Dan Peterson Takes on the "No Evidence At All for The Book of Mormon" Argument

[Nofear]

Anybody post this informal FairMormon motto yet? (I didn't read through the thread, alas.)

 

Quote

"Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish." --Austin Farrer

 

[Ryan Dahle]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Where did you get that idea?

I know of no one who fits that category. 

I discovered the philosophy and went looking for a church that fit and had a whopper of a spiritual experience based on Moroni's promise.  

All I had was philosophy and Moroni, I went to church and asked to be baptized. They said I needed to sit through the lessons so I did.

None of the history had any value to me, and still doesn't.

I would appreciate a clarification on that, if you get a chance

To me, the church IS philosophy, applied and institutionally instantiated pretty darn perfectly 

 

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Simply because it brings ridicule to the church.

I suppose you don't see Broadway plays much? Hear Utah jokes 2 or 3 times a week?  Folks in big cities think we are a primitive Fundamentalist cult that think that God was an alien from Kolob.

In fact, we could have the respect of being the most philosophically sophisticated church, which of course the genuine Church of Jesus Christ ought to be. We are materialists who believe that human potential is unlimited, if we but follow the Ideal Paradigm ,the Covenant Path, given by the Human God. Our belief that matter and energy are one beat Einstein to the punch by 100 years

But instead we are looking for a road sign that says "Welcome to Zarahemla"

 Searching for physical evidence  for the history of the BOM devalues its spiritual and philosophical value.

And you did not answer my question.

Too many one-liners without clarification for me to continue the conversation. Sorry Mark. 

[Analytics]

28 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Anybody post this informal FairMormon motto yet? (I didn't read through the thread, alas.)

“

"Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish." --Austin Farrer”

I’m sure it isn’t lost on anyone that employing “rational” argument to maintain a climate where belief may flourish works regardless of whether the thing we want to believe in is true. Indeed, the irony that the quote comes from a professional theologian of a religion that Mormons would call apostate illustrates the point.

Is “maintaining a climate where belief is possible” the same thing as “sorting through the body of data and selecting those that most confirm what we already believe and ignoring or rationalizing away those that do not?” 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

No, it isn't built on a house of cards. It is based on the psychological and sociological impulses that have kept human societies together for millions of years. The Church is a house built upon rock indeed.

I spent 10 minutes browsing through the CES Letter once or twice. I just didn't find it that interesting.

As another example of the type of things I think about, a fascinating book is Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology by Johnjoe McFadden, Jim Al-Khalili, et al. These scientists are looking deeply at how certain biological processes use "quantum spookiness" to execute their functions. It turns out that we are learning how things like photosynthesis, the sense of smell, and the way birds use the earth's magnetic field to get their bearing all rely on esoteric properties of quantum mechanics. In contrast, there is absolutely nothing we've observed in the human brain that isn't fully explained by large-scale mundane electromagnetic forces and such. 

From multiple angles, science is converging on a view of reality that precludes the existence of spirit.

If you wish to privilege a scientific paradigm for the discovery of truth above all others, more power to you.  You would be far from alone, and, in fact, would be in good company, in doing so.  Certainly, sound science has much that is useful and interesting to say about the human condition.  (Also, I think it's useful to remember that all science isn't created equal: Hence, my caveats "sound" and "useful.")  And even sound science, as useful and important as it is, is based on what's known currently: Once what's known changes, the science changes.  Me?  I happen to think that God is the greatest scientist in the universe.  Having said that, I'm not entirely willing to privilege science as a method for discovering ultimate truth if doing so means throwing artists, musicians, poets, other writers, and yes, even religionists, and so on and so forth, under the bus.  As for the foundation of religion in general, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in particular,  being based on nothing more than psychological and sociological impulses,  "There is more in heaven and earth, Analytics, than is dreamt of in your science!"

I don't wish to defeat another man's pursuit of, and quest for, truth, even if it diverges from the path or the approach that I might take.  I wish you well.

[Kenngo1969]

59 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Anybody post this informal FairMormon motto yet? (I didn't read through the thread, alas.)

"Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish." --Austin Farrer

 

I thought about that when I was thinking about this thread last night before I drifted off to la-la land, and would have posted it today if you had not.  Good call!

