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

[cinepro]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We don't ask anyone to do do anything other than keep an open mind enough to go to God in humble prayer. 

But if someone attacks the account of the Book of Mormon origins, he'd better be forthcoming with a viable alternative explanation, or he's not worthy of being taken seriously. 

Uh, no.  Someone can criticize, "attack", or interact in any way they like with any theory without shouldering the responsibility to provide an alternate explanation. 

Your statement is based on a singular and obviously false premise: that of all the existing theories, one will be correct, and if not, then someone can "be forthcoming" of the correct theory either through logic, imagination, guessing or some other human talent.

The fact is, there may be an infinite number of things for which there is no known "true" theory about their origin, and that no matter how much people guess, deduce, imagine or otherwise consider it, they may not stumble upon the true theory. 

In other words, the true theory may remain unknown. 

The fact that it remains unknown does not automatically make one of the other theories more true, or less exposed to criticism and attacks.

It should also be pointed out that if we are willing to allow supernatural or unfalsifiable theories into the mix, the supernatural theories will always appear to be better than the alternate "natural" ones.  Because once you can fill in the gaps with "...and God did it" there are no more gaps, and your theory is now 100% logical and complete.  Unfortunately, this applies to false theories as well as true ones, so once we allow supernatural theories into the mix, we can't judge a theory's validity based on completeness or logic, since all supernatural theories are complete and logical  (well, logical under the supernatural rules created by the same people who are making the theory!)

 

 

Edited August 28, 2016 by cinepro

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

most critics of the LDS faith ignore quite a bit of data in my experience

what about Dan Vogel? I couldn't find a response Vogel's Book of Mormon witnesses presentation (or his arguments), which makes me wonder if most apologists also ignore a quite bit of data? If apologists have the time to debunk Runnell's boring letter, why not Vogel's  presentation (or his arguments)?   

19 hours ago, cdowis said:

If you are just going to brush off my response, and refuse to look at the links in my youtube posts, this is a waste of time for us both.

Please give me the links here 

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We have no burden of proof to shift, and the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy does not apply to us unless and until we assert that the Book of Mormon and other LDS truth claims are proven through physical evidence. No reasonably intelligent defender of Mormonism I know of makes that assertion. 

So why was the FairMormon presentation necessary?  

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

he'd better be forthcoming with a viable alternative explanation, or he's not worthy of being taken seriously. 

that applies to apologists as well! I haven't seen a single faith promoting theory that explains all the Book of Mormon problems. 

 

Edited August 28, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

In my opinion...and I include my former self...a lot of staunch LDS ignore quite a bit of data too. 

I did not suggest otherwise.  In fact, I pointed out I assumed critics would see believers as ignoring data.

I do believe most believers and disbelievers ignore tons of data as knowing details isn't all that necessary to live life usually, even when speaking primarily about religious or secular parts of life.  However, I was not intending to address the general population, but rather those involved in debates about truth claims.

 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

But the critic can't explain exactly how the Book of Mormon came to be in a definitive manner so...

You have presented a lot of assertions which have been addressed multiple times in multiple places. Some of them are irrelevant to the discussion. All of them based upon assumptions that the Nephites did not exist. Some of them not supported by the text nor any assertions by LDS scholars.

An alternative explanation does not have to be definitive. It needs to be rational. Thus far, critics have failed to come to grips with the production itself and the scholarship that has been accumulated. They have failed utterly provide any sort of plausible explanation. A telepathic connection by a person or persons unknown dictating the text is more plausible than anything the critics have come up with. Some have focused on this one aspect or the other, but none of them come close to explaining the facts that have been accumulated by LDS scholars.

Glenn

 

 

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I did not suggest otherwise.  In fact, I pointed out I assumed critics would see believers as ignoring data.

I do believe most believers and disbelievers ignore tons of data as knowing details isn't all that necessary to live life usually, even when speaking primarily about religious or secular parts of life.  However, I was not intending to address the general population, but rather those involved in debates about truth claims.

 

Thanks Calm.  I understand what you are saying.  I think all of us get way too comfortable and I am guilty of just lacking the desire to learn tough things that are hard for me too understand.  Sometimes on this board I feel like I should have a dictionary handy... 

