Falsification of the Mormon Church

[_Tarski]

I posted a parody of coggin's idea of falsifiability.

If you really wish to test the level of you cleverness, then rather than using the "Church of Leprechauns", how about using secular science--scientific laws in particular, or univeral statements generally accepted in secular science, both of which are non-falsifiable?

Once you do that, then we can talk about what your parody suggests about science, and then juxtapose that against what some may suppose non-falsifiability may mean in terms of religion. ;-)

Then, one may ask why some still worship at the alter of falsifiability when the prevailing philosophy in modern science is probabalistic induction?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

For your information:

1. It was not I that brought up a falsifiability claim worthy of ridicule or brought up falsifiability in the first place.
2. What needs to be falsifiable in science is specific claims that can be tested. One of those claims is not "science is true" or any such similar thing.
We don't make such universal claims. We leave that to religion.
As for what the foundational philosophy of science might be, I think you are mistaken. You are mistaken because science goes onward in roughly the same way dispite various philosophical fashions that may come and go. But it is generally agreed that if there is no practical way to test a theory even indirectly then that theory is not long for this world. Falsifiability, verifiability, theoretical clarity, and many other things are seen as important virtues but none form the foundation of science by themselves. Science is a practical human endeaver. We observe, think, collect data, have discourse, and form theories that we put up to be tested in anyway that we think relevant. We try to think of things that could defeat the theory and then perform those experiments.
We do not waste time trying to falsify the very notion of an experiment as a truth seeking method or the very notion of rationality and so on.
By the way, even historical theories can be tested. For example the theory of evolution makes predictions. A recent example is the human chromosome number two fusion. We test those things all the time by digging etc. It is falsifiable because just one good find in the lower geological strata could challenge the whole theory (finding a vertibrate far below the layers it should be found , for example)
Coggin examples were not appropriate. They are not what is meant by asking for falsifiable aspects of theory.
If you want an example, here
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ex=1&hl=en

Coggin's examples were not appropriate at all. they miss the mark wildly. They are not what is meant by asking for falsifiable aspects of a theory. No scientist would make statements of that sort. My parody shows why.

[_Gadianton]

Good lord Cog, you basically gave us the same lecture that Carl Sagan did on why religion can't be taken seriously. Because it is unfalsifiable. No one disagrees with you Cog on that point, it's just that, this is a bad thing for your position, not a good thing, lol!

[_wenglund]

I posted a parody of coggin's idea of falsifiability.

If you really wish to test the level of you cleverness, then rather than using the "Church of Leprechauns", how about using secular science--scientific laws in particular, or univeral statements generally accepted in secular science, both of which are non-falsifiable?

Once you do that, then we can talk about what your parody suggests about science, and then juxtapose that against what some may suppose non-falsifiability may mean in terms of religion. ;-)

Then, one may ask why some still worship at the alter of falsifiability when the prevailing philosophy in modern science is probabalistic induction?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

For your information:

1. It was not I that brought up a falsifiability claim worthy of ridicule or brought up falsifiability in the first place.
2. What needs to be falsifiable in science is specific claims that can be tested. One of those claims is not "science is true" or any such similar thing.
We don't make such universal claims. We leave that to religion.
As for what the foundational philosophy of science might be, I think you are mistaken. You are mistaken because science goes onward in roughly the same way dispite various philosophical fashions that may come and go. But it is generally agreed that if there is no practical way to test a theory even indirectly then that theory is not long for this world. Falsifiability, verifiability, theoretical clarity, and many other things are seen as important virtues but none form the foundation of science by themselves. Science is a practical human endeaver. We observe, think, collect data, have discourse, and form theories that we put up to be tested in anyway that we think relevant. We try to think of things that could defeat the theory and then perform those experiments.
We do not waste time trying to falsify the very notion of an experiment as a truth seeking method or the very notion of rationality and so on.
By the way, even historical theories can be tested. For example the theory of evolution makes predictions. A recent example is the human chromosome number two fusion. We test those things all the time by digging etc. It is falsifiable because just one good find in the lower geological strata could challenge the whole theory (finding a vertibrate far below the layers it should be found , for example)
Coggin examples were not appropriate. They are not what is meant by asking for falsifiable aspects of theory.
If you want an example, here
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ex=1&hl=en

Coggin's examples were not appropriate at all. they miss the mark wildly. They are not what is meant by asking for falsifiable aspects of a theory. No scientist would make statements of that sort. My parody shows why.

Are you suggesting that such a parody couldn't be drawn from science--whether you think it would miss the mark or not?

Of course individual aspects of evolution can be tested. But, the theory as a whole cannot be falsified--particularly given the paradigm-protecting use of ad hoc hypothesis.

