Apologetics - the new derogatory term

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, cdowis said:

Did you actually read the article.  Let me help you:

"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators"

Note the words, "some" and "assumed".

 

 

 

Of course I read it.  TO use the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is in this state absolute.  But, as the article suggests in some cases absence of evidence can be taken as proof that the claim did not happen.  To use the phrase as if it carries weight in this realm is, of course, as evidenced by the link, a mistake.

Quote

Let me ask you  very simple questions.  What was the DNA characteristics of Lehi?  If we use Jewish DNA in the comparison, can we "safely assume" that they are identical to Lehi?  Since Lehi's group consisted of a few dozen individuals who then merged with millions of inhabitants of the Americas, can we safely assume.... what?  Virtually the entire Nephite race itself was exterminated, we can also safely assume.....?

When you refer to a source, I suggest you thoughtfully read it, otherwise you will.......

I agree there is plenty left to explore as it relates to this issue and circumstance.  There is no bust, it is quite relevant, and there is no crashing as it relates to this issue.  It remains a very important area of study as it pertains to the Book of Mormon's claim to being ancient. 

[Marginal Gains]

41 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Moroni 10:4-5.  What greater evidence than from God Himself.  

As Christ said to Peter
Matt 16 [16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Now the burden lies upon yourself.  The decisions we make in this life can have eternal consequences, and I will not be responsible for the decisions you make.  I can merely mark the path, and the burden now lies with you.

No. The burden of proof still rests with the person making the claim that the Book of Mormon is true to prove it’s true.

However, to avoid you trying to trump everything with “because God” (in which case the burden of proof that God is real resides with you) let’s try and understand Moroni’s promise in a little bit more detail. When he says you can know the book is true, what does he mean, specifically, by ‘true’?

[cdowis]

7 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

No. The burden of proof still rests with the person making the claim that the Book of Mormon is true to prove it’s true.

I decline being responsible or your life decisions.

However, to avoid you trying to trump everything with “because God” (in which case the burden of proof that God is real resides with you) let’s try and understand Moroni’s promise in a little bit more detail. When he says you can know the book is true, what does he mean, specifically, by ‘true’?

2 Nephi 33 

[10] And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.

[11] And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye -- for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.

...........

[14] And you that will not partake of the goodness of God, and respect the words of the Jews, and also my words, and the words which shall proceed forth out of the mouth of the Lamb of God, behold, I bid you an everlasting farewell, for these words shall condemn you at the last day.

[15] For what I seal on earth, shall be brought against you at the judgment bar; for thus hath the Lord commanded me, and I must obey. Amen.

 

Edited September 1, 2017 by cdowis

[Marginal Gains]

14 minutes ago, cdowis said:

 

I’m sure you think you’ve responded to me by simply quoting a lot of the books contents, but you really haven’t in any objective way.

[cdowis]

4 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I’m sure you think you’ve responded to me by simply quoting a lot of the books contents, but you really haven’t in any objective way.

You asked and Nehi gave you an answer.  

OK, I can pretend those are my words if that would make you feel better.  But it seems that you just want to argue, and I'm not interested in playing that game.

Edited September 1, 2017 by cdowis

[Physics Guy]

Just because there is evidence against something doesn't mean it's not true. People go to prison because there is evidence against them, but sometimes those people are actually innocent.

Evidence against a statement is anything that makes the statement seem less likely to be true than it seemed before we saw the evidence. Strong evidence makes the statement seem a lot less likely to be true; weak evidence only moves the needle slightly. How far the needle moves also depends on how much other evidence is already weighing on it. Damning testimony from an impressive eyewitness may be convincing if there is no other evidence in the case, but if it contradicts the exonerating testimony of ten other eyewitnesses who are equally impressive, the jury will only feel a slight bit of doubt.

So even strong evidence against my idea will not necessarily lower its likelihood all that much. Just because I still have a leg on which to stand, however, doesn't mean that I should deny that I've faced adverse evidence. I think most people will respect an opponent who takes hits and fights on, as long as it isn't ridiculous.