[Honorentheos]

47 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

An alternative explanation does not have to be definitive. It needs to be rational. 

Hi Glenn,

Let's take a cue from Dr. Peterson and set something up here.

Statement base on Evidence: The production of the Book of Mormon accelerated substantially once Oliver Cowdery became involved, and the vast majority of what we have today as the Book of Mormon was produced when Oliver was working with Joseph.*

A: Oliver Cowdery somehow "juiced" the miraculous means by which the Book of Mormon was translated/transcribed/transferred

B: Oliver Cowdery was somehow involved in helping Joseph Smith produce the Book of Mormon

Which of those two options seems most rational?

 

* Using lds.org as a faithful source to help demonstrate this, https://www.lds.org/new-era/2012/09/the-book-of-mormon-from-plates-to-press?lang=eng -

Quote

• Joseph first began translating the plates in 1827, when he was 21. The majority of the Book of Mormon (531 pages in English) was translated with Oliver Cowdery as scribe in about 65 working days between April and June 1829. 

We're all familiar with the various stories from people trying to steal the plates to the lost 116 pages and subsequent pause in Joseph's attempts to translate. Still, September 1827 to April 1829 is a long time to be procrastinating on a pre-contracted book obligation when the publisher expecting to see something written is God. Something about Oliver changed the dynamic whether one believes the Book of Mormon was delivered by an angel or came about through more mundane means.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Honorentheos

[Thinking]

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

viable alternative explanation

IOW an explanation that a Mormon apologist accepts as viable.

[Gray]

20 hours ago, cinepro said:

It is if you're allowed to define the word "naturalistic" any way you want. 

But then nothing is supernatural; the word ceases to mean anything and now we've got to come up with a new word to describe what we're talking about.

Admittedly the naturalism of Mormonism looks an awful lot like the supernatural. But it's defined in naturalistic terms.

A lot of the arguments that I see borrowed from Christian apologetics simply don't work when you try to repurpose them to fit Mormonism.

[UtahTexan]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

In my opinion...and I include my former self...a lot of staunch LDS ignore quite a bit of data too. 

I disagree.  Just because something is not accepted does not mean it has been ignored.  Ignored and rejected are two different concepts.

I have seen and read all the anti-literature.  I even used it.  

I do not ignore it.  I reject it.

[churchistrue]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Uh, no.  Someone can criticize, "attack", or interact in any way they like with any theory without shouldering the responsibility to provide an alternate explanation. 

Your statement is based on a singular and obviously false premise: that of all the existing theories, one will be correct, and if not, then someone can "be forthcoming" of the correct theory either through logic, imagination, guessing or some other human talent.

The fact is, there may be an infinite number of things for which there is no known "true" theory about their origin, and that no matter how much people guess, deduce, imagine or otherwise consider it, they may not stumble upon the true theory. 

In other words, the true theory may remain unknown. 

The fact that it remains unknown does not automatically make one of the other theories more true, or less exposed to criticism and attacks.

It should also be pointed out that if we are willing to allow supernatural or unfalsifiable theories into the mix, the supernatural theories will always appear to be better than the alternate "natural" ones.  Because once you can fill in the gaps with "...and God did it" there are no more gaps, and your theory is now 100% logical and complete.  Unfortunately, this applies to false theories as well as true ones, so once we allow supernatural theories into the mix, we can't judge a theory's validity based on completeness or logic, since all supernatural theories are complete and logical  (well, logical under the supernatural rules created by the same people who are making the theory!)

 

 

ie, when I see someone solve a rubiks cube in three seconds, it may seem more logical that God moved his hands then to go with the naturalistic explanation. 

Edited August 29, 2016 by churchistrue

[Honorentheos]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Admittedly the naturalism of Mormonism looks an awful lot like the supernatural. But it's defined in naturalistic terms.

A lot of the arguments that I see borrowed from Christian apologetics simply don't work when you try to repurpose them to fit Mormonism.

I agree. Whether it's the materialism of all spirit being matter, or it's all miracles being essentially God working with a greater understanding of the mechanics of nature (the greatest of all possible scientists to re-appropriate the ontological argument for Mormonism) Mormonism does much to strike the meta- from metaphysics.  

