When a religion's core belief is contradicted by scientific evidence...

[MobBoss]

EDIT: Ooops crosspost...I agreed with Tankguy.

^^^ I agree.

As for me......no comment needed.

 

[bhsup]

@ChrTh: Understand that I don't subscribe to that possibility that I put forth. I just wanted to get it out there. I HAVE heard that argument before from literal 7 day creationists, so it's not an unheard of contention.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

@ChrTh: To the best of my knowledge, it cannot be conclusively shown that Joseph Smith wasn't insane, but he did exhibit consistent rational behavior throughout his life. Also, there is no positive evidence that he wasn't lying, but a lot of people don't realize how complicated and difficult it would have to be for him to have made up not just the Book of Mormon but everything.

@VRWCAgent: Yes, that idea is a possibility, and I'm sure there are Mormons who think that or something like that (although I don't) but of course such a theory could never be shown to be true or false.

 

[ChrTh]

@ChrTh: Understand that I don't subscribe to that possibility that I put forth. I just wanted to get it out there. I HAVE heard that argument before from literal 7 day creationists, so it's not an unheard of contention.

Understood. That's why I made sure to actually provide a (hopefully satisfactory) answer to the question.

I guess in the end if God wanted to really test us, how about not providing any signs whatsoever? Would one believe in God (in the monotheistic sense) if there was no Bible or Quran or Book of Mormon or Torah?

 

[Bluemofia]

Personally, if my "religion"'s core belief was contradicted by science, I would turn to science, because science is more reliable, as it takes many people to do tests, and for it to be science, it must be reproduceable. So, others can do the test later to verify it.

Religion on the otherhand... Too much human manipulation can be put into effect.

So I would abandon my religious beliefs (whatever little is left) in favor of science.

 

[Uiler]

Big alternative 4) Jesus never claimed to be the son of God but after he died his followers made that claim to try to rally the faithful or a legend simply grew out of his story. You can see this clearly happen a lot in Chinese history. Well documentated historical figures and events often become "magical" or just twisted just through generations of story-telling without any outside intervention. You can quite literally trace how a story gets wilder and wilder through the centuries by looking at the Chinese literature through the centuries.

I admit I know very little about the Mormon faith, so take the following comment appropriately:

How does Joseph Smith stand up to the criteria of CS Lewis' Trilemma?

For those who don't know, CS Lewis argued against the notion of a philosophical Jesus, i.e. a non-Divine Jesus. Since Jesus claimed he was the Son of God, then his statements then have to be evaluated through the Trilemma:
1) He was crazy
2) He was lying
3) He was the Son of God

(we'll ignore number 0--as I call it--Jesus never actually claimed he was the Son of God, the writers put those words in his mouth, because they don't apply to Joseph Smith afaik)

CS Lewis arrives at the conclusion that Jesus is the Son of God (this isn't the only way he gets there, by the way) because it can be disproved that Jesus is either lying or crazy based on the reactions of those around him (I believe this is covered in Mere Christianity, there's probably a Wiki article as well--but never trust Wiki on religious things outside of mythology).

Long story short (too late), what happens when Joseph Smith is subjected to the trilemma ... is there enough evidence that Joseph Smith wasn't lying or crazy?

(On a side note, L. Ron Hubbard fails the trilemma because it can't be disproven that he was lying because he willfully composed Science Fiction while alive)

 

[Uiler]

This question has been discussed in detail on Matt's Mormonism thread, but maybe the perspective of an actual Mormon would be valuable, as I am likely to have a better idea than any of you what Mormons actually believe.

It has never been official doctrine that the Lamanites were the only ancestors of the inhabitants of the New World. Many early church leaders who didn't have access to DNA evidence thought so, but the Book of Mormon itself implies that the inhabitants of the New World are a mixture of the Lamanites and others, and that even the Lamanites are not pure-blooded Israelites. The Church has never tought officially that the Book of Mormon is without error (though many have believed it) and the Book of Mormon itself mentions that it may contain the 'faults of men'. Any history written hundreds of years after the events it describes (as the Book of Mormon purports to do) will end up with mistakes. That doesn't mean that it is completely false or that the doctrine it contains is wrong. It does explain the anachronistic lists of crops and animals.

And as for this guy:


I guarantee you his real problem is with something else in the Church. Many have no problem with not being completely the ancestors of the Hebrews.

In fact, this is an old argument that depends on a false preposition that it is actual Church doctrine (rather than just widespread belief within the Church) that the Hebrews are entirely the ancestors of all New World people.

Oh please. Stop trying to twist my words and the words of the article. The article is clearly talking about there being no trace of Jewish DNA *at all*. Zilch, nadda. Not completely Jewish? More like, there is *no* trace of Jewish ancestory.

And the official position of the Mormon church is that the Laminites are the "principal" ancestors - this is on their own webpage. This does not rule out other ancestors but as the "principal" ancestors you'd expect some DNA evidence.

This deliberate twisting of words to completely change the evidence...I guess what we're seeing is cognitive dissonance in action again!

 

[downtown]

I wonder what Matt would have to say about all this, being that he is a Mormon himself?

Personally, im not so sure that i want any part in this thread. I dont have a particular problem accepting the apologists intrepetation. I'm not an anthropologist, or any other kind of scientist really. I'm a goverment and music student. If i try to agrue these points, i think i'm out of my league.

If you guys want to be all clever, and call us all nuts, fine. There's nothing in this thread that i havent seen before, but im sure not going to be able to convice anybody from this laptop about Mormonism.