It is for this and other reasons that much of modern science isn't so enamored with Popper's falsifiability, but prefer instead the philosophy of probablisitic induction--though Church critics seem to be behind the times.

The real question is, why are some critics applying falsifiability to religion and the Church? Don't they get that even for Popper, falsifiability was merely a way of distinquishing/categorizing what is "science" and what is not, and not what may be true or false or what may be reasonably believed or not?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Good lord Cog, you basically gave us the same lecture that Carl Sagan did on why religion can't be taken seriously. Because it is unfalsifiable. No one disagrees with you Cog on that point, it's just that, this is a bad thing for your position, not a good thing, lol!

Why is unfalsifiability "not a good thing"?

Are you aware that scientific laws are unfalsifiable? Are scientific laws "not a good thing"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_asbestosman]

Are you aware that scientific laws are unfalsifiable?

What on earth? Name one scientific law that is not falsifiable. There some scientific musings/ideas that may be unfalsifiable (e.g. string theory), but no scientific laws and no scientific theories.

Yes , the theory of evolution is falsifiable. If we find complex life far ahead of when evidence shows us that they should appear, then the theory of evolution would be disproved. There are other ways of falsifying it too.

[Guest]

Why is unfalsifiability "not a good thing"?

Are you aware that scientific laws are unfalsifiable? Are scientific laws "not a good thing"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Presumably, by "scientific laws" you mean, "metaphysical foundations to scientific reasoning." I'm presuming this because scientific laws are supposed to be testable in such a way that observations can count against them. Newtons laws, for instance, have been falsified in the meaningful sense of the term. Scientific laws are just formal descriptions about how nature behaves.

I'll also point out one thing others have not yet. When Coggins says, "unequivocal" he is setting himself up to argue against any conceievable disconfirming evidence by bringing up ad hocs defenses. Any theory - any - can be prevented from being unequivocally falsified by bringing up auxillary ad hoc hypotheses. If I say there is an elephant in my kitchen and you point out you looked and didn't see one, I can retort that the elephant is invisible or that your eyes aren't working. If you found a signed confession by Joseph Smith admitting he made the whole thing up, you could argue it is fraud, no matter how compelling it is that it is not. We can continue along that line infinitely. And yeah, he's basically responded to the charge of unfalsifiablity by retorting, "That's not true. If you wanted to falsify it, you'd just have to falsify it." The charge of unfalsifiability in the real world means that something doesn't make predictions that we can test that will count against the likelihood of it being true. If Coggins understood this, which he apparently does not, what he'd need to propose is hypothetical observations that would count against the likelihood of these things being true - you know empirical tests. At least DCP has the sense to propose highly implausible tests, such as the above mentioned signed confession. That would require a more complex understanding of "risky" prediction.

[_EAllusion]

It is for this and other reasons that much of modern science isn't so enamored with Popper's falsifiability, but prefer instead the philosophy of probablisitic induction--though Church critics seem to be behind the times.

Confirmation theory doesn't deny the importance of falsifiability. Most scientists and philosophers of science would still agree it is important. Not accepting Popper's naïve falsificationism is not the same as rejecting falsifiablity as a criterion of sound scientific theories. Thanks for explaining what's going on in philosophy of science, though.

[_antishock8]

I love how people just make crap up and then dare someone to provide proof that it isn't twoo.

1) Prove that a giant sensient ape named Glorom doesn't live on a planet named Aldestair in the nebula Xoron in Galaxy R-2508. Ha. You can't. I win! I win! The giant ape exists!! Yessssss... *pumps fist*

Anyway. The burden of proof is on the advocate, not the skeptic... But since when did Believers let a good fact get in the way of their assertion?

[_GoodK]

Coggins first burden is to prove God exists. Not sit around and see who can disprove it.

Second burden is to prove that the God that exists is the one that Joseph Smith Jr. formed his church on. But if you can't even prove number God exists, what are you doing?

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Christopher Hitchens.

My sig line quote comes to mind...

[_cinepro]

Coggins your line of argument runs into dangerous territory.

The danger being that religion needs to be effective in a person's life. It needs to have a real, lasting effect. A Church needs to continually make its members believe that attending that Church (and paying tithing) produces a visible, real effect.

If you try to reduce Mormonism to a set of unfalsifiable (and therefore unverifiable) factoids, you are on the road to making it into nothing more than a fairytale.

The CoJCoLdS isn't based on abstract theological concepts or ancient history. It is based on the idea that God is real. He has a physical body of flesh and bone. He gives his followers actual power to do things that other non-Mormons can't do. That God takes an active role in the individual lives of His followers, and the management of His Church.