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Hi Glenn,

Let's take a cue from Dr. Peterson and set something up here.

Statement base on Evidence: The production of the Book of Mormon accelerated substantially once Oliver Cowdery became involved, and the vast majority of what we have today as the Book of Mormon was produced when Oliver was working with Joseph.*

A: Oliver Cowdery somehow "juiced" the miraculous means by which the Book of Mormon was translated/transcribed/transferred

B: Oliver Cowdery was somehow involved in helping Joseph Smith produce the Book of Mormon

Which of those two options seems most rational?

 

* Using lds.org as a faithful source to help demonstrate this, https://www.lds.org/new-era/2012/09/the-book-of-mormon-from-plates-to-press?lang=eng -

We're all familiar with the various stories from people trying to steal the plates to the lost 116 pages and subsequent pause in Joseph's attempts to translate. Still, September 1827 to April 1829 is a long time to be procrastinating on a pre-contracted book obligation when the publisher expecting to see something written is God. Something about Oliver changed the dynamic whether one believes the Book of Mormon was delivered by an angel or came about through more mundane means.

I do not know what you think you have set up. You have already noted the ongoing problems that Joseph had early on with the plates, having to keep them hidden with various attempts being made to steal them, then having to move to his father-in-law's place because of the threat of mob violence in his home area.

I am sure that you are aware that Joseph initially copied some of the characters and a translation of some sort. That was the start of the translation in 1827 (December) while he was still in his father-in-law's house. That is probably the translation process that Isaac Hale was a witness to.

Then comes the Martin Harris/Charles Anton/New York saga. Then starts the translation process with Emma, Martin Harris, and some others acting as scribes. Enter the lost/purloined 116 pages saga with Joseph losing his translation privileges for a season. In this period, Joseph has to deal with the death of his first child, then caring for Emma for the time it took her to regain a measure of her health. Then, there is the fact that Joseph had to earn a living, somehow. He had contracted to buy the farm the old Jesse Hale farm from his father-in-law and had to try to work it. He had a full plate.

Then his father and Samuel show up to help him with his farm. Joseph Knight assisted Joseph monetarily and I believe he also brought some provisions later on. When Oliver Cowdery showed up, he almost immediately volunteered act as scribe for Joseph's dictation. Joseph and Oliver were able to concentrate almost totally on the translation process. I am sure that Oliver's educational and literary background were an improvement over Martin Harris, Reuben Hale, or even Emma. I am confidant that the combination of improved scribal skills and the ability to concentrate almost exclusively on the translation process was the driving factor in the exponential acceleration of the translation process.

Now that I have expanded your reductionism, I am sure that you will concede that a rational and fact based explanation for the delays in the translation process and subsequent speed up of the process has been provided.

Glenn

Edited August 29, 2016 by Glenn101

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I do not know what you think you have set up. You have already noted the ongoing problems that Joseph had early on with the plates, having to keep them hidden with various attempts being made to steal them, then having to move to his father-in-law's place because of the threat of mob violence in his home area.

I am sure that you are aware that Joseph initially copied some of the characters and a translation of some sort. That was the start of the translation in 1827 (December) while he was still in his father-in-law's house. That is probably the translation process that Isaac Hale was a witness to.

Then comes the Martin Harris/Charles Anton/New York saga. Then starts the translation process with Emma, Martin Harris, and some others acting as scribes. Enter the lost/purloined 116 pages saga with Joseph losing his translation privileges for a season. In this period, Joseph has to deal with the death of his first child, then caring for Emma for the time it took her to regain a measure of her health. Then, there is the fact that Joseph had to earn a living, somehow. He had contracted to buy the farm the old Jesse Hale farm from his father-in-law and had to try to work it. He had a full plate.

Then his father and Samuel show up to help him with his farm. Joseph Knight assisted Joseph monetarily and I believe he also brought some provisions later on. When Oliver Cowdery showed up, he almost immediately volunteered act as scribe for Joseph's dictation. Joseph and Oliver were able to concentrate almost totally on the translation process. I am sure that Oliver's educational and literary background were an improvement over Martin Harris, Reuben Hale, or even Emma. I am confidant that the combination of improved scribal skills and the ability to concentrate almost exclusively on the translation process was the driving factor in the exponential acceleration of the translation process.