The DNA evidence is evidence against the historicity of the Book of Mormon. The current DNA evidence rules out some of the most natural interpretations of what the Book says, and that makes the Book seem at least somewhat less likely to be true. This is not conclusive evidence; one can still construct hypothetical scenarios in which the Middle Eastern immigrants described in the Book somehow failed to leave genetic traces in the Americas. One may well then be able to argue that, in light of all the other evidence in favor of BofM historicity, the total likelihood that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate remains high. Come on, though. We can argue about how strong the DNA evidence is in comparison with other evidence in the opposite direction, but there is DNA evidence on the skeptical side.

[juliann]

5 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

 

The DNA evidence is evidence against the historicity of the Book of Mormon. The current DNA evidence rules out some of the most natural interpretations of what the Book says, and that makes the Book seem at least somewhat less likely to be true. This is not conclusive evidence; one can still construct hypothetical scenarios in which the Middle Eastern immigrants described in the Book somehow failed to leave genetic traces in the Americas. One may well then be able to argue that, in light of all the other evidence in favor of BofM historicity, the total likelihood that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate remains high. Come on, though. We can argue about how strong the DNA evidence is in comparison with other evidence in the opposite direction, but there is DNA evidence on the skeptical side.

And DNA may ultimately get to the point where it can prove something. But in the meantime, you are question begging in the extreme. 

[juliann]

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

No. The burden of proof still rests with the person making the claim that the Book of Mormon is true to prove it’s true.

 

The confirmation is through prayer, it is a spiritual thing and always has been so the prove it thing is a tired, worn strawman.  Are you demanding proof that the Bible is true? All of the DNA in the world wouldn't make the words in it "true, " either.

[Marginal Gains]

10 hours ago, juliann said:

The confirmation is through prayer, it is a spiritual thing and always has been so the prove it thing is a tired, worn strawman.  Are you demanding proof that the Bible is true? All of the DNA in the world wouldn't make the words in it "true, " either.

In what other aspect of your life do you feel that prayer, absent anything else, is a reliable method for making decisions?

[Physics Guy]

On 9/1/2017 at 11:46 PM, juliann said:

And DNA may ultimately get to the point where it can prove something. But in the meantime, you are question begging in the extreme. 

Which question did I beg?

[juliann]

On 9/2/2017 at 1:05 AM, Marginal Gains said:

In what other aspect of your life do you feel that prayer, absent anything else, is a reliable method for making decisions?

When my husband was dying.

But I have to hand it to you for cleverly adding "absent anything else." How many decisions do you make in vacuum? Most of all, how do you manage to shut your mind down like that?

18 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Which question did I beg?

 

Begging the question

petitio principii

(also known as: assuming the initial point, assuming the answer, chicken and the egg argument, circulus in probando, circular reasoning [form of], vicious circle)

Description: Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises.  Many people use the phrase “begging the question” incorrectly when they use it to mean, “prompts one to ask the question”.  That is NOT the correct usage. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.

[cdowis]

On 9/2/2017 at 4:05 AM, Marginal Gains said:

In what other aspect of your life do you feel that prayer, absent anything else, is a reliable method for making decisions?

That Jesus Christ lives and atoned for my sins and if I follow His commandments and repent of my sins,  I will live for eternity in His presence.  That I should help the poor, do service for my fellow man, pay my tithing, keep the Sabbath day holy, read and study the scriptures........................................

Prayer tells me these things.

Edited September 5, 2017 by cdowis

[clarkgoble]

On 9/1/2017 at 10:03 AM, Physics Guy said:

The DNA evidence is evidence against the historicity of the Book of Mormon. The current DNA evidence rules out some of the most natural interpretations of what the Book says, and that makes the Book seem at least somewhat less likely to be true. This is not conclusive evidence; one can still construct hypothetical scenarios in which the Middle Eastern immigrants described in the Book somehow failed to leave genetic traces in the Americas. One may well then be able to argue that, in light of all the other evidence in favor of BofM historicity, the total likelihood that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate remains high. Come on, though. We can argue about how strong the DNA evidence is in comparison with other evidence in the opposite direction, but there is DNA evidence on the skeptical side.

I think we should distinguish between natural and justified versus naive that doesn't read closely. The interpretations that DNA evidence rules out are interpretations hard to square with the text itself on its own terms. That is, I think the text requires a limited geography and people other than Lehites.

Edited September 5, 2017 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

On 9/1/2017 at 8:28 AM, Marginal Gains said:

No. The burden of proof still rests with the person making the claim that the Book of Mormon is true to prove it’s true.

