For whatever reason, I keep hearing from apologists that there's equal evidence for and against the claims of Mormonism. For example, someone on the other board has quoted Terryl Givens thusly: "We are always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion of life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. What we choose to embrace, to be response to, is the purest reflection of who are and what we love." (Terryl Givens, "Lightning Out Of Heaven," BYU Studies (45:1) byustudies.BYU.edu.)
This makes me wonder because the only people I know who think there's some sort of evidentiary stalemate are LDS apologists. Certainly no disinterested party would say there's equal evidence for and against the existence of, say, Nephite civilizations. As Givens suggests, then, the idea that there's equal evidence means that those of us who do not believe are making a conscious decision to dismissively deny real and valuable evidence. As I stated on the other board, this seems to me just another attempt to validate the old Mormon tautology about people who leave: they were prideful or intellectual, they wanted to sin, or they didn't develop and nurture a testimony.
So, what's going on here? Do people really think there are equal kinds of evidence on both sides, or is this, as I suspect, just another effort at dismissively denying the experience of unbelievers?
Evidentiary Stalemate
-
_Runtu
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 16721
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am
-
_truth dancer
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4792
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm
Hi runtu...
Who is always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviciton or dismissive denial? I mean seriously.... who is given sufficient materials? I'm not sure what he is talking about here.
In terms of equal evidence.... well it depends. I suppose there is about equal evidence for the God of Mormonism as there is the God of Scientology, or the God of the FLDS, or Allah, or Zeuz, or Apollo. Is he saying we all just get to pick or choose whichever one best suits us? Or the beliefs we embrace are a reflection of our own personal truth?
What I will say is that... how we respond to life is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love.
For those who do not embrace a particular God or belief system, it is usually because they do not see that particular God or belief system as wonderful, true, good, right, holy, filled with truth, or a good way to manage life.
~dancer~
We are always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion of life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. What we choose to embrace, to be response to, is the purest reflection of who are and what we love."
Who is always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviciton or dismissive denial? I mean seriously.... who is given sufficient materials? I'm not sure what he is talking about here.
In terms of equal evidence.... well it depends. I suppose there is about equal evidence for the God of Mormonism as there is the God of Scientology, or the God of the FLDS, or Allah, or Zeuz, or Apollo. Is he saying we all just get to pick or choose whichever one best suits us? Or the beliefs we embrace are a reflection of our own personal truth?
What I will say is that... how we respond to life is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love.
For those who do not embrace a particular God or belief system, it is usually because they do not see that particular God or belief system as wonderful, true, good, right, holy, filled with truth, or a good way to manage life.
~dancer~
Last edited by Bing [Bot] on Thu Jun 14, 2007 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
-
_Analytics
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4231
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:24 pm
I can say that I independently came up with the “evidentiary stalemate” as a Mormon teenager who was trying to believe yet finding elements of it unbelievable. My thinking usually centered on the nature of faith. What is faith? Why is it necessary? When is it possible? When is it impossible?
It seemed to me that if the objective evidence were to clearly indicated that the church was true, then you couldn’t really have faith—you’d be able to see the truth of the matter with the eye of man and would have no need of the eye of faith. Along the same lines, if the truth of it were obvious, then we wouldn’t need to seek revelation from God to figure it out.
And this is also related to the very purpose of life—we left the presence of heavenly father and came to this place on this side of the vale not so we could embrace what the clear mundane evidence dictated, but rather so we could live by faith and thus become spiritually sensitive and thus grow closer to God.
From there, I would think about what made sense to me and why the church seemed true. There were lots of things to put in this side of the balance, because I was always surrounded by believers who didn’t have a shortage of reasons to believe. But then I’d hear or think about things that didn’t make sense. And it seemed like in my own brain every time I thought of something that was evidence against the church, some evidence for the church would appear in my consciousness, seemingly to balance it out. In this mental state, it was impossible to come to a definite conclusion; I was forced to either be agnostic, or to somehow use an arbitrary method to choose between two equally possible yet opposite conclusions.