Now that I have expanded your reductionism, I am sure that you will concede that a rational and fact based explanation for the delays in the translation process and subsequent speed up of the process has been provided.

Glenn

Bravo! 

What a difference a bit of historical perspective makes. 

[Honorentheos]

39 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I do not know what you think you have set up. You have already noted the ongoing problems that Joseph had early on with the plates, having to keep them hidden with various attempts being made to steal them, then having to move to his father-in-law's place because of the threat of mob violence in his home area.

I am sure that you are aware that Joseph initially copied some of the characters and a translation of some sort. That was the start of the translation in 1827 (December) while he was still in his father-in-law's house. That is probably the translation process that Isaac Hale was a witness to.

Then comes the Martin Harris/Charles Anton/New York saga. Then starts the translation process with Emma, Martin Harris, and some others acting as scribes. Enter the lost/purloined 116 pages saga with Joseph losing his translation privileges for a season. In this period, Joseph has to deal with the death of his first child, then caring for Emma for the time it took her to regain a measure of her health. Then, there is the fact that Joseph had to earn a living, somehow. He had contracted to buy the farm the old Jesse Hale farm from his father-in-law and had to try to work it. He had a full plate.

Then his father and Samuel show up to help him with his farm. Joseph Knight assisted Joseph monetarily and I believe he also brought some provisions later on. When Oliver Cowdery showed up, he almost immediately volunteered act as scribe for Joseph's dictation. Joseph and Oliver were able to concentrate almost totally on the translation process. I am sure that Oliver's educational and literary background were an improvement over Martin Harris, Reuben Hale, or even Emma. I am confidant that the combination of improved scribal skills and the ability to concentrate almost exclusively on the translation process was the driving factor in the exponential acceleration of the translation process.

Now that I have expanded your reductionism, I am sure that you will concede that a rational and fact based explanation for the delays in the translation process and subsequent speed up of the process has been provided.

Glenn

So rational is compatible with mundane. If Oliver brings a skill set that aids in the process, it hardly seems like it becomes irrational to contend that the Book of Mormon was composed by mundane means. I know, I know, there are a lot of things people want accounted for that generally come to, "how could a dumb farm boy have known/been able to/so much complexity!" but it's essentially irrational explanations (as in, not in the realm of common reason) presented to defend them just as it's merely an act in creating the smallest space for plausibility to try to negate the problems with the Book of Mormon itself.

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery colluded to compose what we have as the final Book of Mormon. Emma and the Whitmers were aware of this. Harris was a tool to get money and easily excited and thereby manipulated. 

That's rational. Does it close every open door with a definitive "Here's the evidence that shows exactly how..."? No. But it's rational to believe this is a very good possibility. More so than belief in an angel giving a golden otherwise unattested textual account of a proto-Christian pre-Columbian American Israeli diaspora with two separate genocides in it to a convicted glass looker.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Honorentheos

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

IOW an explanation that a Mormon apologist accepts as viable.

At this point, I'm wondering if you've read the text of Dan Peterson's FairMormon talk. 

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Admittedly the naturalism of Mormonism looks an awful lot like the supernatural. But it's defined in naturalistic terms.

A lot of the arguments that I see borrowed from Christian apologetics simply don't work when you try to repurpose them to fit Mormonism.

Sorry, but if the word "Supernaturalism" has any meaning, then the naturalism of Mormonism is just redefined supernaturalism. 

 

[Honorentheos]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Bravo! 

What a difference a bit of historical perspective makes. 

I always enjoy the lack of skepticism people express when they basically say, "Joseph Smith was doing other stuff until he wasn't."

