Apologetics does not begin with the answers?!

[_Philo Sofee]

Over on the other Mormon board which gets slaughtered by its own moderators when they get to losing arguments (daily usually), I read from CV75 something interesting in the context of horses/tapirs

This assertion was made in a thread I recently participated in. I don't think apologetics requires that, but good research and analysis does yield a good, balanced and objective apologetic argument.

The answer every apologist literally BEGINS with is, "the Book of Mormon is true, and therefore historical." Then when it is demonstrated to be false due to the horsesiness of the problem of horses, we end up with other animals, such as the infamous tapir. So, in order to arrive at the conclusion which studies begin with (the Book of Mormon is true regardless of evidence or lack thereof), horses become tapirs! I mean, that is the apologetic. Apologetics requires convoluted analysis and evidence like this because there is simply no straight forward historical verification let alone archaeological. Therefore, apologetics simply cannot yield "a good, balanced and objective apologetic argument." CV75 is fooling only those inclined to believe, not actual historians and archaeologists. And thus we see the riff raff continues giving out milk as if it were energy drinks.

[_oliblish]

Here is how Kerry Muhlestein explains his research and analysis about the Book of Abraham:

“I start out with an assumption that the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon, and anything else that we get from the restored gospel, is true,” he said. “Therefore, any evidence I find, I will try to fit into that paradigm. …There are those who will assume that it’s not true, and on these points we’ll just have to agree to disagree. But we will understand one another better when we understand how our beginning assumptions color the way we filter all of the evidence that we find.”

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865608559/BYU-professor-speaks-on-unnoticed-assumptions-about-the-Book-of-Abraham.html

I don't think it can be much more clear than that...

[_Philo Sofee]

He demonstrates perfectly why apologetics will never be scholarship....

[_zerinus]

He demonstrates perfectly why apologetics will never be scholarship....

Of course apologetics is not scholarship, nor is it supposed to be. Apologetics is the art of defending one's faith against criticisms by unbelievers, and it makes use of various disciplines including scholarship to accomplish that. Its primary objective is to point out the flaws in the critic's argument, and thus to neutralize their criticisms. Its purpose is not to "do scholarship," but to prove the critic wrong.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Over on the other Mormon board which gets slaughtered by its own moderators when they get to losing arguments (daily usually), I read from CV75 something interesting in the context of horses/tapirs

This assertion was made in a thread I recently participated in. I don't think apologetics requires that, but good research and analysis does yield a good, balanced and objective apologetic argument.

The answer every apologist literally BEGINS with is, "the Book of Mormon is true, and therefore historical." Then when it is demonstrated to be false due to the horsesiness of the problem of horses, we end up with other animals, such as the infamous tapir. So, in order to arrive at the conclusion which studies begin with (the Book of Mormon is true regardless of evidence or lack thereof), horses become tapirs! I mean, that is the apologetic. Apologetics requires convoluted analysis and evidence like this because there is simply no straight forward historical verification let alone archaeological. Therefore, apologetics simply cannot yield "a good, balanced and objective apologetic argument." CV75 is fooling only those inclined to believe, not actual historians and archaeologists. And thus we see the riff raff continues giving out milk as if it were energy drinks.

You're about as pedestrian in your analysis as one can be. As I have many times said to you, apologia is not a monolith. Everybody's different.

I certainly for instance would never start any kind of analysis with the claim that "the Book of Mormon is true, and therefore historical" and yet many consider me one of the top LDS apologists ever known to mankind. Indeed, I never (well, never say never, I suppose) communicate my personal beliefs during apologetic arguments about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon or the Church itself. I don't say the "Book of Mormon is true." Instead, you'll see me savage the "proofs" mustered by the Mesoamericanists and other LGT theorists, which such savaging would tend to support the view that the Book of Mormon is not "true."

So, as I pointed out to Shulem recently, not all gays are the same and have the same feelings about the ability to change one's heart and be an active member. Similarly, not all "apologists" have the same narrow fixation you'd like to claim.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Yahoo Bot. You never do anything but crap out a turd here and there, and you never back up a statement when someone makes a RFI. If you're going to accuse the Backyard Professor of being pedestrian it's best if one isn't a mental paraplegic.

- Doc

[_DoubtingThomas]

Its primary objective is to point out the flaws in the critic's argument, and thus to neutralize their criticisms. Its purpose is not to "do scholarship," but to prove the critic wrong

I bet Jeff Meldrum (bigfoot hunter) "proves" his critics wrong all the time. The burden of proof falls on the apologists.

[_deacon blues]

Here is how Kerry Muhlestein explains his research and analysis about the Book of Abraham:

“I start out with an assumption that the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon, and anything else that we get from the restored gospel, is true,” he said. “Therefore, any evidence I find, I will try to fit into that paradigm. …There are those who will assume that it’s not true, and on these points we’ll just have to agree to disagree. But we will understand one another better when we understand how our beginning assumptions color the way we filter all of the evidence that we find.”

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865608559/BYU-professor-speaks-on-unnoticed-assumptions-about-the-Book-of-Abraham.html

I don't think it can be much more clear than that...

Right. It's like starting with the assumption that Bigfoot exists.

[_Fence Sitter]

I certainly for instance would never start any kind of analysis with the claim that "the Book of Mormon is true, and therefore historical" and yet many consider me one of the top LDS apologists ever known to mankind. Indeed, I never (well, never say never, I suppose) communicate my personal beliefs during apologetic arguments about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon or the Church itself. I don't say the "Book of Mormon is true." Instead, you'll see me savage the "proofs" mustered by the Mesoamericanists and other LGT theorists, which such savaging would tend to support the view that the Book of Mormon is not "true."

Bot,

When you are "savaging" the "proofs" of the Mesoamericanists and others, you are not doing apologetics, you are merely criticizing bad apologetics. Kerry's point still stands.

[_Gadianton]

The answer every apologist literally BEGINS with is, "the Book of Mormon is true, and therefore historical."

this is correct and has been affirmed by DCP.

If I were an apologist, I'd explain it like this:

Science is often considered to proceed by the assumption of naturalism. Without making a formal commitment to naturalism, call it "methodological" naturalism. We're not saying Zeus, Bigfoot, Nessy, and Nephi and his magic bow aren't out there, but we don't know how to address the question with science. An apologist flips this around and claims to proceed by the assumption of non-naturalism. Well, if we're really talking about assumptions here we're at rock bottom and you can't quite use science to disprove the non-natural if it's built on the assumption of the natural. So now the apologists can't say I never threw 'em a bone.

In practice, however, there doesn't seem to be a real framework for studying the non-natural, and so apologetics does seem to simply engage in bad science. Start with desired conclusion and fight to maintain that conclusion no matter what. Apologists will object and say science does the same thing, that scientists are biased and build communities of groupthink who support an idea and block out criticism. They are right that this happens, but the problem is we consider this a failure of science, and hope to find ways to breakup groupthink. In contrast, the apologist admission is that apologetics is philosophically committed to groupthink as its highest ideal.