[Ryan Dahle]

16 hours ago, Analytics said:

Really? Okay, let's start with a simple example. In chapters 22-27 of his book The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself, Sean Carroll argues not only that there is no evidence of the supernatural, but that there is surprisingly robust evidence against the supernatural even being plausible--although he doesn't use these specific examples, he proves using quantum field theory that everything from God communicating to Lehi in a vision to all of the miracles in the Book of Mormon to the resurrection of Jesus to priesthood blessings to the existence of spirits in all likelihood are not and could not be real. His arguments to this effect are specific and nuanced.

Can you give me an example or two of scholars who have engaged with the substance of Carroll's arguments in this regard? Surely scholars who are amassing "substantial amounts of evidence in support of the claims of the Church" have addressed the elephant in the room that according to mainstream physics, the truth claims of the Church aren't even plausible. In the section of the book where he explains in detail how the robust findings of quantum mechanics proves that spirits don't exist, Sean Carroll says:

"To address this issue seriously, we wouldn’t necessarily need to have a “Soul Theory” that is as rigorous and well developed as the Core Theory of physics. We would, however, need to be specific and quantitative about how the Core Theory could possibly be changed. There needs to be a way that “soul stuff” interacts with the fields of which we are made—with electrons, or photons, or something. Do those interactions satisfy conservation of energy, momentum, and electric charge? Does matter interact back on the soul, or is the principle of action and reaction violated? Is there “virtual soul stuff” as well as “real soul stuff,” and do quantum fluctuations of soul stuff affect the measurable properties of ordinary particles? Or does the soul stuff not interact directly with particles, and merely affect the quantum probabilities associated with measurement outcomes? Is the soul a kind of “hidden variable” playing an important role in quantum ontology? If you want to be a dualist and believe in an immaterial soul that plays any role whatsoever in who we are as human beings, these questions are not optional. We’re not rigging the game by demanding a full-blown mathematical theory of the soul itself; we’re simply asking how the soul is supposed to affect the mathematical theory of the quantum fields that we already have." (Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 215-216). Penguin Publishing Group.) 

If Mormon scholars have amassed all of this evidence in support of their religion, have they addressed these arguments and started to put together a working hypothesis of how quantum field theory could be modified in order to accommodate their truth claims?

First of all, Carroll's assumptions and conclusions (as you represent them) hardly represent the mainstream scientific and philosophical consensus. It's not the established scientific view that we have anything close to a perfect, comprehensive, or complete understanding of all quantum-level properties. More important, it is certainly not the scientific view that the known quantum realm can explain all higher orders of the natural cosmos, much less supernatural phenomena.

If quantum-mechanics could explain consciousness, for example, I think that would go a long way to help Carroll's argument. But it currently can't. Not even close. I'm not sure, with that enormous gap in place, why theists should feel compelled to come up with a theory to explain the soul, seeing how connected the soul is with consciousness under most theological assumptions. Even if a robust scientific theory of consciousness emerges in the future, I still don't think theists would be obligated to come up with a theory that explains how an unknown property (like the soul) interacts with known properties. All one has to do is point to the recent problem of consciousness to demonstrate how easy it is for science to not yet be able to explain how a real and widespread phenomenon can remain elusive and undetectable. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.  

[smac97]

16 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Quote

The actual situation is that the apologists don't present coherent evidence because they don't have a coherent, well-defined comprehensive theory for what the Book of Mormon being "true" actually means.

The Gospel Principles manual is perhaps the most concise yet comprehensive summary of the beliefs and doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  It is both coherent and well-defined and comprehensive.

As to "what the Book of Mormon being 'true' actually means," I suppose we can turn to the dictionary ("true" meaning "being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false ... real; genuine; authentic").  We could then look to the Title Page, the Introduction, the Testimony of the Three Witnesses, the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses, the Brief Explanation about the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith History-1, the various entries pertaining to the Book of Mormon in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, and Chapter 10 of the Gospel Principles manual, the various Book of Mormon manuals published by the Church (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/seminaries-and-institutes/seminary?lang=eng), and so on.

The teachings of the Church regarding the Book of Mormon, both as to its origins, translation, and use in our day, are manifestly coherent, well-defined and comprehensive. 

Okay. If that is the standard, then the Book of Mormon does in fact paint a comprehensive view of the universe.

You're jumping all over the place.  I didn't claim to have "a comprehensive view of the universe," and you weren't asking about that.

You were asserting that "apologists don't present coherent evidence because they don't have a coherent, well-defined comprehensive theory for what the Book of Mormon being 'true' actually means."  I responded by 1) defining "true" and 2) pointing to readily available materials that do present "a coherent, well-defined comprehensive theory" regarding the Book of Mormon being "true."