Oliver Cowdery clearly had a significant influence on the production of the Book of Mormon. The so-called historical perspective is just commentary on what Joseph was doing when he wasn't being successful in writing the Book of Mormon.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

So rational is compatible with mundane. If Oliver brings a skill set that aids in the process, it hardly seems like it becomes irrational to contend that the Book of Mormon was composed by mundane means. I know, I know, there are a lot of things people want accounted for that generally come to, "how could a dumb farm boy have known/been able to/so much complexity!" but it's essentially irrational explanations (as in, not in the realm of common reason) presented to defend them just as it's merely an act in creating the smallest space for plausibility to try to negate the problems with the Book of Mormon itself.

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery colluded to compose what we have as the final Book of Mormon. Emma and the Whitmers were aware of this. Harris was a tool to get money and easily excited and thereby manipulated. 

That's rational. Does it close every open door with a definitive "Here's the evidence that shows exactly how..."? No. But it's rational to believe this is a very good possibility. More so than belief in an angel giving a golden otherwise unattested textual account of a proto-Christian pre-Columbian American Israeli diaspora with two separate genocides in it to a convicted glass looker.

Nothing I have said equates rational with mundane. Your logic is not logical. You are not engaging with any of the scholarship on the production of the Book of Mormon, the text, etc. which negate your "mundane means."

And now you are making stuff up out of whole cloth. No attempt to provide any evidence for your assertions. You are reduced to spouting conspiracy theories. Collusions. Making liars out of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, John Whitmer, Martin Harris, etc. who all had to be in on it, as they were witnesses. Your characterization of Martin Harris does not square with the historical record, the opinions of those who knew him. He was a successful farmer at the time. It was his trip to New York to see Charles Anthon and subsequently a Doctor Mitchell that convinced him that Joseph could translate the characters from the plates. This was the tipping point for him to promise to finance the publication of the Book of Mormon.

By the way, Joseph was not a convicted glass looker. But that is irrelevant to the discussion.

Glenn

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/26/2016 at 9:52 PM, CountryBoy said:

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.

CountryBoy, just want to say how glad I am that you have returned. I wish you all the blessings in store for you from your newly regained faith, and I offer you my friendship.

[Gray]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

Sorry, but if the word "Supernaturalism" has any meaning, then the naturalism of Mormonism is just redefined supernaturalism. 

 

Well, in theory all God's works are in accordance with laws of science that we don't fully understand yet, but are explainable. God in Mormon theology is not some uncaused prime mover. He's an alien from another planet

[oremites]

12 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Hi Glenn,

Let's take a cue from Dr. Peterson and set something up here.

Statement base on Evidence: The production of the Book of Mormon accelerated substantially once Oliver Cowdery became involved, and the vast majority of what we have today as the Book of Mormon was produced when Oliver was working with Joseph.*

A: Oliver Cowdery somehow "juiced" the miraculous means by which the Book of Mormon was translated/transcribed/transferred

B: Oliver Cowdery was somehow involved in helping Joseph Smith produce the Book of Mormon

 

Dr. Peterson set up something like this (I didn't go back to get the exact wording):

Joseph claimed he had plates.

A. Joseph did have plates

B. Joseph didn't have plates

One of those two options has to be true.  There isn't a third option.

What you set up is not the same thing.  You gave two options to a statement but there are other possible options that could be listed, so in your example we don't have to choose either A or B.

[hope_for_things]

On 8/26/2016 at 8:23 PM, 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. 

I'm a little late to this thread, but I'm intrigued by the question premise of this discussion.  

I'm wondering why Dan's argument limits this discussion to a specific set of beliefs about the BoM.  I think any time we limit the beliefs we have about something, with an unwillingness to consider new information as it comes to us, we essentially limit God in the process.  Why is belief in the BoM limited to a belief that Joseph must have been operating within a particular set of rules.  

For me, the way I see Joseph operating with the BoM and with many other projects throughout his life, is that he was able to use the tools found within his world view, culture and experience, and craft those into a set of beliefs that found resonance for a group of followers that still thrives today.  Many beliefs changed over time during Joseph's life, there was certainly trial and error happening.  Overall, the religious traditions that came from Joseph's innovations are fascinating.    

This eventually leads to a debate about what is divinely inspired about Joseph's innovations, but ultimately thats a question for each individual believer and is a matter of faith.  So, I have a belief in the BoM too, its not the same as Dr. Peterson's though, and I think the BoM is a net positive in the lives of many individuals.  

