Historical Book of Mormon under Siege

[_Chap]

I agree except that it requires religion to be evidence based instead of faith based. Such an approach would diminish the need for religion altogether, would it not?

Why, that would be just ... awful.

But, my dear Glaucon, I seem for the moment to have forgotten why it would be so dreadful if we did not need religion. It was so hot coming here through the Agora today ... I am perhaps just a little muddle-headed as a result. Could you perhaps have the kindness to remind me?

[_sock puppet]

For me, it would depend on what Jenkins refers to as extraordinary evidence. If as walking to my car to go home after work, someone mentions that there's a car accident blocking an intersection that happens to be on my regular route home, I might require no other evidence to simply take another route home that afternoon. Auto accidents are an occurrence I have myself witnessed, and have reason from experience to believe occur fairly frequently. And, my actions based on it are a relatively slight inconvenience. So with no further adieu, I accept the evidence and re-route my trip home that evening.

On the other hand, if someone even many that I come in contact with daily tell me that a now historical figure that lived in the first half of the 19th Century claims to have been visited by angels, one repeatedly, gave him gold plates, commanded that he translate it, and then return the gold plates after only allowing a handful of others--also whom I've never met, as they too are not merely historical figures--I would require extraordinary evidence for these propositions before I alter the way I live my life daily over the remaining decades of it, in hope of some afterlife reward. After all, I have not had angelic visitations. I know of no one who claims to have. The corporate successors in SLC do not even want to discuss their special witness of resurrected Jesus; "it's too sacred" to testify to in detail. No, before I would base a change of course of how I live for the rest of my life, including forking over 10% of my income and much of my time and attention, I would need extraordinary evidence of these claimed events commensurate with how extraordinary they are.

I agree except that it requires religion to be evidence based instead of faith based. Such an approach would diminish the need for religion altogether, would it not?

Yep, it sure does.

[_Res Ipsa]

I too have said the following a few times, though less eloquently:

See http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/05/mormons-and-new-world-history/.

He opts for two skeptic cliché's here. I take issue with the first. It's entirely possible to "prove a negative." It's possible to write deductive proofs that have a negative statement as its conclusion and it is possible to prove negative statements in the sense of providing sufficient evidence or argument to compel acceptance by any rational person. "Dodos are extinct" is a negative statement, and it's proven to the extent anything can be emprically proven. What the "cannot prove a negative" notion is grasping towards is the problem of proving universal statements. But proving that no swans are black is as much of a challenge as proving all swans are white when it comes to this phiilsophical problem.

When it comes to the idea of "extraordinary claims" requiring "extraordinary" evidence, I am of two minds here. It's easy enough to say that the claim requires sufficient evidence. However, this cliché' is getting at a ordinary Bayesian intuition that the more removed from our normal understanding a claim is, the lower its prior probability, the more evidence we need to accept it. That's true. If you establish the Book of Mormon is an ancient record with evidence, you also simultaneously establish the existence of telepathy, prophecy, etc. You also have sufficient reason to reject all the the boatloads of reasons to think it was a fabrication. It requires that much more potent evidence to convince.

The apologists who think they have sound archaeological and linguistic evidence that should convince informed listeners hilariously undersell what they are supposed to be proving. That the Book of Mormon is an ancient record of a heretofore unknown civilization is wild enough, but they also think they have proof of telepathy through careful analysis secular historical evidence. Think about how crazy that sounds for a second. Imagine getting up at a conference and declaring that your linguistic analysis of this pseudo-Biblical tale produced by a 19th century New Yorker demonstrates that telepathy is real.

I don't think the first is really a "skeptic" cliché. It's a sloppy statement that I've seen lots of folks -- skeptic and non-skeptic -- make. In context, I don't think anyone claims that a deductive negative proof is impossible. The claim is made with respect to inductive proof. A better way of stating it is that, because of the difficulty of gathering evidence to prove a negative, it is more rational to place the burden of proof on the person making a positive claim. As an academic, Jenkins should have been more precise in his language.

