The voyage of Lehi and Company

[_EAllusion]

It's not possible for a human being to give the same serious attention to all religious claims.

That wasn't the claim. I was asked if I gave the same consideration to every paradigm I encounter. I explained that I did, and I gave examples of religious paradigms with which I've had experience. The point was to show that when encountered with a religious claim I don't flippantly dismiss it, but take it seriously. My capacity to engage every single religious claim is irrelevant.

That's also not possible unless the same consideration you are giving is extremely cursory or you are insulated from the diversity of religious thought to a much greater degree than I'd expect. There's just too much out there. The term "paradigm" doesn't seem to mean something concrete here, Kuhn or no. I gather it's meant to take into account the fact that among the broad categories of religion you referenced there are wildly different religious views.

I think you are creating a strawman if you think rationing one's time and effort towards different ideas about the world based on underlying prior probabilities is the equivalent of flippant dismissal.

[_Morrissey]

It's not possible for a human being to give the same serious attention to all religious claims. There are numerous new religious movements with thousands of followers springing up and dying down constantly. Mak spent as much effort on Bwiti? Really? I'm pretty sure I can rapidly pull together a few hundred NRM's, of which I'm sure there is at least one that hasn't gotten more than a cursory glance.

I also don't think it is particularly controversial to argue that we should spend our time and talent on explanations with greater prior probability to the extent we are interested in efficiency in investigating the world. (Our desires, of course, can pull us in different directions.) You don't need to be a Bayesian to think that. In fact, I don't think you can intellectually function without implicitly accepting that. There's simply no way Mak, when seeking to explain X, takes every single theory of X (which is theoretically infinite) on equal grounds and treats all with the same weight. Prior probability isn't arbitrary dismissiveness. It's understanding that there's some explanatory virtue in an idea fitting in with what we do know and explanatory vice in an idea not fitting in with our framework of knowledge. If I'm missing a sandwich, the theory that my partner ate it is at the outset preferable to a theory that it was stolen by an invisible dragon. Evidence can upturn this, but prior probability tells us something about the quality of evidence needed and what we should be spending our limited resources on looking into. Any theory of knowing that doesn't account for prejudicing ideas that better cohere to our established frameworks of knowledge is incomplete.

Thanks EAllusion. You said it far more eloquently than I did, but that's the gist of it.

See Mak, that wasn't so hard.

[Guest]

It's not possible for a human being to give the same serious attention to all religious claims.

That wasn't the claim. I was asked if I gave the same consideration to every paradigm I encounter. I explained that I did, and I gave examples of religious paradigms with which I've had experience. The point was to show that when encountered with a religious claim I don't flippantly dismiss it, but take it seriously. My capacity to engage every single religious claim is irrelevant.

Aw, but that's where you're wrong, and that's the point EAllusion and I are making. One's incapacity to engage every single religious claim is completely relevant in that it requires, therefore, that we develop guidelines, rules of thumb, criteria, or whatever you want to call it, for filtering out competing claims and determining, a priori, which merit our serious consideration.

As I've stated ad nauseum, the criteria I tend to employ filters out claims that are fantastical, superstitious, magical, or wildly implausible.

Note that these criteria do not filter out things such as existence of God, near death experiences, or the existence of an eternal soul. There are a whole host of claims that I do not rule out a priori--in fact most claims that I encounter in life.

They do, however, filter out the existence of a large, lost pre-Columbian MesoAmerican civilization that worshiped Jesus, reared horses, rode in chariots, and wielded steel swords. They also filter out angels with flaming sword threatening destruction for not committing adultery, stories of golden plates, religious belief systems that espouse sexism and homophobia, obedience to authority as a primary human virtue, one 'correct' path in life only, and death as just deserts for disobedience (see Noah's ark and Nephi 3).

[_maklelan]

That's also not possible unless the same consideration you are giving is extremely cursory or you are insulated from the diversity of religious thought to a much greater degree than I'd expect. There's just too much out there.

You don't seem to be following me.

I think you are creating a strawman if you think rationing one's time and effort towards different ideas about the world based on underlying prior probabilities is the equivalent of flippant dismissal.

He seems to be expending a significant amount of his time and effort telling me I'm stupid and he's not. He's clearly being flippant and dismissive with the evidence.

[_Morrissey]

That's also not possible unless the same consideration you are giving is extremely cursory or you are insulated from the diversity of religious thought to a much greater degree than I'd expect. There's just too much out there.

You don't seem to be following me.

I think you are creating a strawman if you think rationing one's time and effort towards different ideas about the world based on underlying prior probabilities is the equivalent of flippant dismissal.

He seems to be expending a significant amount of his time and effort telling me I'm stupid and he's not. He's clearly being flippant and dismissive with the evidence.

Wrong. That not what I'm trying to do.

