specifically selected King Benjamin both because it is filled messages I still am happy to believe, independent of his historical reality, but even moreso because I thought it fair to select a character from the BoM who I knew had received extensive attention from the LDS apologetic community.

Robert, I agree with your caution about the word "conclusive" - it's a fair point. How about "reasonably convincing" instead? Are you, for example, reasonably convinced that William I invaded the British Isles in 1066? Are you reasonably convinced that he was an actual leader in history who reigned over a large nation and influenced its culture, politics etc?

What are the evidences for the existence of William I? There are many, many sources of evidence for William I as a king of England.

How about King Benjamin? I'll start by acknowledging that the extra 1200 years or so of history between him and William I makes it more difficult to reach back through time to find evidences for his existence. But here's the question: if it weren't for the Book of Mormon's publication, would there be anything at all in the great bank of historical evidence that would lead a careful historian to describe the reign of King Benjamin? Anything at all?

I don't dispute that you can take the Book of Mormon and find convincing parallels and similarities to both New and Old world events and texts. But that's not the same as what I've asked. What evidence, outside of the Book of Mormon, would lead someone to describe the man, King Benjamin, that you believe lived in the Americas around 200 B.C. The Book of Mormon is the only source for his existence. What you're then left with is a process of needing to bolster the BoM's credibility as a source instead of being able to draw on multiple other sources that also describe the events, teachings, approach of this leader.

[Rajah Manchou]

20 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

But one thing that is conspicuous is that apologetic involves different groups, skeptics with their theories, divided into atheists and Evangelical with different theories, traditional assumptions about continental geography versus limited geographies, including Mesoamerican versus North East, and the Maylay theory. 

It's an attractive idea that apologetics makes room for different groups with their different geographies and theories, but in reality the dominant paradigm has little interest in the North East or Maylay (sic). 

I second Monster's appeal to "not bend evidence to explain the observation and theory. Start at the beginning and if the evidence leads us to our original theory great if it does not we must change our theory." If we start at the beginning, without any a priori assumptions about location, the evidence does not resemble Mesoamerica. Meso requires bending evidence too far, so far as to literally twist the cardinal directions to make the Isthmus of Tehuantepec fit. The constraints of the text do not match up with the dominant paradigm. I think most people both inside and outside the Church acknowledge this. But so many apologists are not seeing it or are not "bold enough and brave enough", as you put it, to step outside their paradigm.

Case in point, if we start at the beginning and vow not to bend evidence to fit our assumptions, is it plausible that three groups of migrants from the Middle East sail around the world and arrive at the same point around Guatemala? Its not only highly unlikely, but the physical and genetic evidence does not acknowledge Jews/Arabs venturing beyond the Indian Ocean until long after Moroni wandered off with the plates. However, we do have evidence that Jews/Arabs settled throughout the Indian Ocean. Its well documented in genetic studies of the Lemba in Zimbabwe, the Antemoro in Madagascar and the Comoros and the Bene Israel (see link below) of India. A new study published just two months ago supports the Book of Mormon claims that Jews were in the Indian Ocean possibly as early as the Lehites.

"Genetic evidence has been provided by scientists of the Jewish roots of the Bene Israel community in the western part of India. According to their oral history, the Bene Israel people descended from 14 Jewish survivors of a shipwreck on India's Konkan shore. The exact timing of this event and the origin and identity of the Jewish visitors are unknown. Some date the event to around 2,000 years ago. Others estimate that it took place in 175 BCE. Still others believe their Jewish ancestors arrived as early as the 8th century BCE." (source)

They weren't Mulekites or Lehites, but they probably looked a lot like them, and they were going in the same direction around the same time period. Its solid evidence in support of Nephi and Jacob's claims that Jews were in the water in the right time (600 BC) and place (Arabian Peninsula/Indian Ocean). But that's as far as the evidence takes us. If we proceed beyond this point, it becomes a guessing game based on loose parallels and fringe scholarship.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Teancum]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have read a dozen like his- here is another review

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/religion-science-coexist-faith-versus-fact-coyne/396362/

One I have read and dissected is this one actually written by a philosopher- not some scientist amateur who does not understand philosophy.  This one puts forth the same thesis, and this guy is a chairman of the philos department of a major university:

The review continues and finally we reach the author's conclusion- which is repeated again and again by other reviewers

The book was so panned by the journals that Boghossian eventually admitted it was a mistake!

That last paragraph says it all about these usual arguments. Introductory arguments.