From there, it hit me that that is the perfect environment for faith! From an outside perspective, it seems like it would be a subjective decision what you’d choose to exercise faith in. But with the personal promptings of the Holy Spirit and an earnest heart, God would be able to gently nudge you into the correct decision of what you should have faith in.
For me at least, this never had anything to do with demonizing dissenters; it was all about trying to understand the nature of the evidence and faith.
It seemed to me that if the objective evidence were to clearly indicated that the church was true, then you couldn’t really have faith—you’d be able to see the truth of the matter with the eye of man and would have no need of the eye of faith. Along the same lines, if the truth of it were obvious, then we wouldn’t need to seek revelation from God to figure it out.
And this is also related to the very purpose of life—we left the presence of heavenly father and came to this place on this side of the vale not so we could embrace what the clear mundane evidence dictated, but rather so we could live by faith and thus become spiritually sensitive and thus grow closer to God.
From there, I would think about what made sense to me and why the church seemed true. There were lots of things to put in this side of the balance, because I was always surrounded by believers who didn’t have a shortage of reasons to believe. But then I’d hear or think about things that didn’t make sense. And it seemed like in my own brain every time I thought of something that was evidence against the church, some evidence for the church would appear in my consciousness, seemingly to balance it out. In this mental state, it was impossible to come to a definite conclusion; I was forced to either be agnostic, or to somehow use an arbitrary method to choose between two equally possible yet opposite conclusions.
From there, it hit me that that is the perfect environment for faith! From an outside perspective, it seems like it would be a subjective decision what you’d choose to exercise faith in. But with the personal promptings of the Holy Spirit and an earnest heart, God would be able to gently nudge you into the correct decision of what you should have faith in.
For me at least, this never had anything to do with demonizing dissenters; it was all about trying to understand the nature of the evidence and faith.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
-Yuval Noah Harari
-Yuval Noah Harari
-
_Runtu
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 16721
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am
-
_Analytics
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4231
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:24 pm
Runtu wrote:I don't think it's about "demonizing" dissenters but rather I think it's about explaining why people leave in a way that doesn't threaten the status quo of the church.
Clarifying my point, to me it was about describing my own cognitive dissonance from the paradigm of a believer. I was really centered on my own struggles with faith when I thought this way. Why people leave and the status quo of the church never crossed my mind.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
-Yuval Noah Harari
-Yuval Noah Harari
-
_Runtu
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 16721
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am
Analytics wrote:Runtu wrote:I don't think it's about "demonizing" dissenters but rather I think it's about explaining why people leave in a way that doesn't threaten the status quo of the church.
Clarifying my point, to me it was about describing my own cognitive dissonance from the paradigm of a believer. I was really centered on my own struggles with faith when I thought this way. Why people leave and the status quo of the church never crossed my mind.
Understood. I was thinking of how that quote from Givens is being used over on the other board.
-
_The Dude
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2976
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:16 am
Re: Evidentiary Stalemate
I have three arguments against the evidentiary stalemate (which I think is rhetorical garbage cooked up by apologists like Terryl "Care Bear" Givens).
1) Let's assume for a moment that there is an exactly equal amount of evidence for and against. So what? You have to be suckered into Pascal's wager to leap from "evidentiary stalemate" to actual belief.
2) The notion of evidentiary stalemate subtly assumes that the apologetic and critical sides of the debate are trying to build separate cases built on evidence. But that is not so. The burden of proof is on the believers -- they are the ones who believe in a celestial teapot that's too small to be seen, that's full of mystery and illogical contradictions. If the evidentiary situation really is what apologists are saying, then they loose: the rational thing to do is not believe their outlandish claims.
3) There's actually a lot of evidence against LDS claims, or at least very fishy stuff that makes perfect sense once viewed from the critical standpoint. The Book of Mormon is the one thing, in my opinion, that apologists have going for them in that critics have a hard time explaining how the book came about. However, once you get past the existence of the book and examine its content, it stinks to high heaven and provides some of the best material for arguments against LDS claims. They would be better off with no evidence than with the burden of explaining how the Book of Mormon could possibly be history.
