Gemli explains...

[I Have Questions]

Not only that, Peterson is saying that “stories” is the best they’ve got.

Here is something that puzzles me. Why do believers shy away from the things god commands? Mormon god commands to kill. Mormon god commands marriage to children. Mormon god commands gifts of money. Mormon god commands homophobia. For the average believer this commandment usually comes from local leaders and the stories their leaders tell them. But when pressed to defend some of these commandments they bend their normal humanity to construct a different story.

If you’re looking for consistency, Mormonism ain’t the place to find it. Everything is malleable depending on what is needed.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I mean, RI’s argument presents an intriguing inquiry into the notion of evidence and the treatment of stories as such. However, it adopts a liberal definition of evidence, encompassing even the faintest hints of probability. While this inclusivity may seem technical, it dilutes the rigor necessary for meaningful discourse.

I’d suggest his position kind of, I dunno, grapples with the classification of stories, particularly ancient narratives, without providing a framework for discernment. It acknowledges the challenge of interpreting texts from antiquity as evidence, but falls short of offering a clear methodology for distinguishing between historical accounts and fanciful tales.

To whit, his position fails, in my opinion, to address the inherent biases and interpretive pitfalls associated with treating religious texts as evidentiary sources.

I would say in fairness to RI, that achieving the right nuance and critical rigor required for a comprehensive analysis of the ‘truthfulness’ of a story is probably a fool's errand, thus it falls back to the person making a claim to provide it to the skeptic.

In summary RI raises important legal questions, but his argument lacks nuance and critical rigor in its analysis.

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

Straight from Sic et Non today and keeping with the theme of this thread we seem to go straight back to stories.

For example, I think that the witnesses are our strongest point of offense. I simply see no way around the implications of their testimony, though some have tried to get around it.

I'm inclined to agree that the statements of the witnesses are the best evidence that the LDS church is what it purports to be. Unfortunately for Peterson, "best evidence" does not imply "strong evidence," "reliable evidence," or "sufficient evidence."

[Res Ipsa]

I mean, RI’s argument presents an intriguing inquiry into the notion of evidence and the treatment of stories as such. However, it adopts a liberal definition of evidence, encompassing even the faintest hints of probability. While this inclusivity may seem technical, it dilutes the rigor necessary for meaningful discourse.

I’d suggest his position kind of, I dunno, grapples with the classification of stories, particularly ancient narratives, without providing a framework for discernment. It acknowledges the challenge of interpreting texts from antiquity as evidence, but falls short of offering a clear methodology for distinguishing between historical accounts and fanciful tales.

To whit, his position fails, in my opinion, to address the inherent biases and interpretive pitfalls associated with treating religious texts as evidentiary sources.

I would say in fairness to RI, that achieving the right nuance and critical rigor required for a comprehensive analysis of the ‘truthfulness’ of a story is probably a fool's errand, thus it falls back to the person making a claim to provide it to the skeptic.

In summary RI raises important legals questions, but his argument lacks nuance and critical rigor in its analysis.

- Doc

As I've said, I consider the question of what should be considered as evidence a gatekeeping function. Much of what you find lacking in my approach falls under assigning the proper weight to any given piece of evidence, as well as comparing the weight of that evidence to other available evidence. My approach to the question: "what should we consider as evidence" is not intended to offer a "clear methodology for distinguishing between historical accounts and fanciful tales."

[I Have Questions]

Here’s a Google definition of “evidence” that I think works for us:

evidence
/ĕv′ĭ-dəns/

noun
A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.
"The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weighed the evidence for and against the hypothesis."

Something indicative; an indication or set of indications.
"saw no evidence of grief on the mourner's face."

The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects.

[Res Ipsa]

Here’s a Google definition of “evidence” that I think works for us:

evidence
/ĕv′ĭ-dəns/

noun
A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.
"The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weighed the evidence for and against the hypothesis."

Something indicative; an indication or set of indications.
"saw no evidence of grief on the mourner's face."

The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects.

OK, now define "helpful," "indicative," and "may be proven" and apply them in a consistent way to the witness statements in the Book of Mormon and eyewitness testimony of an assault.

[I Have Questions]

Here’s a Google definition of “evidence” that I think works for us:

evidence
/ĕv′ĭ-dəns/

noun
A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.
"The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weighed the evidence for and against the hypothesis."

Something indicative; an indication or set of indications.
"saw no evidence of grief on the mourner's face."

The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects.

OK, now define "helpful," "indicative," and "may be proven" and apply them in a consistent way to the witness statements in the Book of Mormon and eyewitness testimony of an assault.

Let me solve world peace first lol!

[Res Ipsa]

OK, now define "helpful," "indicative," and "may be proven" and apply them in a consistent way to the witness statements in the Book of Mormon and eyewitness testimony of an assault.

Let me solve world peace first lol!

Exactly!

[I Have Questions]

Where I’m getting to is that stories can be classed as evidence, but within the broad category of “evidences” stories are at the least convincing end of the spectrum. Especially if those stories are accounts of something someone was told by someone, who then passed it on to someone else who wrote their version of it down.

Oral testimony is, I think, the least credible form of evidence due to well documented problems with how memory works, and the susceptibility to bias and peer pressure and coercion and other motives.

One of the questions I think Gemli has asked is: all religions have evidentiary stories that testify of the truthfulness of their particular religion. And there’s thousands of variants. Why should he take Mormonism’s stories and study their veracity, but not one of the other thousands of options? I don’t think that’s been answered.

[Res Ipsa]

Where I’m getting to is that stories can be classed as evidence, but within the broad category of “evidences” stories are at the least convincing end of the spectrum. Especially if those stories are accounts of something someone was told by someone, who then passed it on to someone else who wrote their version of it down.

Oral testimony is, I think, the least credible form of evidence due to well documented problems with how memory works, and the susceptibility to bias and peer pressure and coercion and other motives.

One of the questions I think Gemli has asked is: all religions have evidentiary stories that testify of the truthfulness of their particular religion. And there’s thousands of variants. Why should he take Mormonism’s stories and study their veracity, but not one of the other thousands of options? I don’t think that’s been answered.

I think that puts the two of us in the same ballpark. I would focus on the specific context content of whatever story we're talking about, but I would apply the same kinds of criteria for determining the weight of any specific piece of evidence. For example, I would take into consideration whether an account was first hand, the time between event and the account, the existence of any corroborating or contradictory evidence, the opportunity for cross-examination or similar types of questions, other statements made by the person telling the story, did the storyteller draft the story, etc.

I think that Gemli asks a good question. I can answer that question for myself, but not for Gemli.