[Kevin Christensen]

15 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

what about Dan Vogel? I couldn't find a response Vogel's Book of Mormon witnesses presentation (or his arguments), which makes me wonder if most apologists also ignore a quite bit of data? If apologists have the time to debunk Runnell's boring letter, why not Vogel's  presentation (or his arguments)?   

Please give me the links here 

So why was the FairMormon presentation necessary?  

that applies to apologists as well! I haven't seen a single faith promoting theory that explains all the Book of Mormon problems. 

 

I've always thought it was rather simple to find responses to Dan Vogel.  Richard L. Anderson, for instance, long known for his Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, here writing in regard to "Attempts to Redefine the Experience of the Eight WItnesses"

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1399&index=4

And Explaining Away the Book of Mormon Witnesses

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2004-fair-conference/2004-explaining-away-the-book-of-mormon-witnesses

And there are the not insignificant implications of Vogel's fundamental approach to the history, as Alan Goff points out:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-inevitability-of-epistemology-in-historiography-theory-history-and-zombie-mormon-history/

Quote

Vogel brings to his explanation a positivistic epistemology that affects which interpretations he allows as permissible. That epistemology is the subject of my argument, not the witnesses and not the sources. My concerns are much more fundamental than Vogel’s are, and my concerns are philosophical (disciplinary territory through which Vogel is loath to tread because of demonstrated incompetence). That epistemology is a conceptual filter for the evidence he adduces and the conclusions he arrives at.

Which notices this sort of thing:

Quote

Vogel is delusional to believe he can quarantine his analysis to the historical events without mixing concepts and abstractions into the recipe. Even the vocabulary he uses— “mystical” versus “empirical,” “subjective” versus “objective,” “naturalistic” versus “supernatural”—pushes the analysis [Page 141]to higher levels of abstraction where Vogel’s positivism can’t help but leak out the seams of his decrepit conceptual bucket. Facts become facts only under the aegis of larger conceptual structures that tell the interpreter what to make of the facts. In Vogel’s case, his discussion of the three witnesses is put in the service of a positivistic interpretive scheme which asserts that only empirical evidence deserves the name of evidence, while at the same time he violates his own rule by becoming conceptual.

And this:

Quote

“In providing proof for his claims, Smith moved out of the mental/spiritual realm into the physical world and thereby created the either/or situation himself.”⁸⁶ This is classic textbook positivism, remarkable only for the persistence of those who deny it is positivism, people like Dan Vogel and Christopher Smith. Positivism began its intellectual decline when the main criterion of logical positivists (any proposition that is neither analytical—that is, true by definition—nor based on empirical observations is non-sense) was shown to be self-refuting. This claim itself is not based on empirical inputs. Yet those innocent of philosophy still adhere to this simplistic way of sorting what is valid proof from invalid evidence. The entire positivistic program began to collapse once this primary support was undermined. In these citations from Vogel, you can see his constant return to this venerable, outdated concept. It has also become clear over the past thirty years’ critique of empiricism that empirical data are also theory laden, never free of interpretation but bound up in conceptual, historical, and cultural ideas.

If facts are always theory laden, this poses a serious barrier for the historian who believes that historical facts are somehow free of concepts, ideologies, or ideas, because then all facts “contain metaphysical elements, [and] it becomes impossible to justify simple objective tests for theories because one is testing against theories, not against the facts.

And this:

Quote

Vogel’s positivism, as my citations demonstrate, falls squarely within the mainstream of positivism. It also sets boundaries about what can be counted as evidence that are designed specifically to exclude rival interpretations (not based on empirical evidence but on metaphysical and ideological commitments) that might challenge his positivistic interpretation.

Each theory is self-contained in a way that doesn’t permit it to describe opposing positions except in its own terms. What Vogel doesn’t recognize is that his notion of facts having to be empirically based in order to qualify as valid historical evidence belongs to a theoretical framework that can no longer be defended. And note that Vogel doesn’t even attempt to defend it. He merely takes it for granted.