1) Let's assume for a moment that there is an exactly equal amount of evidence for and against. So what? You have to be suckered into Pascal's wager to leap from "evidentiary stalemate" to actual belief.
2) The notion of evidentiary stalemate subtly assumes that the apologetic and critical sides of the debate are trying to build separate cases built on evidence. But that is not so. The burden of proof is on the believers -- they are the ones who believe in a celestial teapot that's too small to be seen, that's full of mystery and illogical contradictions. If the evidentiary situation really is what apologists are saying, then they loose: the rational thing to do is not believe their outlandish claims.
3) There's actually a lot of evidence against LDS claims, or at least very fishy stuff that makes perfect sense once viewed from the critical standpoint. The Book of Mormon is the one thing, in my opinion, that apologists have going for them in that critics have a hard time explaining how the book came about. However, once you get past the existence of the book and examine its content, it stinks to high heaven and provides some of the best material for arguments against LDS claims. They would be better off with no evidence than with the burden of explaining how the Book of Mormon could possibly be history.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
-
_Runtu
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 16721
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am
Re: Evidentiary Stalemate
The Dude wrote:I have three arguments against the evidentiary stalemate (which I think is rhetorical garbage cooked up by apologists like Terryl "Care Bear" Givens).
1) Let's assume for a moment that there is an exactly equal amount of evidence for and against. So what? You have to be suckered into Pascal's wager to leap from "evidentiary stalemate" to actual belief.
According to some folks, it's just one logical choice, no less logical than not believing.
2) The notion of evidentiary stalemate subtly assumes that the apologetic and critical sides of the debate are trying to build separate cases built on evidence. But that is not so. The burden of proof is on the believers -- they are the ones who believe in a celestial teapot that's too small to be seen, that's full of mystery and illogical contradictions. If the evidentiary situation really is what apologists are saying, then they loose: the rational thing to do is not believe their outlandish claims.
Someone the other day mentioned all the evidence for an anthropomorphic God over the FSM, and I was baffled. I don't see a lot of positive evidence other than one's testimony.
3) There's actually a lot of evidence against LDS claims, or at least very fishy stuff that makes perfect sense once viewed from the critical standpoint. The Book of Mormon is the one thing, in my opinion, that apologists have going for them in that critics have a hard time explaining how the book came about. However, once you get past the existence of the book and examine its content, it stinks to high heaven and provides some of the best material for arguments against LDS claims. They would be better off with no evidence than with the burden of explaining how the Book of Mormon could possibly be history.
That's probably why so many apologists demand that we explain the production of the Book of Mormon. Why that Joseph Smith must have been a genius, they tell me, if he dictated all that with his head buried in a hat. I wonder why we're supposed to take Joseph at his word as to the means by which it was produced. But you're right: the text is its own worst enemy. It reads exactly like you would expect a quasireligious 19th-century American book about mound builder myths to read.
-
_The Dude
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2976
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:16 am
Analytics wrote:I can say that I independently came up with the “evidentiary stalemate” as a Mormon teenager who was trying to believe yet finding elements of it unbelievable. My thinking usually centered on the nature of faith. What is faith? Why is it necessary? When is it possible? When is it impossible?
What is faith? It's a special plea, to get you to believe something that you would never believe if it wasn't couched in terms of the religion you are supposed to have faith in.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
-
_Runtu
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 16721
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am
The Dude wrote:Analytics wrote:I can say that I independently came up with the “evidentiary stalemate” as a Mormon teenager who was trying to believe yet finding elements of it unbelievable. My thinking usually centered on the nature of faith. What is faith? Why is it necessary? When is it possible? When is it impossible?
What is faith? It's a special plea, to get you to believe something that you would never believe if it wasn't couched in terms of the religion you are supposed to have faith in.
Moroni's promise in a way is a special pleading.
Pray to know if it's true, and you will get an answer. That answer will come through a good feeling from God. How do we know that's an answer from God? Because the book that you're praying about said so.