Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non

[_Darth J]

Dr. Shades:

I'm glad at least someone is thoughtfully considering the relevant literature.

[Guest]

But if you're going to take your ball and go home, then I'm going to be indignant, too. Until I'm convinced that you have a working knowledge of how many hit dice a hobgoblin has and what your armor class rating would be if you're wearing plate mail and carrying a +1 shield, I'm not talking about Dungeons and Dragons with you anymore.

Now this is absolutely hilarious coming from a guy who thinks that "illusionist" is a class.

[_SteelHead]

Even given that one believes is supernatural events, and accepts the presentation of the plates to the witnesses by an angel, how do you prove that it was a angel from god and not an agent of the devil?

In a New Testament bailiwick the above scenario is warned against in the form of warnings of angels with additional gospels.

The whole Mormon epistemology in knowing the truth is an exercise in begging the question.

[_Darth J]

But if you're going to take your ball and go home, then I'm going to be indignant, too. Until I'm convinced that you have a working knowledge of how many hit dice a hobgoblin has and what your armor class rating would be if you're wearing plate mail and carrying a +1 shield, I'm not talking about Dungeons and Dragons with you anymore.

Now this is absolutely hilarious coming from a guy who thinks that "illusionist" is a class.

First Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons™ Character Creation
AD&D Character Class: Illusionist

A sub-class of magic-users, illusionists have similar restrictions on armor and weapons, relying mostly on spell power. Illusionist spells are more limited in range and in number, but are generally more powerful in the lower levels; furthermore, illusionists advance much more rapidly to higher levels in the class, and their most powerful spells are obtained at a lower level.

The illusionist must have a minimum intelligence of 15 and an minimum dexterity of 16, with only constitution and comeliness allowed to be below 6. They may use any potions which are not limited to fighters only, illusionist scrolls, magic-user scrolls which contain spells useable by illusionists (all first level magic user spells are useable), all rings, specific rods, wands, and staves, miscellaneous magic items usable by all classes, crystal balls with no added powers, all robes but the robe of the arch-magi, any written works or books useable by magic-users, magic daggers, and any artifacts which would be useable devices if they were not magical (e.g., not a magic sword). At level ten, illusionists can make magic items which sustain illusion, through a complex process.

At level ten, an illusionist may construct a stronghold similar to that of an eleventh-level magic-user, with the same results. All other details of illusionists match those for magic users in regard to hit points, combat tables, and other rules.

Jesus Christ, Simon Belmont, can't you even get something right by accident?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Okay, but as far as I am aware, the frequency of claims about angels and visions leading to the discovery of ancient artifacts is zero. Don't we need some confirmed instances of this really happening to establish a base rate that is more than zero?

Not really, because you're not really ever going to get a hard-and-fast, single-value probability. What you're getting is a confidence interval. If we examine a good-sized sample of cases and find that none of them are valid, that basically gives us a confidence interval that hovers around zero but is not definitively zero. In other words, we can't exclude the possibility of exceptions, but we can say that the probability of a valid case appears to be very low.

[_Darth J]

Okay, but as far as I am aware, the frequency of claims about angels and visions leading to the discovery of ancient artifacts is zero. Don't we need some confirmed instances of this really happening to establish a base rate that is more than zero?

No, not really. If we examine a good-sized sample of cases and find that none of them are valid, that basically gives us a confidence interval that hovers around zero but is not definitively zero. In other words, we can't exclude the possibility of exceptions, but we can say that the probability of a valid case appears to be very low.

You still have to put a number in the equation, though. So you have to have some way to decide what that >0 number is, right? And there's also accounting for the factual claim imbedded in all of this. It's not merely that an angel appeared and a voice said "this book is true" (I'm shifting to the Three Witnesses right now, and also ignoring for the moment when David Whitmer said the angel had no form). It's that the ancient civilizations of the Nephites and the Jaredites really existed somewhere in the pre-Columbian Americas. So even allowing a Bayesian possibility that some supernatural event did happen, it would be necessary but not sufficient for the Book of Mormon to be true.

Actually, even that last thing is not really accurate. The Book of Mormon could be true (hypothetically) without the Three Witnesses having their claimed experience.

[_RayAgostini]

It's just rich for you to be saying this about me, when I have made no secret that Mormon apologetics was the catalyst for my loss of faith, and you know it because you commented in the thread where I told my exit story.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13596&hilit=winner

My sincere condolences on your loss of faith. Would you like it restored? So now, having lost faith because of "apologetics", it's their fault that you now think it's a "silly cult" with "ridiculous beliefs".

That's going to be hard to top.

[_Darth J]

It's just rich for you to be saying this about me, when I have made no secret that Mormon apologetics was the catalyst for my loss of faith, and you know it because you commented in the thread where I told my exit story.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13596&hilit=winner

My sincere condolences on your loss of faith. Would you like it restored?

