DiscussMormonism.com

For the apologists, the word "proof" means "Absolute metaphysical certitude" (to borrow from John McLaughlin) and anyone who uses the word is guilty of being a "positivist" because only a positivist thinks she can have this kind of certainty. to them, there is some kind of intellectual maturity in the recognition that science can be wrong, something they think they've discovered that the critics don't know about.

But take some of the recent interests of the apologists:

-BOA research
-BOM geography
-3 witness evidence
-Resurrection evidence

Now, they don't want to use the word "proof", they want to show plausibility or at the most, that their object of belief is a few percent more likely than disbelief (though they won't want to use the term "percent") and pass it off as if it's more fair minded and reasonable than what the critics propose with their misplaced trust in "proof".

But all this is just a charade. Iif it's demonstrated that you have a 20% chance of getting cancer and dying, your way of looking at things will be completely changed. If it's demonstrated that there is a 1% chance that you'll get herpes, you'll stop and think twice about that next score. If you're told there is a 4% chance that you'll be struck by lightning getting out of your car to buy groceries, you might roll your eyes.

So this whole "fair-minded" game is just a ruse by the apologists. What is the real, effective difference between saying, "I have proof! Nessie is real, it's 100% certain, as sure as the sun rises, as sure as the square root of 1 is 1, no one can doubt it" and "I believe it is plausible that Nessie is real, and doth swim in the waters of Loch Ness. In fact, if you examine the recent photographic evidence, while we can't say for sure as science can be wrong, it's more likely than not that Nessie doth swim in the waters of Loch Ness. I have a paper published on this, with 140 footnotes and 48 pages in length."

In a way, you'd think the latter who is going for less certainty on a philosophical level is the greater basket case.

Consider, even the 51 percent possibility any LDS claim is real such that immediately is entailed the existence of an immortal man who can't even be blown up by 1000000000 tonnes of C4. That's what the apologists are essentially trying to pass off as reasonable, fair minded, and better thought out than what the critics offer.

So it doesn't really matter if the apologists go for less certainty, because what they are going for is orders of magnitude more absurd than can be justified by even granting a very small percentage of likelihood let alone the benefit of the doubt.

Do yourself a favor, ignore what the apologists have to say outright. That's what scholars do.

Gadfly:

... there is some kind of intellectual maturity in the recognition that science can be wrong ...

For once we're in agreement.

It's always wise (and certainly intellectually mature) to be skeptical of the consensus of scientific opinion.

That's precisely how Wilbur and Orville Wright (mere unschooled autodidacts, by the way) were able to fly when others had failed.

William Schryver wrote:Gadfly:

... there is some kind of intellectual maturity in the recognition that science can be wrong ...

It's always wise (and certainly intellectually mature) to be skeptical of the consensus of scientific opinion.

I think it wise to selectively be skeptical. There is a consensus of scientific opinion regarding gravity that I respect.

Is Gadianton joking, or are his straw man and poisoning of the well intended to be taken seriously?

Who can tell?

Who cares?

The way I once phrased it is if you were flying from Los Angeles to Sydney, and the pilot told you there's a 50-50 chance we're going to land in Sydney, would you board that plane? I guess you could say true believers have more faith in the pilot than I do. by the way, "Qantas never crashed" (yet, there have been some near misses lately).

Ray A wrote:The way I once phrased it is if you were flying from Los Angeles to Sydney, and the pilot told you there's a 50-50 chance we're going to land in Sydney, would you board that plane?

Depends on where the other landing option was. Hawaii? New Zealand? Paris?

harmony wrote:Depends on where the other landing option was. Hawaii? New Zealand? Paris?

I ain't boardin' no plane where da skipper says 50% chance of arrival. Watch how I'd react:

Rain Man

(PS: Qantas' last crash was actually in 1951.)

Will,

What you should be agreeing with me on is the fact that supposed levels of philosophical certainty in apologist/critic debates is ultimately very unimportant to the discussion and an apologetic red herring.

Daniel Peterson wrote:Is Gadianton joking, or are his straw man and poisoning of the well intended to be taken seriously?

At least as seriously as the above example of the fallacy of the complex question. :)

Daniel Peterson wrote:Is Gadianton joking, or are his straw man and poisoning of the well intended to be taken seriously?

Who can tell?

Who cares?

Who cares? You, obviously.