The problem is that relativists and constructivists know that their positions are constructive and therefore relativist, and relish that view.  It is not a condemnation for a relativist to be called one and to say their views are not scientific.  In fact that is the whole point.  It's like blaming a Republican for not being a Democrat.

The Atlantic review was a pretty good summary.  I still think the book does pretty good at comparing and contrasting faith against science and how science is not faith based or a religious proposition which is what the poster to whom I recommended the book was saying.

 

[Kevin Christensen]

3 hours ago, canard78 said:

 

Thanks Kevin, FWIW I specifically selected King Benjamin both because it is filled messages I still am happy to believe, independent of his historical reality, but even moreso because I thought it fair to select a character from the BoM who I knew had received extensive attention from the LDS apologetic community.

SNIP

What are the evidences for the existence of William I? There are many, many sources of evidence for William I as a king of England.

How about King Benjamin? I'll start by acknowledging that the extra 1200 years or so of history between him and William I makes it more difficult to reach back through time to find evidences for his existence. But here's the question: if it weren't for the Book of Mormon's publication, would there be anything at all in the great bank of historical evidence that would lead a careful historian to describe the reign of King Benjamin? Anything at all?

I don't dispute that you can take the Book of Mormon and find convincing parallels and similarities to both New and Old world events and texts. But that's not the same as what I've asked. What evidence, outside of the Book of Mormon, would lead someone to describe the man, King Benjamin, that you believe lived in the Americas around 200 B.C. The Book of Mormon is the only source for his existence. What you're then left with is a process of needing to bolster the BoM's credibility as a source instead of being able to draw on multiple other sources that also describe the events, teachings, approach of this leader.

Notice that you've shifted the argument, moving from an open request for information that could be described as "cause to believe" to a very different request for absolute coercive proof.

""If a man knoweth a thing, he has no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.  And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not,that he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe...?" (Alma32:18-19).

If William 1 lived, what does that say about the resurrection of Christ, the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, or my personal obligations to bind myself to a covenant community?

Back to the original question: ""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?"

The issue is the evidence (not proof) concerning whether the account of King Benjamin can be best explained as Joseph's imagination combined with local sermons, or eye-witness details provided via an inspired translation.  My little essay surveys a wide range of studies. So, which explanation is better?   Is changing the question entirely a valid way of addressing the issues raised, or is it a dodge, a deliberate attempt to avoid facing up to the realities of honestly accounting for the evidence?

From a forthcoming essay of mine:

Quote

Since no paradigm ever solves all the problems it defines, and since no two paradigms leave all the same problems unsolved, paradigm debates always involve the question: Which problems are more significant to have solved?^[1]

Probably the single most prevalent claim advanced by the proponents of a new paradigm is that they can solve the problems that have led the old one to a crisis.^[2]

Claims of this sort are particularly likely to succeed if the new paradigm displays a quantitative precision strikingly better than its older competitor.^[3]

[P]articularly persuasive arguments can be developed if the new paradigm permits the prediction of phenomena that had been entirely unsuspected while the old one prevailed.^[4]

These are the arguments, rarely made entirely explicit, that appeal to the individual's sense of the appropriate or the aesthetic—the new theory is said to be “neater”, “more suitable,” or “simpler” than the old.^[5]

The issue is, which paradigm should in the future guide research on problems many of which neither competitor can yet claim to resolve completely. A decision between alternate ways of practicing science is called for, and in the circumstances that decision must be based less on past achievement than on future promise...A decision of that kind can only be made on faith.^[6]

First the new candidate must seem to resolve some generally outstanding problem that can be met in no other way. Second, the new paradigm must promise to preserve a relatively large part of the concrete problem-solving ability that has accrued to science through its predecessors.^[7]

There are also, however, values to be used in judging whole theories: they must, first and foremost, permit puzzle formulation and solution; where possible, they should be simple, self-consistent, plausible, compatible with other theories currently employed.^[8]

In matters like these, the resort to shared values, rather than to shared rules governing individual choice may be the community's way of distributing risk and assuring the long-term success of its enterprise.^[9]

The existence of these values—which do not depend on particular paradigms—permit Kuhn to say that: “It makes a great deal of sense of ask which of two actual and competing theories fits the facts better.”^[10] And as Ian Barbour comments, “Because there are criteria common to all scientists, the decision can be discussed, and reasons set forth, and an eventual consensus can be expected. Theories and programmes, then are not verified, or falsified, but assessed by a variety of criteria...the judgment cannot be reduced to formal rules, yet it is subject to rational argument and evaluation by commonly agreed upon criteria.”^[11]

Collectively, these values provide a compass, a way to judge the quality of maps relative to territory that does not devolve into utterly self-referential relativism, social constructivism, and epistemological un-decidability.