And now you are radically changing tack and talking about "a comprehensive view of the universe."

Surely you see the diffederence.  We have never claimed to know everything, to have "a comprehensive view of the universe."  To the contrary, we believe that the Lord "will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  (AoF 1:9.)

You are shifting the goal posts.  Big time.

Quote

Uncoincidentally, this view is in harmony with Joseph Smith's other revelations and 19th century American religion in general. And it is utterly incompatible with what we now know about the universe through science. That's my point.  

No, that wasn't your point.  We weren't talking about "the universe," but about the Book of Mormon.

And no, there is nothing "utterly incompatible" in view.  The data are not all in yet.

And "what we now know about the universe through science" is blinkered, finite, flawed, incomplete.  There are things about which we don't even know we don't know.  

So you are comparing one finite-and-far-from-perfectly-comprehensive data set (our current understanding of the Restored Gospel, which is expressly predicated on more to come, on the idea that there are many "great and important things" that are yet to be revealed) with another finite-and-far-from-perfectly-comprehensive data set ("with what we now know about the universe through science"), and declaring them "utterly incompatible."  That's more than a little premature, perhaps even presumptuous.

Quote

Really?

No.  You have set up a straw man three stories high.

Quote

Okay, let's start with a simple example.

I'd rather not.  I'd rather return to the topic we were discussing.

Quote

In chapters 22-27 of his book The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself, Sean Carroll argues not only that there is no evidence of the supernatural,

Sigh.  You are doing it again.  Neither you nor Carroll are situated to be the sole arbiter of what constitutes evidence and what does not.

Quote

but that there is surprisingly robust evidence against the supernatural even being plausible--although he doesn't use these specific examples, he proves using quantum field theory that everything from God communicating to Lehi in a vision to all of the miracles in the Book of Mormon to the resurrection of Jesus to priesthood blessings to the existence of spirits in all likelihood are not and could not be real. His arguments to this effect are specific and nuanced.

Can you give me an example or two of scholars who have engaged with the substance of Carroll's arguments in this regard?

What are you on about?  We have not been talking about Latter-day Saint scholars addressing "quantum field theory."  We have been talking about Latter-day Saint scholars presenting scholarship, evidence, analysis etc. regarding the truth claims of the Restored Gospel (in particular, regarding the Book of Mormon).

Quote

Surely scholars who are amassing "substantial amounts of evidence in support of the claims of the Church" have addressed the elephant in the room that according to mainstream physics, the truth claims of the Church aren't even plausible.

Sean Carroll's book is not the "elephant in the room."

Sean Carroll's book is not a compendium of "mainstream physics."

Quote

In the section of the book where he explains in detail how the robust findings of quantum mechanics proves that spirits don't exist, Sean Carroll says:

"To address this issue seriously, we wouldn’t necessarily need to have a “Soul Theory” that is as rigorous and well developed as the Core Theory of physics.

I readily admit I am not conversant in "the Core Theory of Physics," described here as "currently provid{ing} our best description of physical fundamentals" and consisting of a "smoothly connected set of quantum field theories, all based on local symmetry, that describe the strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational interactions."

I also note that Mr. Carroll "is an atheist, or as he calls it, a 'poetic naturalist,'" and that he once "turned down an invitation to speak at a conference sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation, because he did not want to appear to be supporting a reconciliation between science and religion."  He seems to be a formidable intellect.  But I'm not persuaded that his say-so is definitive.  When he says things like "Religion is not, on balance, a force for good in the world" he is going beyond "science," and exceeding the scope of his expertise, and also exposing his human biases.  I would encourage you to not try to bolster his say-so about "religion" by pointing to his scientific credentials. 

However, I do really like what he says here: "We tend to talk about the world in a myriad of ways - a microscopic world of elementary particles, a biological world of organisms and evolution, a social world of morality and meaning. But it's all the same underlying world. That's the underlying theme of 'The Big Picture.'"   And this: “The world is not magic — and that’s the most magical thing about it.”  And this: "The broader ontology typically associated with atheism is naturalism—there is only one world, the natural world, exhibiting patterns we call the 'laws of nature,' and which is discoverable by the methods of science and empirical investigation. There is no separate realm of the supernatural, spiritual, or divine."

