The logic of apologetic backfire

[Physics Guy]

I've often heard ex-Mormons say that reading Mormon apologetics weakened their faith rather than strengthening it. This backfiring of an attempted defense is counterintuitive. One might not be convinced by a pro-Mormon argument, but how could it actually weaken one's belief to hear supportive arguments from learned scholars?

It just occurred to me that a certain logical paradox-ish sort of scenario that I noticed once, with no connection to any kind of religious belief, might be playing a role in this backfiring. The scenario is quite likely well known in some other form than the one that I made up, but I call it "the crow paradox". For the purpose of the scenario, all black birds are crows and all crows are black birds.

There's a creature in that tree. Is it a crow? Two expert biologists both affirm that the animal is probably not a crow. Hearing either one of the experts alone would reasonably convince us that the thing is most likely no crow, but after hearing both of these experts explain their reasons for doubting that it is a crow, we become quite sure that it actually is a crow. How can this be?

Biologist A is absolutely sure that the creature is a bird, but thinks it most likely isn't black. Probably some kind of grey bird. So probably not a crow.

Biologist B is absolutely sure that the creature is black, but thinks it most likely isn't a bird. With fairly good odds, it's a black squirrel. So probably not a crow.

Now that we've heard the two experts' reasons for concluding that the creature probably isn't a crow, combining the reasons together makes us quite sure that it is both black and a bird, hence a crow, because it is more likely that both experts were wrong, about the points on which they were less than certain, than that either one of them could be wrong about the thing upon which they were sure.

[Gadianton]

I've often heard ex-Mormons say that reading Mormon apologetics weakened their faith rather than strengthening it. This backfiring of an attempted defense is counterintuitive. One might not be convinced by a pro-Mormon argument, but how could it actually weaken one's belief to hear supportive arguments from learned scholars?

I'd say the number one reason why this happens is because Mormons have learned to live in a protective bubble. The main reason why apologetics weakens faith is because they didn't know about the problems in the first place. I'd say this is the number one reason why the Brethren have never really promoted apologetics. Aside from being busy with real estate and getting the Church richer, nobody has stumbled upon a way to introduce the problems long enough to get to the solutions. It's like being in a rubber raft, and suddenly a cargo ship anchor has been released on a short chain.

I think there has to be something to the crow example. I think I've had similar thoughts but not that crystalized. I'll let it work in the back of my mind and see if anything comes up.

[Kishkumen]

Yep! They didn’t know.

[malkie]

FAIR has something on this that I think is quite significant:

What are the different levels of knowledge that members may have about Church history?
...
[Stanley B ]Kimball said that he and his fellow historians operate on level C, and that, on the whole, that's where he (as a professional historian) would prefer members to be. He was deeply convinced, he said, that level C was essentially like level A, except that it is more nuanced and somewhat more ambiguous. (He emphatically denied that level A is "false," or that the church "lies" in teaching it.) He acknowledged, though, that, were he himself a high-ranking church leader, he would be hesitant to take the membership as a whole to level C by means of church curriculum and instruction for the obvious reason that moving people from level A to level C entails at least some exposure to some of the elements of level B, and that such exposure will unavoidably lead some to lose their testimonies. Still, he felt that those who make it through to level C are more stable and resilient in their faith than those who remain on level A.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ans ... ch_history
This, I believe, is why the promise of meat implicit in the "milk before meat" teaching never materialises - it's deemed too dangerous.

ETA: It's a short article, and well worth reading in its entirety

[Dr Moore]

PG, thank you for this post. The analogy is spot on with my experience. As one example, the first time I learned about the problems with the Book of Abraham was through reading the church’s apologetic essay about those problems. I had never known about any of the debate prior to that - too busy heads down with life, work, family, church and hobbies to bother digging.

While it was surprising to me to learn from this essay that so many problems existed, my mind had no intention of drawing a conclusion contrary to what I’d been living. But I was completely devastated by the illogical arguments, the contradictions, and the plainly deceptive distortions of academic research used to defend the idea of a literal ancient origin for the Book of Abraham. How could something so “real” be defended by such horrible explanations? I didn’t need to know the issues to feel deeply that, after reading the essay, the arguments in defense were themselves indefensible. The dominos fell from there.

[Fence Sitter]

It weakens one's belief because when the member realizes that the Church has not been forthright with him/her, they lose confidence in the institution itself. they no longer trust the Church to give them the full story.

[Philo Sofee]

FAIR has something on this that I think is quite significant:

What are the different levels of knowledge that members may have about Church history?
...
[Stanley B ]Kimball said that he and his fellow historians operate on level C, and that, on the whole, that's where he (as a professional historian) would prefer members to be. He was deeply convinced, he said, that level C was essentially like level A, except that it is more nuanced and somewhat more ambiguous. (He emphatically denied that level A is "false," or that the church "lies" in teaching it.) He acknowledged, though, that, were he himself a high-ranking church leader, he would be hesitant to take the membership as a whole to level C by means of church curriculum and instruction for the obvious reason that moving people from level A to level C entails at least some exposure to some of the elements of level B, and that such exposure will unavoidably lead some to lose their testimonies. Still, he felt that those who make it through to level C are more stable and resilient in their faith than those who remain on level A.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ans ... ch_history
This, I believe, is why the promise of meat implicit in the "milk before meat" teaching never materialises - it's deemed too dangerous.

ETA: It's a short article, and well worth reading in its entirety

I get that, I really do. However, it appears to me it negates the Holy Ghost as having any value whatsoever. Their faith in the Holy Ghost's abilities appear to me to be so low as to be non-existent. It's all words about the effects, not actual truth, and they KNOW this, so they keep it simple, and let the "Holy Ghost" do its job.

[Philo Sofee]

It weakens one's belief because when the member realizes that the Church has not been forthright with him/her, they lose confidence in the institution itself. they no longer trust the Church to give them the full story.

And the leaders actually don't believe the Holy Ghost can and will make up the difference. The Holy Ghost is a selling point to their childish simplicity, not a fact of reality to the leaders.

[Fence Sitter]

It weakens one's belief because when the member realizes that the Church has not been forthright with him/her, they lose confidence in the institution itself. they no longer trust the Church to give them the full story.

And the leaders actually don't believe the Holy Ghost can and will make up the difference. The Holy Ghost is a selling point to their childish simplicity, not a fact of reality to the leaders.

It's worse than that. Leaders don't actually believe many of the apologetic explanations themselves, otherwise they would be putting them out to members on official channels. How can a member trust what an apologist says when leadership doesn't? The essays are full of "we just don't know" excuses.

What is it a prophet does again?

[Dr Exiled]

For me it was the very existence of the problems, when there shouldn't have been, had the church's claims been true. I think this is why the CES letter has the power it does. If you are indoctrinated into believing that you belong to God's one and only true church, why would there be any issues? Why would a CES letter even exist? And if there are answers, the answers should be clear and concise. The CES letter starts many on the deep dive to see what the apologists say about the issues and soon they find the apologetic responses to be wanting.