But the believing LDS is faced with a contradiction between these real claims, and the uncomfortable realization that none of these so-called "real" effects can ever actually be seen. Sure, their belief is continually reinforced through a closed loop of anecdotal evidence and teary-eyed good feelings, but if even the dimmest light of questioning is focused on these so-called effects, it falls to tatters and gets swept into the dust heap of superstition unless the traditional coping mechanism of "faith before works" or numerous other excuses can be quickly invoked.

Science, in all its wisdom, has encountered similar problems in measurement, where the sample of data is too small or infrequent. In such a situation, the scope of the data must be increased, either through the size of the pool (many more samples), or the scope of time (many more years of data collection).

That idea can be applied to LDS claims as well. Sure, you may not be able to take three high priests in one afternoon and prove the existence or non-existence of "priesthood power", but what if you take 6 million Priesthood holders over 178 years? What if you take all other religions as the control group? In a micro scale, Mormonism is untestable and unverifiable, but I believe it can be examined at the macro level.

It should also be noted that making a list of a few LDS beliefs that can't be tested is not the same as proving that there are no testable LDS beliefs. Sure, we can't prove whether Jesus was resurrected or not, but have you really considered the testability of every Mormon claim? Are you really certain that LDS don't believe anything that could be "tested" (or about which data could be collected and a testable hypothesis formed, with repeatable and falsifiable data collection subsequently carried out?)

Years ago, someone once asked how the Church would be different if it were "true" (a thought exercise to test the non-believer's expectations). These were my initial thoughts, based on the Church's claims for authority, power and God's influence:

I believe the surety of whether something is "true" or not doesn't rest on one piece of evidence or experience. The knowledge only comes piece by piece, question by question, almost like a sculptor chiseling away to reveal his masterpiece. So we don't have one experience or piece of evidence upon which we base our knowledge, we have dozens, or hundreds, or thousands. Different pieces of a puzzle that combine to make a coherent picture. (I'm just crazy with metaphors today).

So, when people ask me "what would it take", I respond that I'm not looking for one piece of evidence. I'm looking for a thousand. It should also be noted that I believe the burden of "proof" rests on the person making the claim, so I need evidence supporting the Church's claims before I will believe.

If the claims of the Book of Mormon were true, we would have every Mesoamerican researcher publishing papers saying "You know, it looks like we have a colony of Christ believing Hebrews here." And over the years, that belief would get more and more evidence, not less. There would be evidences of massive battles and wars of extinction around 400AD, metal plates with odd, Egyptian-like writing turning up in digs all over mesoamerica, and vestiges of Biblical beliefs in Adam and Eve, Noah's ark, the tower of babel, and the atonement turning up in central American murals and stelae. And the date of 33AD would be very, very notable for the huge change in population, and a consolidation of beliefs to pure, New Testament Christianity for hundreds of years over the entire proposed Book of Mormon geography. FARMS would publish article after article about how there really were horses and chariots and steel swords back then, instead of explaining why not.

God wouldn't hide Book of Mormon restoration evidences like the breastplate, sword of Laban, and Moroni's stone box.

Modern day spiritual claims would build up to an incredible "evidence"; you would see BYU conducting research breakthroughs in every field that surpass anything else in the world.

LDS artists, authors, filmmakers, and musicians would consistently amaze us with creations that surpass the skill of any gentile talent. LDS athletes would be breaking world records right and left, and BYU would have scores of championship trophies in every sport and field; with the priesthood, Holy Ghost, and "health in their navel(s) and marrow to their bones", there just wouldn't be competition.

In every field, church members would show a level of knowledge and understanding that surpasses what could be done without the "Holy Ghost".

Priesthood blessings would work more frequently than a placebo, patriarchal blessings would be more accurate than a $5 palm reading, and faithful church members would never, ever fall for medical, financial or any other kinds of scams, especially after praying about it.

When anyone says something that isn't the Truth in Church (including urban legends and Faith-Promoting Rumor's that aren't true), the whole congregation would know instantly by the spirit.

When a member of the ward is a child molester, or cheating on their spouse, they wouldn't be called to positions of authority; leaders would be especially inspired by the "spirit" to not put a child molester in charge of the blazer scouts.

Our prophets, seers, and revelators would make prophecies that are better and more accurate than Nostradamus, translate the Book of Mormon into other languages with a seer stone instead of the BYU translation department, translate the Book of Joseph so it could be added to the Pearl of Great Price where it should be, and reveal incredible knowledge that will still be consistent with science 200 years from now.

The JST would be used by every Bible scholar, because incredibly, it just gets more things right compared to the ancient manuscripts. And the JST would even be used by the Church, instead of being a footnote to the KJV. Or President Hinckley would finish the JST, and we would take the "translated correctly" part out of the Articles of Faith, because now it is translated correctly.

Official Doctrine wouldn't need to be defined after we know whether or not the Church leader was wrong. It would be clearly stated, without equivocation.