Dan Peterson: "Why I Can't Manage To Disbelieve"

[Scott Lloyd]

This, as much as any of the FairMormon Conference presentations that have been highlighted on this board so far, deserves its own thread. So I'm starting one here.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This, as much as any of the FairMormon Conference presentations that have been highlighted on this board so far, deserves its own thread. So I'm starting one here.

Do you have a link to the transcript?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Do you have a link to the transcript?

I already went back and put one in. But you're too quick on the draw.

 

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I already went back and put one in. But you're too quick on the draw.

 

Thanks.

 

[Nemesis]

So what is it that you ant to discuss?  This isn't the way discussions should be started here.

 

Nemesis

[Calm]

Well, it is kind of how I have been posting threads on the FM Presentations...just putting them up so people know they are there who wanted to read them...and getting free publicity for FM which is greatly appreciated.  If I hadn't just switched tech and remembered my gmail password by heart, I would have beat Scott to the punch.

My apologies if I should have posted with a specific discussion in mind.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Calm

[strappinglad]

Several nails being squarely hit in this talk. I used to think that the scripture about people who see the bright sun and declare it to be a pitch black night, was pure hyperbole. I don't any more. I have met some . Reasonable folks can disagree. Unreasonable people cannot be dealt with except to throw up one's hands. I recall my Dad telling of a meeting in which a member disagreed with another member about a point of doctrine. When a scriptural reference was shown the member simply tore out the offending page. That way the scripture wasn't in HIS book !

[UtahTexan]

enjoyed this

[TOmNossor]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This, as much as any of the FairMormon Conference presentations that have been highlighted on this board so far, deserves its own thread. So I'm starting one here.

Three days ago I wrote:

But, when I attempt to assess the relative strength of the LDS position vs. other (and most frequently the Catholic) position(s), and I attempt to EXCLUDE spiritual witness; I find the Book of Mormon to be a pillar of such strength it withstands all assaults handily. I simply cannot explain the existence of the BOM without appealing to the supernatural. While I have read about numerous historical problems, I see the positive evidences for the BOM to be virtually impossible to explain via any naturalistic means. I do not think any explanation for the coming forth of the BOM offered by critics explains what is there well at all.

 

 

I find Dan's expression to be much more thorough than mine AND he surely has way more knowledge of problems/explanations and evidences/explanations.

Thanks for pointing me to this.

Charity, TOm

 

 

 

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Nemesis said:

So what is it that you ant to discuss?  This isn't the way discussions should be started here.

 

Nemesis

 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Well, it is kind of how I have been posting threads on the FM Presentations...just putting them up so people know they are there who wanted to read them...and getting free publicity for FM which is greatly appreciated.  If I hadn't just switched tech and remembered my gmail password by heart, I would have beat Scott to the punch.

My apologies if I should have posted with a specific discussion in mind.

Aside from what Calm said (thanks, Calm), I earnestly thought that Dr. Peterson's presentation title, which I adopted as the title of this thread, was pithy enough that the discussion topic would be self-evident from it. But if need be, I will summarize. 

The gist of Dan's talk, as I understand it, is that if one denies the narrative that faithful believers propound about the divine and miraculous origins of the Book of Mormon, the alternative theories or explanations one is left with are themselves so untenable as to make the standard narrative seem all the more appealing by comparison. 

Hence, Dan says he can't manage to disbelieve. Neither can I, and I heartily agree with him. 

I invite others to go to the link, read the text and weigh in. 

Edited August 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[UtahTexan]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Aside from what Calm said (thanks, Calm), I earnestly thought that Dr. Peterson's presentation title, which I adopted as the title of this thread, was pithy enough that the discussion topic would be self-evident from it. But if need be, I will summarize. 

The gist of Dan's talk, as I understand it, is that if one denies the narrative that faithful believers propound about the divine and miraculous origins of the Book of Mormon, the alternative theories or explanations one is left with are themselves so untenable as to make the standard narrative seem all the more appealing by comparison. 

Hence, Dan says he can't manage to disbelieve. Neither can I, and I heartily agree with him. 

I invite others to go to the link, read the text and weigh in. 

Scott, I managed, once, to disbelieve.  After all it took to come back...and after feeling how wonderful to get my testimony back, I do not see how I can let it happen again.  I agree with with what Dan wrote.  

Nothing I believe can be disproven.  Many will try.  But they simply can't.

[jwhitlock]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This, as much as any of the FairMormon Conference presentations that have been highlighted on this board so far, deserves its own thread. So I'm starting one here.

Excellent presentation by Dan. The Book of Mormon is absolutely incredible as a trove of instruction and information for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

There is incredible depth to the Book of Mormon, but that becomes apparent only to those who are willing to take the time to study it. Critics of the Book of Mormon accuse Joseph of wholesale plagiarism in the Isaiah passages quoted there, but they fail to acknowledge the context Nephi adds to them that really opens them up to your understanding. Events recorded by Mormon that are just stories concocted by an uneducated New York farm boy (according to critics) reveal patterns and instruction specifically tailored to events in our day. Oddly worded phrases (why did he say it that way?) open up new doctrinal insights. The list goes on.