And in another essay, Goff has this:

Quote

Vogel has a method for reading history. We could label these interpretive principles Vogel’s Rules of Reductive Reading:

1.   If a nineteenth-century fragment of rumor or gossip exists to throw Joseph Smith, his family, or associates in a bad light, highlight that hearsay evidence; always choose the most negative possible interpretive spin on events to discredit the Mormon founder.

2.   If no such negative evidence exists, speculate it into existence or even make parallels if none emerge from the historical record; if no evidence can be gathered to demonstrate that a historical actor thought what you attribute to him or her, no conjecture can be beyond the realm of hypothetical possibility—just make things up, if you need to.

3.   When reading a complex text such as the Book of Mormon, read it reductively so that it fits any remote parallel in Smith’s life, family, or social environment; apply the most simplistic possible meaning to the narrative, ignoring significant details in the text or alternative readings that make more of the text.

4.   If a historical actor claims divine communication or intervention, reinterpret those claims psychologically to fit a naturalistic bias, dismissing the explanation offered by the person who was present; if a historical actor claims divine intervention, reinterpret that claim as evidence of dishonesty.

Vogel adheres to a particular ideology that claims to know the limits of knowledge and reality. The conjecture he indulges in always conforms to that ideology.

And this:

Quote

Naturalism is a circular position, for it will accept as evidence only historical claims that can be verified in naturalistic ways; when the researcher talks about those verificationist methods of validation, he or she then turns into a positivist. Vogel accurately claims that religious positions are circular in that they accept evidence that supports their positions and reinterpret contrary evidence so that it does not pose a danger. “The creation of a closed system and insulation against contrary evidence is nevertheless the norm for religious movements” (p. 239). He seems to think that this makes religious belief somehow different from, say, positivism or naturalism. But all belief systems do the same, particularly Vogel’s, including defining naturalism and positivism as distinct concepts. So when Vogel claims that naturalism is natural and supernaturalism not, he is falling back on metaphysical presuppositions. This is how the rhetoric of naturalism/positivism works: “There is simply no reliable proof for the existence of the supernatural. Naturalism is a part of our everyday experience; supernaturalism is not” (p. xvi; see, in the block quotation above, the antisupernaturalism that Frykenberg associates with positivism). When you begin with positivistic presuppositions that define “reliable proof” in a positivistic way, you will end up with a claim such as this. In the footnote to his discussion of naturalism, Vogel articulates the assumptions of this ideology: “At heart, I am a rationalist and naturalist. I believe that the physical universe follows natural law, that it does not behave in supernatural or contradictory ways, that it functions without supernatural forces, and that it is unnecessary to go outside nature to explain what takes place within it” (p. 570 n. 39). Once a researcher accepts this metaphysical presupposition, the task of dismissing religious claims follows from the assumption. Alfred J. Ayer, archpositivist that he is, asserts that claims made by the religious believer are meaningless, for “as he says nothing at all about the world, he cannot justly be accused of saying anything false, or anything for which he has insufficient grounds. It is only when the theist claims that in asserting the existence of a transcendent god he is expressing a genuine proposition that we are entitled to disagree with him.”[20] When propositions are asserted, then the believer is in opposition to science, according to this positivist position. For Ayer, a claim to having religious experiences is interesting only for what it reveals about the psychology of the believer, “but it does not in any way imply that there is such a thing as religious knowledge,” for unless the theist “can formulate his ‘knowledge’ in propositions that are empirically verifiable, we may be sure that he is deceiving himself.”[21] Just as Ayer rejects propositions that do not have sufficient empirical content to satisfy a positivist, Vogel says that different reports of the same vision undermine Smith’s claim that the vision occurred: “The manner in which Smith introduced later priesthood concepts into his 1823 interview with the angel makes one wonder if he ever viewed the vision as an empirical event” (p. 44); later in the same paragraph Vogel says Joseph Smith’s visions cannot be treated “as actual events.” The epistemological question here is not about Smith but about whether Vogel will allow the event as real when it does not measure up to his requirements as an empirical event. Vogel is using the claims of empiricism/positivism. He adheres to a founding myth that somehow “apologists” are different from people who have a bias but are not apologists for an ideology. Ideology works best when its believers naturalize it (“naturalism is part of our everyday experience”); that is, they claim that it is just the way the world is, not the way it is interpreted under the influence of an ideology. But everyday experience is indeed influenced by the ideological assumptions we use to categorize that experience. “Events must be constituted as ‘facts’ before they can be subjected to analysis and take up their place in discourses of truth produced by the various human and social sciences of an epoch. . . . [H]istorical events are never given directly to perception but always come to the investigator in an already enfigured form, as reports, testimony, document, hearsay, opinion, or the like.”[22]