However, to avoid you trying to trump everything with “because God” (in which case the burden of proof that God is real resides with you) let’s try and understand Moroni’s promise in a little bit more detail. When he says you can know the book is true, what does he mean, specifically, by ‘true’?

Alma 32.

Plant the seeds of its belief and they will be sweet to you.

It answers that question.

[mfbukowski]

On 9/1/2017 at 8:50 AM, Marginal Gains said:

I’m sure you think you’ve responded to me by simply quoting a lot of the books contents, but you really haven’t in any objective way.

What does that mean?  "Objective"?  Did you want him to do a science experiment?

Pull out the test tubes to show the BOM is true?

[mfbukowski]

On 9/1/2017 at 9:03 AM, Physics Guy said:

Just because there is evidence against something doesn't mean it's not true. People go to prison because there is evidence against them, but sometimes those people are actually innocent.

Evidence against a statement is anything that makes the statement seem less likely to be true than it seemed before we saw the evidence. Strong evidence makes the statement seem a lot less likely to be true; weak evidence only moves the needle slightly. How far the needle moves also depends on how much other evidence is already weighing on it. Damning testimony from an impressive eyewitness may be convincing if there is no other evidence in the case, but if it contradicts the exonerating testimony of ten other eyewitnesses who are equally impressive, the jury will only feel a slight bit of doubt.

So even strong evidence against my idea will not necessarily lower its likelihood all that much. Just because I still have a leg on which to stand, however, doesn't mean that I should deny that I've faced adverse evidence. I think most people will respect an opponent who takes hits and fights on, as long as it isn't ridiculous.

The DNA evidence is evidence against the historicity of the Book of Mormon. The current DNA evidence rules out some of the most natural interpretations of what the Book says, and that makes the Book seem at least somewhat less likely to be true. This is not conclusive evidence; one can still construct hypothetical scenarios in which the Middle Eastern immigrants described in the Book somehow failed to leave genetic traces in the Americas. One may well then be able to argue that, in light of all the other evidence in favor of BofM historicity, the total likelihood that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate remains high. Come on, though. We can argue about how strong the DNA evidence is in comparison with other evidence in the opposite direction, but there is DNA evidence on the skeptical side.

That's why a naturalistic interpretation misses the point.

[Physics Guy]

I know what "begging the question" means. With some people it may be a habit, but it's not a general flaw in rhetorical style. It's a specific logical fallacy in a particular argument, where the conclusion is assumed in advance, so that the appearance of building a case is illusory and the arguer is really just asking the listener to concede the conclusion for no reason at all. In effect the arguer says, "Just give me this one," like a beggar demanding a handout. Hence the expression.

Merely having assumptions is not petitio principi. Every argument rests on assumed premises, and having assumptions that logically imply your conclusion is having a good argument, not a bad one. I can still reject your conclusion by rejecting your assumptions, but that does not mean that you're begging the question. You're just selling a thing I don't want.

Question-begging only applies when there isn't really any argument at all, but the conclusion is simply assumed in full-blown form, albeit in different words. If you accuse me of question-begging, you must have in mind a particular logical step of mine that is invalid. Which conclusion did I assume in advance? Which question am I begging?

[Marginal Gains]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What does that mean?  "Objective"?  Did you want him to do a science experiment?

Pull out the test tubes to show the BOM is true?

Objective - (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

I’m still trying to understand in this context what ‘true’ means, specifically, in relation to the Book of Mormon. Quoting ambiguous passages from the book itself doesn’t help me. I need it dumbing down into plain English.

Edited September 5, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[Physics Guy]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think we should distinguish between natural and justified versus naive that doesn't read closely. The interpretations that DNA evidence rules out are interpretations hard to square with the text itself on its own terms. That is, I think the text requires a limited geography and people other than Lehites.

In principle, sure. The continent-spanning interpretation with all native Americans descending from Book of Mormon peoples can't be so unnatural and naive, though, or it wouldn't have been the default interpretation for most Mormon history—or for many Mormons today, for that matter. The Book of Mormon describes nations with multiple cities, and battles of millions. Does it even mention any people who aren't descended from middle eastern immigrants?