I have read the book many times over, and am becoming more and more astounded at what is buried in it that I am finding. It is absolutely ludicrous to claim that an uneducated, 19th century backwoods farm boy wrote it. The book can only be viewed as inspired revelation; critics have come up with no plausible rationalization for how such a book could have been written without being from God.

Ultimately my faith in the restored gospel is not based on logical apologetic arguments against what the critics claim are problems with the church and its history. In the real world, I am a committed member of the church because of what the Book of Mormon offers me, what the temple gives to me, what I receive from the sacrament each week, how the power of the atoning sacrifice of Christ is made evident in my life despite my chronic inadequacies, and because my family and I are blessed virtually every day because of the covenants we have made. There are incredible blessings available to members of the church, and the Book of Mormon is perhaps the most open evidence of the depth of those blessings.

Thanks again for posting this, Scott. Critics of the church who dwell on "problems" of history and character and other "issues" in the church entirely miss the boat on what the gospel is really all about.

[cinepro]

The universe is so vast and interesting that, were I forced to accept supernatural explanations put forth for all the things I can't explain or understand otherwise, there would be no end to the theories I would be compelled to believe.

For the specific subject at hand, it is simply enough for those who don't believe in the supernatural theories surrounding the creation of The Book of Mormon to say "I don't know, but the evidence for such-and-such theory isn't convincing enough for belief."  Beyond that, any discussion is an exercise in courtesy and curiosity, but they are not compelled to present any sort of counter-theory. 

Edited August 27, 2016 by cinepro

[TheSkepticChristian]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hence, Dan says he can't manage to disbelieve. Neither can I, and I heartily agree with him. 

Dan Peterson said, "Well I want to suggest something like that in this case, that to me, the explanation of Joseph Smith is simple and elegant, and the alternative explanations just don’t work and they get more and more complex and it’s just too much for me, and so I’ve said sometimes that I simply don’t have the faith to disbelieve Joseph Smith’s story. I just can’t get there. I can’t do it. And I’ve tried. I’ve really tried to give it a serious look. I cannot put together hallucinatory explanations of the witnesses"

1. In reality eye-witnesses are not very reliable, let alone 200 year old accounts. 

2. Instead of "hallucination" why not change it to "imagination"? How can we know the witnesses did not imagine Moroni? Everyone has the ability to imagine stuff. 

3.Did the three witnesses ever describe Moroni?  What did Moroni look like? Was he white? tall? First or second hand accounts? Please

Hundreds of believers have reported seeing Hindu statues drinking milk, do you believe that? why not? 

 

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Well, it is kind of how I have been posting threads on the FM Presentations

You opinion please 

Edited August 27, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Thinking]

Quote

Argument from ignorance also known as appeal to ignorance is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

 

Edited August 27, 2016 by Thinking

[TheSkepticChristian]

Quote

Gentlemen, do you see that hand? Are you sure you see it? Are your eyes playing a trick or something? No. Well, as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the angel and the plate

http://en.fairmormon.org/Source:Martin_Harris:Investigating_the_Book_of_Mormon_Witnesses:116:1:Do_you_see_that_hand

However, that is a late third hand account. The earliest copy of that account is from 1943. Does anyone have better evidence? 

Did the three witnesses ever describe Moroni? What did Moroni look like? Was he white? tall? First or second hand accounts? Please

[Rivers]

Is there any one prevailing theory among critics as to how the Book of Mormon came about?

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Rivers said:

Is there any one prevailing theory among critics as to how the Book of Mormon came about?

Funny thing is that the naturalistic theories advanced by the critics often contradict one another, so that the critics unwittingly end up neutralizing the counter-explanations among themselves.

[Scott Lloyd]

21 hours ago, Thinking said:

 

The problem with your "argument from ignorance" attack is that the proponents of the Book of Mormon do not claim it to have been proven true, not by naturalistic means. We only say that the question is still open and thus, one is at liberty to pray and ask God for a spiritual confirmation. The only way the argument from ignorance fallacy would apply would be if we claimed the book had been "proven" true because it has not been proven false. We have not done that.

From the transcript of Dan's talk:

Quote

 

I was confronted within the past week, about five-six days ago, I think, by a demand, and I get this all the time, you know: “All right, name your single best evidence for the Book of Mormon.” Or I think in this case it was, “Name the three absolute proofs for the Book of Mormon.”

And I don’t believe there are any such things. I think that what Latter-day Saint scholars – apologists, if you want to use that term – have thought they were doing with the Book of Mormon, what we see ourselves as doing, is constructing a cumulative case, no one element of which is definitive, no one element of which will simply force, compel unbelievers to suddenly cave in, surrender. I don’t believe that that’s the Lord’s intention. I don’t believe that there will be any such things.

I’m not even sure I can conceive of one. If we found a stela in Central America, say, that said “I, Nephi, was here,” there would still be ways of getting around that. You have arguments about the so-called minimalist position on the Old Testament where you find reference to the House of David. People have been arguing there is no House of David. The Davidic monarchy is a myth. They found a reference stone to the House of David. Well, there are people who contend it really means House of Worms. I mean, you can read it that way, if you really, really want to.