I get that he is an atheist, but I think his view is blinkered.  It seems to be based, to some extent, on hostility against "religion."  All of it.  It also seems to be based on a juxtaposition of "science" on the one hand and religion on the other, and the notion that we must choose one to the exclusion of the other.

I disagree with that.  I've never really cared for the word "supernatural," as I do not think it is an apt description of the LDS paradigm.  We believe that God is the author and creator of nature, and therefore of natural laws.  He does not operate above or outside ("super") those laws.  His actions are simply a higher manifestation of them.  I've never thought of miracles and the like as a suspension or violation of natural/physical law ("science"), but rather as a higher manifestation of it.  So for me, there is not a difference of kind between say, the resurrection of Jesus Christ and things like biology, chemistry, technology, etc.  Instead, there is a difference of degree as to our understanding of these things, as to our abilities to interact with and/or control these things.

Arthur C. Clark wrote: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."  I often think of this quote when folks like you and Carroll characterize God as being "supernatural."  In terms of what God is and how He operates, we are operating within intellectual confines comparable to, say, two Rhesus monkeys in different locations interacting with each other through a Zoom session.  They see each other on the computer screens, and they can hear each other, but they have no ability to comprehend how the whole thing works (electricity, the Internet, the hardware involved, etc.).  To them, it is "magic."  It's not, really.  And their inability to comprehend it speaks more to their limitations and ignorance than to the reality of how videoconferencing actually works.

So it is, or will be, I think, with our perspective.  We presently do not, cannot, presently understand how the whole thing works.  I think it is hubristic to declare otherwise.

Quote

We would, however, need to be specific and quantitative about how the Core Theory could possibly be changed.

Why?  I don't really undertstand how the catalytic converter in my Chevy Cavalier works, but that doesn't prevent me from using the car to get to and from work every day.  Why, then, would I need to be "specific and quantitative about how the Core Theory could possibly be changed" as a precondition to believing in God and keeping His commandments?

Quote

There needs to be a way that “soul stuff” interacts with the fields of which we are made—with electrons, or photons, or something.

Okay.  And if that "way" is not presently ascertainable in 2021, must we conclude that "soul stuff" does not, cannot exist?

Back in 1961 then-Elder Joseph Fielding Smith stated that "[w]e will never get a man into space."  As it turns out, he was wrong.  Quite wrong, in fact.  That doesn't make him a bad guy, just someone theorizing about things based on knowledge available to him at the time, which turns out to have been blinkered and finite.  

But Elder Smith wasn't the first, or the last, to be wrong in theorizing about what can and cannot happen.  The New York Times predicted in 1903 that developing manned flight would take "from one million to ten million years." 

Scientists are likewise not immune to errors.  In 1957 Lee De Forest, American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube, scoffed at the notion of space travel: "To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth—all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances."  

In 1930 Robert Millikan, an American experimental physicist honored with the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1923 for the measurement of the elementary electric charge and for his work on the photoelectric effect, stated: "No 'scientific bad boy' ever will be able to blow up the world by releasing atomic energy."

In 1912 Guglielmo Marconi, inventor and electrical engineer, known for his pioneering work on long-distance radio transmission and credited as the inventor of radio, stated: "The coming of the wireless era will make war impossible, because it will make war ridiculous."

In 1909 Scientific American declared that "the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is suggested by the fact that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced."

In 1903 Albert Abraham Michelson, an American physicist known for his work on the measurement of the speed of light who won the 1907 Nobel Prize in Physics, stated: "The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote."  

And so on.  I appreciate what scientists have to offer and contribute to humanity, but I can't get on board with the idea that any one of them (let alone all of them together) has/have a pristine and unassailable command of everthing there is to know.

Quote

Do those interactions satisfy conservation of energy, momentum, and electric charge?

I don't know, Sean.  Do they?  How do you propose to test such interactions?  And if you can't test them in 2021, does that mean said interactions do not, cannot "satisfy conservation of energy, momentum, and electric charge?"

Quote

Does matter interact back on the soul, or is the principle of action and reaction violated?

That's an interesting, but apparently imponderable (at the moment, for us), question.

Quote

Is there “virtual soul stuff” as well as “real soul stuff,” and do quantum fluctuations of soul stuff affect the measurable properties of ordinary particles?

Ditto.

Quote

Or does the soul stuff not interact directly with particles, and merely affect the quantum probabilities associated with measurement outcomes? Is the soul a kind of “hidden variable” playing an important role in quantum ontology?

Ditto.