---

^[1] Kuhn, 110.

^[2] Kuhn, 153.

^[3]Kuhn, 154

^[4] Ibid., 154.

^[5] Ibid., 155

^[6] Ibid., 157-8

^[7] Kuhn, 169

^[8] Kuhn, 185

^[9] Kuhn 186.

^[10] Kuhn, 147.

^[11] Barbour, 116.

^[8] Kuhn, 185

^[9] Kuhn 186.

^[10] Kuhn, 147.

^[11] Barbour, 116.

What evidence do you have, what cause to believe do you have, that "Joseph's imagination plus local sermons" can better account for the kinds of information I provided, if you use Kuhn's criteria for measuring better?  Does the difficulty in facing and accounting for the evidence I provided have any implications for faith?

And take another issue.  What are the implications for faith and belief in the Book of Mormon  if there is good evidence Mulek was a real person?

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/12/2/S00008-50be69aad59c87Chadwick.pdf

If Mulek lived, what does that say about the resurrection of Christ, the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, or my personal obligations to bind myself to a covenant community?

What does a continual raising of the evidentiary bar towards coercive proof and away from challenging "cause to believe" indicate about a person's desire to believe?  Is this a fair question or not?  After all, the truth of Mormonism does require us to sustain leaders who have a knack of saying things for which you can easily demonstrate imperfection.  I've seen the imperfection myself.  However, I've also looked up sustain in a good dictionary, and considered my own imperfections, and Lorenzo Snow's comment about the implications of Joseph Smith's imperfections as providing "hope for me."

Just saying.

Kevin Christensen

 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2016 by Kevin Christensen
format issue

[Kevin Christensen]

Ralph says:

Quote

Meso requires bending evidence too far, so far as to literally twist the cardinal directions to make the Isthmus of Tehuantepec fit. The constraints of the text do not match up with the dominant paradigm.

I'm thinking in terms of Brant and Larry for directions.  Brant here:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-from-the-east-to-the-west-the-problem-of-directions-in-the-book-of-mormon

And Larry here:

http://www.webring.org/l/rd?ring=mormonsites;id=2;url=http%3A%2F%2Fbomgeography.poulsenll.org%2F

http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf

I particularly like the detail on page 43 of Larry's FAIR Presentation:

Quote

The battle ends as the Amlicites and Nephites enter the wilderness of Hermounts. A number of years
ago, I had chosen these Barrancas as the location for Hermounts because of their fit to the description of
this wilderness found in the text of the Book of Mormon.
About a year ago, on the Aztlan discussion list, someone raised the topic of whether or not there were
man-eating beasts in Mesoamerica. One of the list members,
an expert of the Nahuatl language, responded by explaining
that Tehuantepec is a Nahuatl word meaning “hills” or
“mountains of the man-eating beast.” 

And of course, the Malay hypothesis does not spent a great deal of time accounting for this constraint on the text, from an interview that Joseph says was repeated four times, to make sure he remembered.

Quote

He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.

Of course, every paradigm choice involves deciding "which problems are more significant to have solved."   I think the issue of directions in the Book of Mormon compared to Mesoamerica has been solved, and that the solution is significant, impressive, and providing helpful insights in accounting for specific details.  

If I suppose that the Jaredites, Lehites, and Mulek's people were guided, then their ending up only a few hundred miles apart is not all that strange.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited July 6, 2016 by Kevin Christensen

[Gervin]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I was originally responding to canard, as follows:

I take "conclusive" to mean settled and final proof -- a luxury which we just don't have in historical studies, even though you are not alone in thinking that some synchronisms are darn good, convincing, and seemingly "conclusive."  I am not a maximalist, and am just not willing to go that far.  I think that a good historical narrative can be written, without becoming too demanding.  However, I am perplexed that you so easily latch on to that type of evidence, but reject other convincing forms of evidence.  As though your selection is agenda-driven.  Is that why you are afraid to respond to substantive arguments?  C'mon, Gervin, fess up.

So, you would argue that historical studies never provide any conclusive evidence to show that Herod Agrippa II, Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni, Abraham Lincoln, and Joseph Smith actually existed as humans on this earth.  You want a history that's not "too demanding."  I get it; there is no Book of Mormon history to make a plausible case for the existence of any of the characters mentioned.  I prefer to put a lot of demands on historical narrative.  