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1449&index=9

Just saying.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I've always thought it was rather simple to find responses to Dan Vogel.  Richard L. Anderson, for instance, long known for his Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, here writing in regard to "Attempts to Redefine the Experience of the Eight WItnesses"

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1399&index=4

And Explaining Away the Book of Mormon Witnesses

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2004-fair-conference/2004-explaining-away-the-book-of-mormon-witnesses

And there are the not insignificant implications of Vogel's fundamental approach to the history, as Alan Goff points out:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-inevitability-of-epistemology-in-historiography-theory-history-and-zombie-mormon-history/

Which notices this sort of thing:

And this:

And this:

And in another essay, Goff has this:

And this:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1449&index=9

Just saying.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Thanks for these quotes- I had missed these articles

I have debated Vogel on this board on this very basis- his positivism - and he showed absolutely no comprehension of epistemology whatsoever.  His arguments are sophomoric and based on semantic confusions which he chooses to ignore when confronted.  

[Kevin Christensen]

11 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

So rational is compatible with mundane. If Oliver brings a skill set that aids in the process, it hardly seems like it becomes irrational to contend that the Book of Mormon was composed by mundane means. I know, I know, there are a lot of things people want accounted for that generally come to, "how could a dumb farm boy have known/been able to/so much complexity!" but it's essentially irrational explanations (as in, not in the realm of common reason) presented to defend them just as it's merely an act in creating the smallest space for plausibility to try to negate the problems with the Book of Mormon itself.

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery colluded to compose what we have as the final Book of Mormon. Emma and the Whitmers were aware of this. Harris was a tool to get money and easily excited and thereby manipulated. 

That's rational. Does it close every open door with a definitive "Here's the evidence that shows exactly how..."? No. But it's rational to believe this is a very good possibility. More so than belief in an angel giving a golden otherwise unattested textual account of a proto-Christian pre-Columbian American Israeli diaspora with two separate genocides in it to a convicted glass looker.

The issue always involves coming up with the best explanation and at the same time, in being aware of the implications of how one measures "best".

Nibley years ago observed that the methods of the Renaissance scholars developed for authenticating texts involved assuming they are authentic and reading them that historical context, something that in practice may involve assumptions of just how well we know the purported context.  Reading the Book of Mormon in ancient contexts, things like Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem, In the Footsteps of Lehi, Mormon's Codex, and Second Witness, Legal Cases of the Book of Mormon, and thousands of other contributions (mine included) do have the virtue of defining the problem that an easy little statement like "Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery colluded to compose what we have as the final Book of Mormon."  It's only a rational explanation if it defines testable problems, leads to good experimental results, is both comprehensive in breadth and depth, coherently fits many different bodies of information into a sensible picture, turns out to be unexpectedly fruitful leading to discoveries and insights not anticipated by other approaches, is aesthetically clean and simple and beautiful, and offers the most future promise towards approaching any unsolved problems.  Paradigm choice always involves deciding "which paradigm is better, and which problems are more significant to have solved." 

I always think of the scene in Naked Gun where Frank Drebin is trying to dissuade onlookers from the flames and smoke of a burning building and fireworks shooting from the flames by saying, "Nothing to see here folks, move along."

This is the sort of explanation that leaves some much unexplained that I think a rational response is a bit of uncontrolled laughter.  Unless of course, you can show a historical pattern where convicted (or as I think, unconvicted) glass lookers typically, characteristically, indeed, inevitably and quite naturally, produced Books of Mormon, founded religions, alienated most of their initial supporters and co-conspirators, and then repeatedly put their lives on the line for their fictions, and indeed walked to their deaths when they had a chance for an escape.

Just saying.

Kevin Christensen