Quote

If you want to be a dualist and believe in an immaterial soul that plays any role whatsoever in who we are as human beings, these questions are not optional.

Why is that?

And what if these questions are "not optional" but not currently answerable giving our finite abilities?  

Quote

We’re not rigging the game by demanding a full-blown mathematical theory of the soul itself;

You're not?  It sounds like that is exactly what you are doing.

It also sounds like what you, Analytics, are demanding.  You are invoking Carroll for the proposition that he can provide us with "a comprehensive view of the universe."  Yet in his quote he states that he is not "demanding a full-blown mathematical theory of the soul."  Well?  Wouldn't such a "full-blown mathematical model" be a necessary component of "a comprehensive view of the universe?"  And if Carroll is not demanding it, then why are you saying we are obligated to provide it?

Quote

we’re simply asking how the soul is supposed to affect the mathematical theory of the quantum fields that we already have." (Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 215-216). Penguin Publishing Group.) 

And perhaps the best answer is "We don't yet have sufficient information to answer this question."

Quote

If Mormon scholars have amassed all of this evidence in support of their religion,

Yes, I think they have.

And for all the virtual ink being spilled in our back-and-forth, we are not reviewing any of that evidence.  You are instead trying mightily to change the subject.

Quote

have they addressed these arguments and started to put together a working hypothesis of how quantum field theory could be modified in order to accommodate their truth claims?

I don't know.  

But then, I don't think we are obligated to reconcile, say, the resurrection of Jesus Christ or the theophanies of Lehi with "quantum field theory."

Shoot, even Carroll doesn't seem to be expecting that sort of thing ("We’re not rigging the game by demanding a full-blown mathematical theory of the soul itself...").

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 11, 2021 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

22 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I’m sure it isn’t lost on anyone that employing “rational” argument to maintain a climate where belief may flourish works regardless of whether the thing we want to believe in is true. Indeed, the irony that the quote comes from a professional theologian of a religion that Mormons would call apostate illustrates the point.

Is “maintaining a climate where belief is possible” the same thing as “sorting through the body of data and selecting those that most confirm what we already believe and ignoring or rationalizing away those that do not?” 

News flash!  "Religion isn't science, Analytics says!"  More at 11!  No one here is arguing that religion, or pursuit of spiritual truth, is the same thing as science.  There are different spheres and paradigms for pursuing truth, each useful in its own way, perhaps.  And, of course, even the religious (of whatever stripe) are going to follow the pursuit of truth wherever it leads them.  Thus, I don't think Mr. Farrer should have cared whether members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints think he was "apostate" or not.  If his faith filled his soul and made him happy, if it bore good fruit in his life (and I think there's little, if any, room to argue that it did not) who are we, indeed, who is anybody else, to argue?  More power to him.  Just because I think being a Latter-day Saint is the best thing going doesn't mean I cannot see the value of other faith traditions:

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/toward-interreligious-oneness/

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

That doesn't really contravene the point. Dr. Carroll isn't merely pointing out that the concept of "immaterial matter" is self-contradictory, nor is he saying that every physical effect must have a physical cause. Rather, he is claiming that "the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known." (Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 178)) He is claiming that the most robust theories in all of science offer compelling, positive evidence that if anything like "spiritual matter" existed and was strong enough to have even the subtlest of influence on the neurons in the human brain, physicists would have discovered it by now.

That assumes they would know what spiritual matter was when they saw it.  But how are they supposed to know what it looks like?  Is spiritual matter somehow supposed to be different than all other kinds of matter?  If it is supposed to be different, why is it supposed/assumed to be different?  What if matter is matter whether it is the matter of a spirit or not?  All Joseph Smith told us is that spirit matter is so fine or pure that one needs better eyes or vision to see it, and by that maybe all he meant was that we need some type of magnifier, like a microscope, to be able to see it.  So for all we know Joseph might have been simply referring to atoms, or if that is still not pure or fine enough maybe he meant protons and electrons and neutrons and quarks or other fine particles of matter like that.

[Analytics]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You're jumping all over the place.  I didn't claim to have "a comprehensive view of the universe," and you weren't asking about that....

 

Let me summarize my point. I had claimed that there is practically no evidence that proves that the Book of Mormon is or could be true and that there is overwhelming evidence that it is false. I said that apologists ignore the vast majority of this evidence, rationalize it away, and/or put it on the shelf. You adamantly disagreed with this, took offense, and alluded to intelligent Mormons as evidence of the religion’s alleged plausibility. I responded with references that point out that cognitive psychology proves that intelligent humans are very good at using their intelligence to defend and rationalize irrational views and that this is the norm, not the exception.