I am not clearly being flippant and dismissive with the evidence. I told Mak that I don't find his explanation for NHM to be compellling, gave him what I think is a far more parsimonious and plausible explanation for NHM, which led in turn to a more general discussion of whether it is appropriate to dismiss, a priori, certain truth claims.

How the hell I've been flippant and dismissive with the evidence is a mystery to me. That I disagree with Mak's view of what constitutes good evidence or good means of inquiry does not make me flippant and dismissive.

Mak is being far too sensitive, or something.

[_EAllusion]

You don't seem to be following me.

I don't think you are capable of treating all religious beliefs you encounter equally seriously unless you aren't treating any with any depth or you don't really encounter much in the way of religious beliefs. Mind you I don't think either is the case. If you want to instead argue that you by "serious" you mean don't automatically dismiss as impossible, I certainly wouldn't advocate that and I don't think Morrissey would either. I don't think there's any sort of moral or rational obligation to apply the same time and intellectual rigor every idea one encounters. That's a terrible idea that you can't take seriously yourself and function in the world. Moreover, I don't think it is helpful or necessary to define "objective" as a virtue in that manner.

He seems to be expending a significant amount of his time and effort telling me I'm stupid and he's not. He's clearly being flippant and dismissive with the evidence.

He's being a bit flippant towards you, not the evidence or lack thereof as it were. Perhaps I missed it, but there doesn't seem to be any conversation on how dumb you are while he's not. In fact, he implied you are smart. He said you believed in at least one dumb thing. It seems this is not unlike you viewing someone telling you that they don't think you've interpreted an experience correctly as tantamount to calling you a dumb hillbilly. Pretty big chip apparently.

[_JohnStuartMill]

LessUsee:
This is a classic example of my favorite kinds of quotes from the “objective” thinkers here in the GSTP™.

It’s when I read things like this that I feel myself inclined to respond such as I recently did to “JohnStuartMill,” another of the arrogantly assured apostates who are so curiously drawn to this message board:

If JSM winds up in hell, it will be with Joseph Smith, Jr. (albeit, in different circles.)

Heh, "hell". Probably the only thing sillier than Mormonism's early history is mainstream Christian theology. "Yes, of course an omnibenevolent God would create a place where people don't believe in Him will suffer for eternity!"
...


The Christian God is a giant asshole. No wonder you worship Him.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Heh, "hell". Probably the only thing sillier than Mormonism's early history is mainstream Christian theology. "Yes, of course an omnibenevolent God would create a place where people don't believe in Him will suffer for eternity!"

4. We find in the prophet Isaiah, that the fire with which each one is punished is described as his own; for he says, "Walk in the light of your own fire, and in the flame which ye have kindled." By these words it seems to be indicated that every sinner kindles for himself the flame of his own fire, and is not plunged into some fire which has been already kindled by another, or was in existence before himself. Of this fire the fuel and food are our sins, which are called by the Apostle Paul “wood, and hay, and stubble."--Origen, De Principiis 2.10.4

[Guest]

Hello,

Well, unfortunately Mr. Maklelan declined my invitation. Twice. So, I suppose I will engage in an attempt to address "NHM" in an overarching manner. I will try to be as concise as possible in my thoughts.

1) The LDS church claims a stone altar in Yemen bears the inscription "NHM". LDS apologists link this to the Book of Mormon place name "Nahom". This is presented as evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

2) Lehi's party travelled South by Southeast more or less along the Red Sea until they reached Nahom. I believe Ishmael was buried there according to the story.

3) No other specific places were described in any useful manner.

4) The Hebraic word/name "NHM" could be Nahom, but if could be Nahum, Niham, Noham, Nuhim, Nuham, so on and so forth. There are 25 possible combinations; 30 if you leave the second vowell out completely.

5) Apologists point out "NHM" must be "Nahom" because the place is found near a cemetery, and the word "nahom" means "to be sorry". However, if the consonants "NHM" are pronounced as written, it should be pronounced with the H as hard, not soft (this is what we find in "nahom" to be sorry"). So the sound would be like "ch" as in Scottish "loch" and we should expect to read of a Book of Mormon placename of "Nachom, not "Nahom." The Book of Mormon placename doesn't fit the Hebrew word "to be sorry".

6) Book of Mormon etymology varies wildly, and "Nahom" is explicable in contrast to other words unique to the text.

7) If the "NHM" altar is the most important piece of geographical "evidence" Mormons have for their claims then they do not have any evidence at all. It is simply conjecture. It is an irrelevancy.


Very Respectfully,

Docotr CamNC4Me

[_William Schryver]

The LDS church claims a stone altar in Yemen bears the inscription "NHM".

I don't believe the "LDS church" has ever claimed anything concerning a stone altar in Yemen.