I also don't think the "extraordinary evidence" point is fairly characterized as a "cliché." It is a yardstick for measuring evidence that, as you point out, is grounded in Bayesian reasoning. Any piece of evidence should not be evaluated in a vacuum, but in the context of what is already known. If the prior probability of the Book of Mormon being a historical record is low, based on archeological evidence as well as Smith's claims about where it came from, then the evidence being examined would have to be extraordinary to balance out the low prior probability. Characterizing this as a "cliché" sounds overly dismissive to me.

[_Gunnar]

I don't think the first is really a "skeptic" cliché. It's a sloppy statement that I've seen lots of folks -- skeptic and non-skeptic -- make. In context, I don't think anyone claims that a deductive negative proof is impossible. The claim is made with respect to inductive proof. A better way of stating it is that, because of the difficulty of gathering evidence to prove a negative, it is more rational to place the burden of proof on the person making a positive claim. As an academic, Jenkins should have been more precise in his language.

I also don't think the "extraordinary evidence" point is fairly characterized as a "cliché." It is a yardstick for measuring evidence that, as you point out, is grounded in Bayesian reasoning. Any piece of evidence should not be evaluated in a vacuum, but in the context of what is already known. If the prior probability of the Book of Mormon being a historical record is low, based on archeological evidence as well as Smith's claims about where it came from, then the evidence being examined would have to be extraordinary to balance out the low prior probability. Characterizing this as a "cliché" sounds overly dismissive to me.

Excellent! I think you have hit the nail on the head, and have placed the most reasonable and properly balanced perspective on this issue I have yet read.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I see that Neal Rappleye is going toe-to-toe with Jenkins in the "Comments" section, and was even so kind as to provide Jenkins with a link to a bibliography on his (i.e., Rappleye's) blog. Jenkins's reaction is classic:

Some other points. I looked at your bibliography, and groaned when I saw how many of them were from the basically worthless source of FARMS. Really? Of the 40-plus sources on your list, the vast majority are from hard core apologist outlets, and all but a handful are Mormon journals or publishers.

This was pretty devastating, too:

Well, this is startling. In his JAS article, then, Dr. Aston is tacking a very poorly documented period, where actual contemporary texts are as precious as diamonds. And here he has what he believes to be a strictly contemporary narrative text (a scripture, in fact) referring to the tribe's territory and presumed capital. If genuine, this would throw huge light on the site in context, and offer invaluable evidence of long term trading and/or communication routes. It would also provide irresistible color to the narrative. I can't imagine a scholar acting thus with a document he knew to be genuine. And as you point out, he could easily support the authenticity of the Nahom passage by referring to the lengthy list of supporting publications you yourself have collected at your website, lest the journal editors be in any doubt about the weight of the claim.

Why on earth would he be so restrained? It is almost as if he was aware that the text in question is pretty universally recognized as a nineteenth century American fiction, and he should not attempt to cite it as a serious source in a scholarly journal, or he would instantly destroy his credibility. But let me not put words in anyone's mouth. Perhaps Dr. Aston had other grounds for his discretion. Which would they be?

That pretty much sums up one of the basic problems with FARMS--and something that was apparent in our recent discussion of peer review amongst the Mopologists. They certainly crave the credibility that goes hand-in-hand with legitimate scholarship and academics, but you could always sense a certain amount of resentment towards traditional or "mainstream" academia--and here Jenkins seizes on something very, very important. Of course Aston omitted mention of the Book of Mormon in the article he submitted to JAS. All of the Mopologists--Midgley, Gee, Hamblin, DCP, etc.--have all done the same thing. Either they submitted frankly apologetic items and got shot down, or they never submitted such things in the first place because they knew they would get show down: "grounds for discretion," as it were.