I have not read the Book thoroughly, and I'm well prepared to be corrected by people who have. My impression, though, is that the Book of Mormon does not clearly imply a small population in a small area, in contact with larger foreign populations. My impression is rather that the Book is kind of vague, perhaps even inconsistent. Some things seem to imply vast scales, while other points fail to square with that and suggest instead a much smaller scale.

That inconsistency itself may perhaps be in line with an ancient text that lacked perspective on its own environment. Correct me if I'm wrong, though, but at this point I'm not sure it's fair to say that the limited scale interpretation is a painless one. I think it requires some stretching and scrunching in places. As long as both large and small scales were still on the table, the Book of Mormon had more wiggle room—more ways of being true. DNA rules out some of those ways, restricting the wiggle room, requiring more stretching.

That's what adverse evidence does. I repeat, adverse evidence does not mean disproof. Even physics is full of facts that looked for a while to be false, with good evidence against them. Evidence should still be acknowledged, though.

Edited September 5, 2017 by Physics Guy

[cdowis]

5 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

In principle, sure. The continent-spanning interpretation with all native Americans descending from Book of Mormon peoples can't be so unnatural and naive, though, or it wouldn't have been the default interpretation for most Mormon history—or for many Mormons today, for that matter. The Book of Mormon describes nations with multiple cities, and battles of millions. Does it even mention any people who aren't descended from middle eastern immigrants?

Such things are found on the Large Plates.  The Small Plates were specifically limited to the Nephite/Lamanite religious history.  As you say, you haven't read it, so it is well that you ask questions rather than making assertions.

But there are references and hints to"others" in the record. e.g. 1 Ne 18:25

Edited September 5, 2017 by cdowis

[stemelbow]

7 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

I know what "begging the question" means. With some people it may be a habit, but it's not a general flaw in rhetorical style. It's a specific logical fallacy in a particular argument, where the conclusion is assumed in advance, so that the appearance of building a case is illusory and the arguer is really just asking the listener to concede the conclusion for no reason at all. In effect the arguer says, "Just give me this one," like a beggar demanding a handout. Hence the expression.

Merely having assumptions is not petitio principi. Every argument rests on assumed premises, and having assumptions that logically imply your conclusion is having a good argument, not a bad one. I can still reject your conclusion by rejecting your assumptions, but that does not mean that you're begging the question. You're just selling a thing I don't want.

Question-begging only applies when there isn't really any argument at all, but the conclusion is simply assumed in full-blown form, albeit in different words. If you accuse me of question-begging, you must have in mind a particular logical step of mine that is invalid. Which conclusion did I assume in advance? Which question am I begging?

Thanks.  Earlier in the thread when she was accusing me of begging the question I gave her the definition of begging the question because it seemed she didn't understand the concept.  Very patient of you to explain it to her.  I'm not confident that this will do away with her misuse, but we'll see.  I also don't think my explanation regarding her absolute statement "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" will stop her from using it either.  But we'll see, I suppose.

I also don't get why she's so intent on claiming DNA can't prove anything--"DNA may ultimately get to the point where it can prove something".  I mean I guess in a way I get why she feels she has to claim that, but I don't see any reason to accept her claim. 

[stemelbow]

6 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

In principle, sure. The continent-spanning interpretation with all native Americans descending from Book of Mormon peoples can't be so unnatural and naive, though, or it wouldn't have been the default interpretation for most Mormon history—or for many Mormons today, for that matter. The Book of Mormon describes nations with multiple cities, and battles of millions. Does it even mention any people who aren't descended from middle eastern immigrants?

I have not read the Book thoroughly, and I'm well prepared to be corrected by people who have. My impression, though, is that the Book of Mormon does not clearly imply a small population in a small area, in contact with larger foreign populations. My impression is rather that the Book is kind of vague, perhaps even inconsistent. Some things seem to imply vast scales, while other points fail to square with that and suggest instead a much smaller scale.

That inconsistency itself may perhaps be in line with an ancient text that lacked perspective on its own environment. Correct me if I'm wrong, though, but at this point I'm not sure it's fair to say that the limited scale interpretation is a painless one. I think it requires some stretching and scrunching in places. As long as both large and small scales were still on the table, the Book of Mormon had more wiggle room—more ways of being true. DNA rules out some of those ways, restricting the wiggle room, requiring more stretching.