I gave you my criteria for a substantive discussion.  You don't measure up.  Sorry.

[rodheadlee]

17 hours ago, consiglieri said:

No, George Washington did not chop down a cherry tree.

The point is that George Washington never said that he did.

That was a story made up after the fact by Parson Weems, if I recall.

Now, if George Washington himself claimed that he chopped down a cherry tree when he did not, that would be a problem indeed.

It would throw into doubt his credibility about everything he else he claimed.

The same problem regarding his credibility would have ensued if George Washington had given multiple inconsistent and sometimes contradictory stories about how he chopped down the cherry tree . . . 

 

You missed the point. Did GW exist or not?

[consiglieri]

8 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

You missed the point. Did GW exist or not?

Of course he did.  But so did Joseph Smith.

That does not mean that everything they said was true.

And even less does it mean that stories that accrued around them are true.

 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, canard78 said:

I'm with you mfb... almost.

Is the study of history completely pointless? Are the "houses of history" the only thing you'd be interested in understanding? If that's the case, then that's fine. But that's not the case for me.

Like I said before, I'm not asking whether Benjamin's speech carries value. Should I BELIEVE the words on the pages of the 1830 publication (or 2013, whatever the edition we're up to). Should I BELIEVE that "we are all beggars?" and as such should not stay my hand from giving assistance to the beggar? Of course that's not a question of FACT. Of course that's a question of BELIEF. I get that. For some, they choose to ignore King Benjamin's instruction and not believe it. Or they choose to adapt the message to fit with their BELIEF that beggars should be cared for when certain conditions are met (e.g. if they are sober, or in a shelter, off the streets).

But... (I say again!) just because I accept that BELIEF is not something that requires FACT, doesn't mean that I'm not interested in HISTORY. It remain a valid question, to ME. Can I establish FACTS about history? It depends on your views. From a philosophical viewpoint, I understand the tangent debate about questions of what reality is and whether we're perceiving multiple, conflicting realities due to our personal skewed paradigms. Embracing that challenge, I can still examine tangible evidences. Not as a way of framing my philosophical beliefs, but as a way of understanding the physical world around me. 

The Book of Mormon could either be a modern invention or a translation of an ancient series of actual events. The reality of either the former or latter can have no bearing on whether I choose to add King Benjamin's sermon to my collection of BELIEFs. None at all. But I can still look into the evidences for whether he ever lived as an independent investigation.

I never said that the study of history was pointless- GOSH!  Where did you get that??

The point is that history itself is socially constructed and interpreted by humans and can never give us "what really happened" because "what really happened" is an illusion.

All we can have is a constructed and interpreted account of what is probably most likely to have happened, and artifacts to back it up which make OUR version more or less plausible.

Now the question becomes which historian's account do you BELIEVE?  

Suppose we are talking about the Battle of Gettysburg.  It is recent and well studied.  We have account after account written by different witnesses etc and etc.  All these accounts are taken from a single human point of view, tinged by opinion, faulty perception

Which account by which prejudiced historian fits your own prejudiced view of the world?  What was this general's motivation in timing this charge or that charge, and what would have happened if he had waited or done it earlier or whatever?   Pick a side and start a discussion in the journals.  Is it "what really happened"?  Nope.

What really happened is lost and besides "what really happened" to one human being is a universe in itself. Each account of "what really happened" is totally subjective to the viewer, and you put them all together and you have an aggregate of viewers personal subjective testimonies of everything as they saw it.

Fascinating?  Unquestionable.  Valuable? Unquestionable.  Able to teach us volumes about what to do in a certain situation, what to avoid, lessons learned etc?  Valuable beyond understanding!!

And we are talking about a recent event in history.  What of those in ancient cultures with lost languages and words we cannot speak, where the witnesses saw magic in the sky and sorcery in a sunrise?  Where the gods took possession of their bodies and the war paint imbued them with divine power because they BELIEVED they did?  What really happened there?  According to whom??

History is the combined receptacle of human experience- it is what makes us human and makes us who we are.  It IS society itself- the fabric that holds us together.  It is the evolutionary development of human society as seen by humans.  From a social evolutionary point of view it IS like our arms and legs and our bodies themselves- which have evolved according to God's plan- 

But is it "what really happened"??

Of course not!!  

What really happened is in that lost aggregate of brains and bones long gone, yet each lost account a completely subjective one.  There IS no "objective" account that ever existed, only opinions, perspectives and BELIEFS.

So go ahead and believe your beliefs, but know that that is what they are.