To illustrate my point about the overwhelming evidence against the Book of Mormon that is ignored by apologists, I pointed out that mainstream quantum mechanics proves that all Mormonism’s supernatural elements are impossible. Without understanding even the basic structure of these specific arguments, you waived it away, made up some random rationalizations, grabbed some miscellaneous examples of scientists having been wrong in the past, and then put it on the shelf.

With that, I rest my case.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If you wish to privilege a scientific paradigm for the discovery of truth above all others, more power to you.  You would be far from alone, and, in fact, would be in good company, in doing so.  Certainly, sound science has much that is useful and interesting to say about the human condition.  (Also, I think it's useful to remember that all science isn't created equal: Hence, my caveats "sound" and "useful.")  And even sound science, as useful and important as it is, is based on what's known currently: Once what's known changes, the science changes.  Me?  I happen to think that God is the greatest scientist in the universe.  Having said that, I'm not entirely willing to privilege science as a method for discovering ultimate truth if doing so means throwing artists, musicians, poets, other writers, and yes, even religionists, and so on and so forth, under the bus.  As for the foundation of religion in general, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in particular,  being based on nothing more than psychological and sociological impulses,  "There is more in heaven and earth, Analytics, than is dreamt of in your science!"

I don't wish to defeat another man's pursuit of, and quest for, truth, even if it diverges from the path or the approach that I might take.  I wish you well.

Well, the good news is that if I’m right, you won’t burn in hell for the eternities for disagreeing with me. Believing in God puts you in excellent company too, and if it helps you live a good, fulfilling life, then more power to you.

[Analytics]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That assumes they would know what spiritual matter was when they saw it.  But how are they supposed to know what it looks like?  Is spiritual matter somehow supposed to be different than all other kinds of matter?  If it is supposed to be different, why is it supposed/assumed to be different?  What if matter is matter whether it is the matter of a spirit or not?  All Joseph Smith told us is that spirit matter is so fine or pure that one needs better eyes or vision to see it, and by that maybe all he meant was that we need some type of magnifier, like a microscope, to be able to see it.  So for all we know Joseph might have been simply referring to atoms, or if that is still not pure or fine enough maybe he meant protons and electrons and neutrons and quarks or other fine particles of matter like that.

You really need to read the chapters in the book that I referenced to understand the argument.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You really need to read the chapters in the book that I referenced to understand the argument.

And yet I targeted the crux of their error without having to read that book.  Amazing, aren't I.

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Let me summarize my point. I had claimed that there is practically no evidence that proves that the Book of Mormon is or could be true and that there is overwhelming evidence that it is false....

Just to summarize what the issue is here, what it means to say the Book of Mormon is true is that the Book of Mormon is a true record of historical events... i.e., events of the past... as written by the people who recorded those events. 

And now you're telling us you have evidence to prove that those events never happened and that the people who recorded those events never lived?  I'd love to see how you managed to prove those negatives.  How could you possibly prove that?

[Analytics]

14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Just to summarize what the issue is here, what it means to say the Book of Mormon is true is that the Book of Mormon is a true record of historical events... i.e., events of the past... as written by the people who recorded those events. 

And now you're telling us you have evidence to prove that those events never happened and that the people who recorded those events never lived?  I'd love to see how you managed to prove those negatives.  How could you possibly prove that?

All I claimed is that the supernatural elements of the book are impossible and hence did not happen. Of course it follows from the provenance of the book that if the supernatural events didn’t happen that the whole thing didn’t happen, but that is another step in the argument.

It takes Dr. Carroll several chapters to lay out the framework for how we can and do have positive evidence that these (for lack of a better word) “supernatural” forms of matter and energy do not exist, rather than merely not being discovered yet. But he does make the case, and I can’t do the argument justice given time and space constraints. If you are really interested, please read the book.

[Bob Crockett]

33 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Let me summarize my point. I had claimed that there is practically no evidence that proves that the Book of Mormon is or could be true and that there is overwhelming evidence that it is false. I said that apologists ignore the vast majority of this evidence, rationalize it away, and/or put it on the shelf. You adamantly disagreed with this, took offense, and alluded to intelligent Mormons as evidence of the religion’s alleged plausibility. I responded with references that point out that cognitive psychology proves that intelligent humans are very good at using their intelligence to defend and rationalize irrational views and that this is the norm, not the exception.