And so there are very few things out there that I can even imagine would simply compel people to believe. There are things out there, though, that can give you reason to believe, that can convince you or convince other people that it makes sense to believe.

 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[UtahTexan]

Thinking: Argument from ignorance also known as appeal to ignorance is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

 

First, I was not aware this thread was a debate.  So, not sure your point applies.

But, assuming it does, the point was made in the OP.....you can choose to agree or disagree.  If you disagree and believe he is wrong, then YOU have the burden to disprove it.  The burden does not shift simply because you want it to or because it is convenient.

And no one has said we believe simply because it cannot be disproven.  We have said that we believe.  We believe for many reasons.  Given that, we will not lose that belief because, despite many efforts, the facts cannot be disproven.   

Now, if you have definitive facts to disprove the Book of Mormon, then, as it is your burden in THIS situation, you should proffer your evidence.

Oh...and have a super Saturday

 

 

Edited August 27, 2016 by CountryBoy

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, Rivers said:

Is there any one prevailing theory among critics as to how the Book of Mormon came about?

I think they generally take the blob of mud approach - throw a huge blob of mud and see what sticks.

[UtahTexan]

8 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I think they generally take the blob of mud approach - throw a huge blob of mud and see what sticks.

We used to call the the Spaghetti Theory

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Funny thing is that the naturalistic theories advanced by the critics often contradict one another, so that the critics unwittingly end up neutralizing the counter-explanations among themselves.

1. because some critics are irrational 

2. you said you respect Van Vogel. I haven't seen anyone respond to Van Vogel's presentation on the Book of Mormon Witnesses. 

3. It is not like faith promoting accounts don't contradict each other. I don't like double standards. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

1. because some critics are irrational 

2. you said you respect Van Vogel. I haven't seen anyone respond to Van Vogel's presentation on the Book of Mormon Witnesses. 

3. It is not like faith promoting accounts don't contradict each other. I don't like double standards. 

I never said I respect Dan Vogel. I never offered an opinion on Dan Vogel one way or the other. 

And I don't know what mutually contradictory faith-promoting accounts you have reference to. Don't accuse me of a double standard based on your own assumption that I know what you're talking about. 

Edited August 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The problem with your "argument from ignorance" attack is that the proponents of the Book of Mormon do not claim it to have been proven true, not by naturalistic means. We only say that the question is still open and thus, one is at liberty to pray and ask God for a spiritual confirmation. The only way the argument from ignorance fallacy would apply would be if we claimed the book had been "proven" true because it has not been proven false. We have not done that.

I guess we didn't read the same article.

Although Dr. Peterson doesn't use the word prove, he strongly infers that's what he's doing.

Quote

But one of the arguments I would make is simply that I have been unable – and I think I have tried seriously and honestly – to construct a case or construct an explanation of the Book of Mormon other than Joseph Smith’s that really accounts for all the data.

Quote

But it gets to be pretty complex sometimes. You need so many different explanations

Quote

My problem is that I see problems with all the alternative explanations, and to me they’re lethal.

Quote

My argument would be that all of the counter-explanations of the Book of Mormon that I’ve looked at – and I think I’ve looked at all of them – run into walls. You eventually run into something where, it simply can’t get you there. It can’t explain everything that needs to be explained.

Quote

Well, of course, you know, you can make your own decision, lead your life the way you want to, but it seems to me intellectually honestly that you really should try to come up with a counter-explanation. If you think Joseph Smith wrote it, how did he do it? If you think there were no plates, what’s going on there? You need to come up with another explanation.

Quote

What I would argue here, see, I’m just kind of going through this very rapidly, but I would argue that I put this last because I think every other avenue has been blocked off. You can’t do it. And so it leaves you with the one explanation that’s still out there.

Now I know for some people this is impossible too. But you may remember the line from Sherlock Holmes where he explained his method of deduction. Which was simply, you have to eliminate all the things that are impossible and whatever you are left with, however improbable, must be the explanation.

Quote

Joseph Smith’s story is easier to credit than the explanations that have been proposed to account alternatively for what he claimed.

Quote

But to me the alternative explanations, which I think I’ve summarized here, they’re the only ones that are really on offer, they simply don’t work.

Quote

And so if someone wanted to ask me, what are the best arguments for the Book of Mormon, I would say one of them is simply that you guys can’t come up with a good counter-explanation.

Quote

You can’t explain it. You might be able to explain hypothetically, this or that aspect of it. But you can’t explain the whole thing, and parts of it are simply beyond your power to explain.

Quote

And that there were people who claimed to see objects, and not just a few, a lot of them. It’s not just the 11 witnesses; it’s several more who claim to see and heft objects connected with it, objects which can have no other explanation, it seems to me, no plausible explanation other than they were delivered to Joseph in the way he said they were.

Quote

Then I close with a comment from a good friend of mine years ago who left the church, years ago. But he said to me at one point, well, Joseph didn’t even claim necessarily to translate when the plates were there. So what’s the purpose of the plates? And I said, well, they’re an absolutely indigestible lump in the throat of people like you. That’s what they’re there for. Because you can’t explain them away.

 

Edited August 27, 2016 by Thinking