[_EAllusion]

I don't think the first is really a "skeptic" cliché. It's a sloppy statement that I've seen lots of folks -- skeptic and non-skeptic -- make. In context, I don't think anyone claims that a deductive negative proof is impossible. The claim is made with respect to inductive proof. A better way of stating it is that, because of the difficulty of gathering evidence to prove a negative, it is more rational to place the burden of proof on the person making a positive claim. As an academic, Jenkins should have been more precise in his language.

I referenced induction in the second part of my post. The idea that one cannot prove negative statements is incorrect. Bigfoot doesn't exist. I'm fairly certain of this on the basis of empirical evidence. People recognize that it is difficult to make universal statements with certainty. If I say all X are Y, no matter how many X I observe that are Y, it's always possible some Z is out there. So someone says "prove that there are no Y" and someone else retorts, "but you can't prove a negative!" But this problem doesn't have to do with wording a proposition in terms of negative or positive content. It's not inherently harder to prove a negative statement than a positive one. The burden of proof is upon whomever is asserting something about the Book of Mormon to establish whatever it is they are asserting.

Characterizing this as a "cliché" sounds overly dismissive to me.

It's just unnecessary to the point the person was trying to make. If a person wants to assert, as part of their theory of Book of Mormon origins, that it was originally written on golden plates that were mystically transported to a supernatural realm, then it's incumbent upon them to establish that with sufficient evidence.

[_zeezrom]

I agree except that it requires religion to be evidence based instead of faith based. Such an approach would diminish the need for religion altogether, would it not?

Why, that would be just ... awful.

But, my dear Glaucon, I seem for the moment to have forgotten why it would be so dreadful if we did not need religion. It was so hot coming here through the Agora today ... I am perhaps just a little muddle-headed as a result. Could you perhaps have the kindness to remind me?

I haven't yet finished reading the Republic so your witty comment is lost on me. But let me just comment that I was just a few meters from Athens agora and I didn't go! I ran out of time due to my obsession with the Athena cult. I spent all my hours dreaming and staring at Nike statues.

[_mentalgymnast]

I too have said the following a few times, though less eloquently:

Let me begin with a basic principle of using evidence. I have no obligation to disprove the Book of Mormon, or indeed any religious text, because logically, nobody can prove a negative. I do not need to pick through the book and highlight every anachronism or error, sparking trench warfare with apologists who have built up elaborate defenses against every charge and cavil. Rather, it is up to anyone who believes in that Book to justify its authenticity, by producing positive arguments in its favor. If you are basing statements on the evidence of mystical gold plates that are not available for scholarly examination because they were taken up to Heaven, then you are making utterly extraordinary claims that demand extraordinary evidence. I am open to the concept of miracle, but the burden of proof clearly rests with the person making the claims.

I don't buy into his idea of the necessity of producing "extraordinary evidence," when evidence will do. Otherwise, he is spot on.

See http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/05/mormons-and-new-world-history/.

If one subscribes to the idea/concept/practice of 'faith', then this is really the only way it CAN be. I'm in agreement with you...and for the reason I state. Of course, if faith is merely a construct that man has made up as bulwark against what can't be 100% verifiably proved, then it's more likely that one would require and/or demand extraordinary evidence.

Regards,
MG

[_Gunnar]

If one subscribes to the idea/concept/practice of 'faith', then this is really the only way it CAN be. I'm in agreement with you...and for the reason I state. Of course, if faith is merely a construct that man has made up as bulwark against what can't be 100% verifiably proved, then it's more likely that one would require and/or demand extraordinary evidence.

Regards,
MG

I would say it is more accurate to state that faith is a construct that man has made up as a bulwark against reality, no matter how undeniable, that conflicts with what one most desperately wants to believe.

[_Gunnar]

I agree with the OP that Phillip Jenkins has delivered the most devastating take down of the Book of Mormon as literal history I have yet seen--and he managed to do it respectfully and non-maliciously.