As has often been said on this board, could you force yourself to believe in Santa Claus now?

So now, having lost faith because of "apologetics", it's their fault that you now think it's a "silly cult" with "ridiculous beliefs".

That's going to be hard to top.

I can see why you have a soft spot for Mormon apologetics, Ray, seeing as how it comports with your preferred methodology of making crap up and then carrying on as if the crap you made up out of nowhere is an established fact. As to your current demonstration of that methodology, I did not say that it is apologetics' fault that the LDS Church is a silly cult with ridiculous beliefs. That's the fault of Joseph Smith, Thomas S. Monson, and a lot of people in between those bookends. The fault of Mormon apologetics is that it catalyzes that realization.

I do have a suggestion for you, though. If you really want to advance the UFO gospel, stop talking about it. There might be a reasonable person who can make a coherent argument in favor of a proposition who should be talking about UFO's. But when someone who is the opposite of that becomes an evangelist for the UFO gospel, it sort of taints the underlying subject matter.

[_RayAgostini]

I can see why you have a soft spot for Mormon apologetics, Ray, seeing as how it comports with your preferred methodology of making s*** up and then carrying on as if the s*** you made up out of nowhere is an established fact.

And your evidence for this is......?

I don't apologise, nor do I advocate apologetics. Would you like to check out my blog over the past three years and point out where I engage in apologetics? Be warned, however, that it is pseudoskeptic-unfriendly.

Like to address This entry while you're at it. Be warned, however, that it's not a UFO blog. After you've read through the links, archives and watched the videos, get back to me with your detailed refutations.

As to your current demonstration of that methodology, I did not say that it is apologetics' fault that the LDS Church is a silly cult with ridiculous beliefs. That's the fault of Joseph Smith, Thomas S. Monson, and a lot of people in between those bookends. The fault of Mormon apologetics is that it catalyzes that realization.

Make sure you inform the Mormons you're "defending" from "unjust criticism" know this!

I do have a suggestion for you, though. If you really want to advance the UFO gospel, stop talking about it. There might be a reasonable person who can make a coherent argument in favor of a proposition who should be talking about UFO's. But when someone who is the opposite of that becomes an evangelist for the UFO gospel, it sort of taints the underlying subject matter.

I have a suggestion for you too, Darth J. If you want to help Mormons who encounter apologetics, who might "lose faith" like you did, don't say anything about it being a "silly cult" with "ridiculous beliefs". In fact, maybe you should leave it to someone like John Dehlin and just shut up?

[_Kishkumen]

Kish, in the thread-that-will-soon-eventuate, will you, Darth and/or Scratch show that, apart from anecdotal evidence or what is accepted here as truth, that members of The Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints, in general, are adversely affected by what is published by the NAMI, or that a "rescue mission from NAMI apologists" is needed?

Why don't you ask the various members and former members of the Church who have been subjected to these so-called "reviews"? People like D. Michael Quinn, Simon Southerton, Rodney Meldrum, Grant Palmer, etc.? We have a thread full of "reviews" in which members of the Church had their faith and intentions called into question in a journal published through BYU. Maybe they would have preferred that such reviews had not been published and did not continue to be hosted with the apparent approval of the LDS Church. I am pretty sure John Dehlin raised this as a specific concern regarding Greg Smith's so-called "review" of him.

As I said, Ray, FAIR is always there. SHIELDS is out there too. Maybe new life could be breathed into them when these juicy slams find their way into those venues. In a sense this is a great opportunity. It shouldn't be greeted with the level of suspicion and "Church Lady" attitude that so many are showing. It simply is the case that a number of members have a bad view of the apologists that unfortunately rubs off on the Church. If the Church were to make the distinction clearer between the aspects of apologetics that they will support, and the slams against members that undermine the larger apologetic mission and damage their image, then I think everyone would be better off.

It's just a friendly suggestion. I don't have to accept that the Eight Witnesses are compelling or persuasive in order to offer it. The value of my suggestion is not at all dependent on how personally nice I am to Daniel, Bill, Louis, Greg, and Russell. Any smart organization would not greet good ideas with the question, "but weren't you rude to one of our employees?"

Have a good think about whether this is "personal", or the "antidote" that members desperately need. Then think about why Darth J would want to criticise Mormon apologists for occasionally criticising their own members for "sloppy/uninformed apologetics", when he thinks it's a "silly cult" with ridiculous beliefs not worth the time of day.

Since the same apologists who slam members through NAMI now could continue to slam them to their heart's content in other fora not hosted by the Church, I am surprised that you think this is personal at all. I am not calling on these guys to improve their morality, attitude, or personal niceness. Sometimes people have good ideas that could improve the world. Others listen and make those things happen.

My idea that I am freely offering is that BYU should not host the publication of slams on members in good standing. I think everyone would be better off for it: the Church, the membership, and the apologists themselves.