That's what adverse evidence does. I repeat, adverse evidence does not mean disproof. Even physics is full of facts that looked for a while to be false, with good evidence against them. Evidence should still be acknowledged, though.

I'd say the best reasoning to claim a limited geography is the seemingly consistent explanation of distances found in the Book.  In that context continent, or continents wide territory doesn't work in any sense.  Other than that, there really isn't much to say others were there or introduced.  But the text does span 1,000 years and skips plenty of details, no doubt. 

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

The continent-spanning interpretation with all native Americans descending from Book of Mormon peoples can't be so unnatural and naive, though, or it wouldn't have been the default interpretation for most Mormon history

I confess I don't quite understand this. People in general don't read closely and there wasn't a lot of scholarship. It's on par with noting how people read the New Testament as if it were happening in Ireland. Most people don't read critically - especially when the historic elements aren't their focus. This seems true of most readers period. It's not a Mormon thing. If you're saying it's natural that people are bad readers I'd agree. However you then put that in opposition with naive readings which is where I think your argument falls down. 

Quote

My impression, though, is that the Book of Mormon does not clearly imply a small population in a small area, in contact with larger foreign populations. My impression is rather that the Book is kind of vague, perhaps even inconsistent. Some things seem to imply vast scales, while other points fail to square with that and suggest instead a much smaller scale.

Not really. The only passages that could really be read as big are more prophetic elements but even those are problematic IMO. I think the main reason people took to a hemisphere model was (1) the cultural tradition of calling Indians in the (then) western United States Lamanites and (2) the description of a narrow neck of land which people took to be central America. Within the text you're just never talking huge distances.

Quote

That inconsistency itself may perhaps be in line with an ancient text that lacked perspective on its own environment.

Yes. It's pretty rare that natural texts emphasize such elements unless they were written to an audience ignorant of the region.

Quote

That's what adverse evidence does. I repeat, adverse evidence does not mean disproof. Even physics is full of facts that looked for a while to be false, with good evidence against them. Evidence should still be acknowledged, though.

My quibbles weren't against evidence but more against models. I think the naive model is pretty dead these days and ought be relegated to the dustbin of history. As such most of the main DNA arguments are beside the point. There are some more recent revised DNA arguments of course, as I mentioned in some thread last week I think. I don't think they work although they are a bit more sophisticated than the ones from the 90's.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Objective - (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

I’m still trying to understand in this context what ‘true’ means, specifically, in relation to the Book of Mormon. Quoting ambiguous passages from the book itself doesn’t help me. I need it dumbing down into plain English.

There is no such thing as objectivity by that standard. That is logical positivism, and that is dead. Google death of positivism, you don't have to take my word for that.

All text comes from a viewpoint laden by human motives. Also Google philosophical hermeneutics. I could summarize it, but that would not convince you, you need to see it for yourself.

Even science us driven by grant money and profit motives, and the motivation for fame and political correctness.  The evening news? Fergitaboutit

Nietzsche: "There are no facts, only interpretations"

Edited September 5, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Physics Guy]

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Within the text you're just never talking huge distances. ...  It's pretty rare that natural texts emphasize such elements unless they were written to an audience ignorant of the region.

But does the text clearly describe short distances, or only fail to mention long distances explicitly? As you say yourself, texts don't often talk much about their settings. Failure to be explicit about large distances wouldn't necessarily mean they weren't there.

The prophetic statements about the Americas being empty may be few, but I think they're important, because they put the whole rest of the story in a grand and glorious light—and I suspect that's why generations of Mormon readers have assumed the hemispheric geography. If the Book of Mormon is the history of a whole continent that is still filled with the descendants of the Book's peoples, then even if the Book's main message is a spiritual one, the framing story for that message is a significant chunk of world history. If on the other hand the Book of Mormon is the story of a small group of isolated interlopers who died in obscurity, then that story is just a historical footnote. It's a bit hard to see why God would bother to send ancient people across an ocean to live out a footnote. They could have done that in villages back in the Old World.

I'm not just trying to nitpick the Book of Mormon's plot premise. What I'm saying is that the scale of the setting may only be background to the story, but this background is not just a detail. It makes a big difference to how you take the whole story. I think most Mormon readers have taken the Book of Mormon as a grand historic saga, not just because they read the text carelessly, but because that fits their whole view of God and the world better than a small scale reading does.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Physics Guy