To illustrate my point about the overwhelming evidence against the Book of Mormon that is ignored by apologists, I pointed out that mainstream quantum mechanics proves that all Mormonism’s supernatural elements are impossible. Without understanding even the basic structure of these specific arguments, you waived it away, made up some random rationalizations, grabbed some miscellaneous examples of scientists having been wrong in the past, and then put it on the shelf.

With that, I rest my case.

As one who has believed in the Book of Mormon my entire life, I must agree with this post. 

Further, it is not legal proof to recite stories of scientists getting it wrong in the past.  That is arguing that the exception is the rule. 

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Your Honor, I rise in defense of Brother Bukowski and of his position.   As I understand him, he is a pragmatist.  It's not that he does not believe that Lehi, Sariah, Nephi, Sam, Laman, Lemuel, and so on were not real, live, genuine flesh-and-blood individuals in an actual physical setting, first in the Old World and then in the New.  It's that, for him, any issues relating to the genuineness of these people and of the accounts that, purportedly, they left us (and hence, of historicity, geography, and so on) take a back seat to whether, in a pragmatic sense, the Book of Mormon and the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ "work" in the lives of their adherents: Do they bring forth good fruit?  Do they bring happiness and fulfillment into the lives of their adherents?  Alma 32 advocates a practical, pragmatic approach to the Gospel much like that advocated by Brother Bukowski: Plant the seed; nourish it; does it "swell, sprout, and begin to grow"? if it does "swell, sprout, and begin to grow," then you know that the seed (and the fruit it will bring forth) is good.  That's pragmatism, and that's the approach that Brother Bukowski advocates taking with regard to these things (as fascinating as historicity, geography, and so on, are).

Your Honor, the Defense rests.

(You can pay me later, Mark.)

The irony is that if one actually reads Alma 32, the objective is NOT to find objectivity or correct history,  but the matter studied should lead one to a FEELING OF SWEETNESS IN ONE'S HEART.

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

All I claimed is that the supernatural elements of the book are impossible and hence did not happen. Of course it follows from the provenance of the book that if the supernatural events didn’t happen that the whole thing didn’t happen, but that is another step in the argument.

Which part(s) of the Book are you talking about when you refer to "supernatural elements of the book"?  I'm not recalling anything about it that I would say is supernatural; just some things that we don't totally understand about how they happened.

 

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It takes Dr. Carroll several chapters to lay out the framework for how we can and do have positive evidence that these (for lack of a better word) “supernatural” forms of matter and energy do not exist, rather than merely not being discovered yet. But he does make the case, and I can’t do the argument justice given time and space constraints. If you are really interested, please read the book.

All of that is based on his limited knowledge, regardless of how much he knows, because he doesn't know everything, yet, just as none of us do.  So any hint of "that did not happen" should simply be interpreted as "he doesn't understand how that could have happened".

[Ahab]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The irony is that if one actually reads Alma 32, the objective is NOT to find objectivity or correct history,  but the matter studied should lead one to a FEELING OF SWEETNESS IN ONE'S HEART.

Take out the word "NOT" and you'll be a lot closer to stating the truth.  Like this:

if/when one actually reads Alma 32 and applies it to discovering truth, the objective is NOT should be to find objectivity or correct history by a FEELING OF SWEETNESS IN ONE'S HEART regarding what objectivity and correct history is.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

And yet I targeted the crux of their error without having to read that book.  Amazing, aren't I.

No, you completely missed the point.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Let me summarize my point. I had claimed that there is practically no evidence that proves that the Book of Mormon is or could be true and that there is overwhelming evidence that it is false.

And I have claimed that there is a substantial and growing body of evidence that the Book of Mormon is or could be true, and that the countervailing evidence is neither remotely "overwhelming" nor even particularly coherent.

I have also said that critics regularly ignore or otherwise fail to substantively engage in the body of evidence and arguments presented by Latter-day Saint scholars.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I said that apologists ignore the vast majority of this evidence,

And I have said that Latter-day Saints do nothing of the sort, that they instead regularly address and respond to countervailing evidence.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

rationalize it away,

I'm not sure what "rationalize it away" means.  There are all sorts of things about which reasonable minds can disagree.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

and/or put it on the shelf.

