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.
Not really. Falsificationism rather than verificationism is the typical epistemological standard. In other words, stay where you are until you have reason to think otherwise. Not a very adventurous way to live, but the way a lot of people live nevertheless... and they have pilosopher of science Karl Popper to back them up! (That is, he backs them up as long as they really do make vigorous attempts to falsify their beliefs, which I don't think they do.)
I also find this a very interesting phenomenon, along with the kissing cousin "we choose to believe". Although I don't really understand the thought processes behind these two ideas, since I didn't have these ideas as a believer, I have thought enough about it to make a guess.
I suspect that this phenomenon probably is unique to people who have read or heard enough to realize that there exists a significant body of evidence against LDS claims that cannot be discounted as "anti-mormon lies". I mean, really, if you just relied on church meetings, scriptures, and GAs for your information about church history and evidence in general, there would be no reason to suspect the existence of this body of counter-evidence, would there? I don't ever remember a single member, in the chapel, talking about an evidentiary "stalemate" and having to CHOOSE to believe. It's the apologists, or internet Mormons, who are aware of this body of information, who tend to make these sort of statements.
Kenneth Feder, in his book Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology, made this point when he talked about reading a book full of mystical claims called "The Morning of the Magician". He thought some of the sections made a strong argument until he got to the section that involved archaeological claims. This was the area he actually had significant background knowledge in, and hence, he immediately recognized the BS. He realized that the only reason the other sections sounded as if they were stronger arguments was likely due to the fact he didn't possess the adequate background knowledge to know better.
I've frequently made this point in reference to some claims Book of Mormon apologists like Brant Gardner or John Clark make. Their arguments sound great....unless you have adequate background knowledge in the subject, and then you can recognize the BS embedded within.
Taking this into consideration, I think it's a lowering of the bar - the best they can hope for is to come up with some sort of "evidentiary stalemate" so one CAN "choose to believe", and even that frequently relies on a lack of background knowledge in regards to certain claims.
Whether or not it's a fair or accurate statement to make depends on the specific topic. I don't think there is an evidentiary stalemate in regards to whether or not the Book of Mormon is an ancient Mesoamerican document, for example. The likelihood of the Book of Mormon really being an ancient Mesoamerican document is about on par with the likelihood that space aliens really did build ancient Egyptian pyramids.
But in regards to whether God has a body versus some vague spirit, yeah, I guess you could claim an evidentiary stalemate.
But, as others have pointed out, even if that were true, why would you choose this particular wager? Investigate other religious claims, pick the one with the worst possible consequences for nonbelief, and go with that one. If I were Pascal, choosing between, say, a fundamentalist EV viewpoint that said nonbelievers were going to hell and burn for all eternity, and Mormonism, which forcibly divorces you from your beloved family and eternal parents as a consequence of nonbelief, I'd go with the EV wager. It's horrible to be forcibly divorced from your family, but arguably worse to have your flesh burning for all eternity.
I only know one person in "real life" who actually claims to have "chosen to believe". That is one of my sisters, and she chose to CONTINUE to believe despite having read a significant amount of "New Church History" to recognize the existence of the significant counter-information. She CHOSE to continue to believe due to the unacceptable personal cost of NOT believing. (she thought she'd lose her husband and her kids would be alienated from her)
I don't think that is a strong advertisement for the strength of LDS truth claims, frankly.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
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.
Not really. Falsificationism rather than verificationism is the typical epistemological standard. In other words, stay where you are until you have reason to think otherwise. Not a very adventurous way to live, but the way a lot of people live nevertheless... and they have pilosopher of science Karl Popper to back them up! (That is, he backs them up as long as they really do make vigorous attempts to falsify their beliefs, which I don't think they do.)
That works for science but where did Popper ever say falsificationism is applicable to religion? Religion deals in unfalsifiable truth claims, so falsificationism cannot apply. In this realm, Pascal's wager (arguably a fallacy) says that a leap of faith is the safest bet when faced with unfalsifaible truth claims, or for that matter, an evidentiary stalemate.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
Apologists and TBMs like to blow up Mormonism to be much bigger than it really is. GBH said it is either true or the greatest fraud in the history of mankind, which is laughable because in the grand scheme of things, if Joseph Smith pulled off a scam, it's simply one of thousands of similar scams throughout history.
As for the "evidentiary stalemate," Mormonism has already been debunked. It was debunked nearly 200 years ago. The only people debating it are a tiny group of TBMs and former TBMs, and a small group of christians who are easily offended by anyone trying to redefine christianity. 99.9% of the world is not a Mormon, they don't know what a Mormon is and they don't care. Nobody but a tiny group of TBMs believe the Book of Mormon is actual real history. Missionaries knock on hundreds of doors, and are lucky to get one or two baptisms. Now, none of this means Mormonism isn't true, but when you step outside the Mormon snow globe, it looks no different than all the other small snow globes: scientology, jehovah's witnesses, seventh day adventists, flat earthers, alien abductees, etc. The apologists for these other movements can also claim an "evidentiary stalemate" based on the fact that they have devoted followers. It just seems to me that a true evedentiary stalemate would lead to a much greater number of followers, or at least more people studying the Book of Mormon to learn about ancient America.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
The Dude wrote:That works for science but where did Popper ever say falsificationism is applicable to religion? Religion deals in unfalsifiable truth claims, so falsificationism cannot apply. In this realm, Pascal's wager (arguably a fallacy) says that a leap of faith is the safest bet when faced with unfalsifaible truth claims, or for that matter, an evidentiary stalemate.
Many religious claims are falsifiable. By the time you get down to the point of total unfalsifiability, there's not much left anyway and it's really quite harmless.
CaliforniaKid wrote:Many religious claims are falsifiable. By the time you get down to the point of total unfalsifiability, there's not much left anyway and it's really quite harmless.
Yes, I agree. The part of my post that mentioned Pascal's wager was prefaced by this: "1) Let's assume for a moment that there is an exactly equal amount of evidence for and against...." Then under 3) I said "There's actually a lot of evidence against LDS claims...."
Unfalsifiable religious claims can be quite harmless, as long as they don't fall into the wrong hands.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
beastie wrote:I also find this a very interesting phenomenon, along with the kissing cousin "we choose to believe". Although I don't really understand the thought processes behind these two ideas, since I didn't have these ideas as a believer, I have thought enough about it to make a guess.
I suspect that this phenomenon probably is unique to people who have read or heard enough to realize that there exists a significant body of evidence against LDS claims that cannot be discounted as "anti-mormon lies". I mean, really, if you just relied on church meetings, scriptures, and GAs for your information about church history and evidence in general, there would be no reason to suspect the existence of this body of counter-evidence, would there? I don't ever remember a single member, in the chapel, talking about an evidentiary "stalemate" and having to CHOOSE to believe. It's the apologists, or internet Mormons, who are aware of this body of information, who tend to make these sort of statements....
Just to quibble, Mormonism in and of itself is hard to swallow, even if you haven't been exposed to "anti-Mormon lies". You don't need an anti-Mormon to realize that, say,that the author of Section 132 was a creep.
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.
Just to quibble, Mormonism in and of itself is hard to swallow, even if you haven't been exposed to "anti-Mormon lies". You don't need an anti-Mormon to realize that, say,that the author of Section 132 was a creep.
You're right, of course, if the Mormon in question rises above all the indoctrination.
My boyfriend began to lose faith just from studying the scriptures. He said it was ironic - the leaders kept pushing them to study the scriptures, and the more he did, the more it sounded like BS. I guess some people just never engage in the mental compartmentalization that some of the rest of us did.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.