About some things, yes.  For example, we don't know the ultimate particulars of how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

You adamantly disagreed with this,

Yes.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

took offense,

I took offense when you gave it by comparing belief in the Book of Mormon to flat earthism, when you implied we are idiots who are ignoring evidence.  I suppose I shouldn't have, but there you are.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

and alluded to intelligent Mormons as evidence of the religion’s alleged plausibility.

I pointed to evidence, argument and reasoning.  

I alluded to "intelligent Mormons" in response to your disparagement of the intelligence of people who believe in the Book of Mormon.  I did not allude to "intelligent Mormons" as "as evidence of the religion’s alleged plausibility."

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

To illustrate my point about the overwhelming evidence against the Book of Mormon that is ignored by apologists, I pointed out that mainstream quantum mechanics proves that all Mormonism’s supernatural elements are impossible.

And I responded to that point, such as it was.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Without understanding even the basic structure of these specific arguments, you waived it away, made up some random rationalizations, grabbed some miscellaneous examples of scientists having been wrong in the past, and then put it on the shelf.

You didn't present "even the basic structure of these specific arguments."

And your reference was a substantial deviation from the topic that was at hand.

You shifted the goal posts.  You built a massive straw man.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

With that, I rest my case.

As you like.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Well, the good news is that if I’m right, you won’t burn in hell for the eternities for disagreeing with me. Believing in God puts you in excellent company too, and if it helps you live a good, fulfilling life, then more power to you.

Well, I happen to think (and I'm not alone) that very few people will "burn in hell," and of those few who might, "disagreeing with me" won't have anything to do with it.

[Stormin' Mormon]

2,000 years ago a virgin birth would be supernatural.  But with modern medical technology, it would be quite easy to accomplish. 

Whenever I travel by plane, I am awed by the supernatural quality of it.  I wake up one morning on the west coast, and by the evening I am laying down my head on the east coast.  2,000 years ago, such teleportation would have been supernatural.

In the LDS paradigm, to call anything supernatural is simply to say, "I don't understand the science that makes this possible."

[Analytics]

By way of clarification...

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what "rationalize it away" means.  There are all sorts of things about which reasonable minds can disagree.

"To rationalize" means to come up with ad hoc justifications to believe something that you want to believe.

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I alluded to "intelligent Mormons" in response to your disparagement of the intelligence of people who believe in the Book of Mormon. 

I did not disparage the intelligence of people who believed the Book of Mormon. As I have already clarified and reiterated, intelligent people often believe in demonstrably false things and use their intelligence to rationalize their beliefs. The only implication I made about the intelligence and rationality of people who believe in the Book of Mormon is that they are normal people.

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You didn't present "even the basic structure of these specific arguments."

I didn't bring it up to debate it with you. I brought it up as an example of something from mainstream science that disproves the Book of Mormon and is completely ignored by apologists. 

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And your reference was a substantial deviation from the topic that was at hand.

It was not a deviation from the topic of hand. The topic at hand is whether there is "any" evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon. My position is that in the context of all the evidence against the Book of Mormon, the answer is no, there really isn't any substantial evidence in favor of it. As an example of extremely important evidence that proves the Book of Mormon couldn't be true, I pointed out that we know from Effective Quantum Field Theory that the miracles in and around the Book of Mormon did not happen.

The topic of this thread is the belief of people like me who think there is essentially zero evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon. If you'd like to understand why me and people like me think that is the case, you need to understand the iron-clad case we see against it, which includes things like Effective Quantum Field Theory, the experimental evidence that supports it, and what it implies about the plausibility of the Book of Mormon. 

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You shifted the goal posts.  You built a massive straw man.

I didn't shift the goal posts or build a straw man. I explained why I think there is essentially no evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon and provided an example of compelling evidence against it that is ignored by apologists. 

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, Analytics said:

...The topic of this thread is the belief of people like me who think there is essentially zero evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon. If you'd like to understand why me and people like me think that is the case, you need to understand the iron-clad case we see against it, which includes things like Effective Quantum Field Theory, the experimental evidence that supports it, and what it implies about the plausibility of the Book of Mormon. 

I didn't shift the goal posts or build a straw man. I explained why I think there is essentially no evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon and provided an example of compelling evidence against it that is ignored by apologists. 

Based on the actual evidence that I have that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, I see you and others like you as I expect you and others like you see me... intelligent people who often believe in demonstrably false things and use their intelligence to rationalize their beliefs.  I recommend that you examine the actual evidence of truth rather than rely on a theory or philosophy to explain why you believe what you believe.