 

[BasketCase]

When a religion is threatened by a scientific revelation (or when a religious person reverses course and accepts evolution or something) the standard response is: the deviant is labelled a crackpot, and a new poster boy is obtained.

The thing I find scary is that this doesn't just happen in religion. I see it in politics and science all the time.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

@Uiler: First of all, the quote (which actually comes the Book of Mormon) is not canonical or doctrinal, but is used as an explanation. Secondly, when it says they are the principal ancestors, that doesn't necessarily mean in a demographic sense; it means that the fact that they are the ancestors of some New World peoples affects how their descendants receive Mormonism. Third, internal evidence within the Book of Mormon itself implies that the small group of Israelites who came to the New World were not even the only ancestors of the Lamanites themselves. Fourth, to determine that there is no Hebrew DNA among any descendants of New World people would require testing every one of them; Fifth, being a distant ancestor of someone does not guarantee that all of your DNA will be shared by them.

I am not twisting the words of the article. This is not a new argument by any means, but I am not responding to it but your post. I am not 'deliberately twisting words to completely change the evidence'. I am stating what I believe, and what is consistent with the Book of Mormon and the teachings and doctrine of the Church. If you refuse to see it that way, that is your problem.

 

[Uiler]

Who cares about convincing Mormons? I'm just highly amused at watching the cognitive dissonance in action. The apologists POV is not what people in the Mormon church have generally believed for the last couple of hundred years.

The other worse thing is the element of chancery and fraud. As the article states, the Mormon church has been using this claim of Jewish ancestory to draw in believers from Polynesia and the native Americans throughout the Americas and a lot of them believe that this is true - that they have Jewish DNA. Being Jewish certainly seems to heavily underly the faith of the Polynesians and native Americans interviewed in the article. If the Mormons now accept that the story is in fact false or not the way that they've been telling it, it is the duty of the Mormon Church to go to each community in these areas and tell them that they are not in fact descended from the Jews and face the consequences.

Personally, im not so sure that i want any part in this thread. I dont have a particular problem accepting the apologists intrepetation. I'm not an anthropologist, or any other kind of scientist really. I'm a goverment and music student. If i try to agrue these points, i think i'm out of my league.

If you guys want to be all clever, and call us all nuts, fine. There's nothing in this thread that i havent seen before, but im sure not going to be able to convice anybody from this laptop about Mormonism.

 

[Uiler]

Heh. This is completely the apologists POV that the article mentioned

I think you're just proving the article's point here...

BTW, what part of "principal ancestor" of the native Americans and Polynesians and the clear meaning of this statement that hard to understand?

I just find the whole cognitive dissonance very amusing though. Rather than accept the most simple rational explanation when confronted with something that contradicts a belief, would rather make up a long long complicated convoluted story which may in fact contradict statements that they made before. The mental mind-games that people put themselves through...

@Uiler: First of all, the quote (which actually comes the Book of Mormon) is not canonical or doctrinal, but is used as an explanation. Secondly, when it says they are the principal ancestors, that doesn't necessarily mean in a demographic sense; it means that the fact that they are the ancestors of some New World peoples affects how their descendants receive Mormonism. Third, internal evidence within the Book of Mormon itself implies that the small group of Israelites who came to the New World were not even the only ancestors of the Lamanites themselves. Fourth, to determine that there is no Hebrew DNA among any descendants of New World people would require testing every one of them; Fifth, being a distant ancestor of someone does not guarantee that all of your DNA will be shared by them.

I am not twisting the words of the article. This is not a new argument by any means, but I am not responding to it but your post. I am not 'deliberately twisting words to completely change the evidence'. I am stating what I believe, and what is consistent with the Book of Mormon and the teachings and doctrine of the Church. If you refuse to see it that way, that is your problem.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Actually, I served a mission among Hispanics in Los Angeles so I know the degree to which the belief that they are descended from Israelites affects the rate at which they join the church:

Pretty much not at all. Everyone I know joined for completely different reasons, like they honestly and sincerely believed that the claims made by Mormonism are true. We really don't even use it as a proselyting tool. We do refer to Hispanics as "Lamanites" becase it is possible that some (not all) of them are descended from the people of the Book of Mormon (which is not the same as saying that they are descended from Israelites).

I don't think I am showing cognative dissonance here. I really have given a lot of though to this particular issue and how science affects my faith in general. I don't llike it when I am accused of blindly accepting things that completely fly in the face of science, because I don't.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

And so what if I hold the same point of view as 'apologists'? Just because someone is criticized by the LA Times doesn't meant they are wrong.

 

[Xanikk999]

Personally, im not so sure that i want any part in this thread. I dont have a particular problem accepting the apologists intrepetation. I'm not an anthropologist, or any other kind of scientist really. I'm a goverment and music student. If i try to agrue these points, i think i'm out of my league.

If you guys want to be all clever, and call us all nuts, fine. There's nothing in this thread that i havent seen before, but im sure not going to be able to convice anybody from this laptop about Mormonism.

Damn... You of all people are a mormon? I guess i cant respect you anymore that religion is really crazy..

BTW im not being sarcastic

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I realize that this is getting off track, and moving to dangerous ground, but what do you mean, Xanikk999, by saying that Mormonism is 'crazy'?

 

[downtown]

Damn... You of all people are a mormon? I guess i cant respect you anymore that religion is really crazy..

BTW im not being sarcastic

I think I'll manage okay without it then

 

[Xanikk999]

I realize that this is getting off track, and moving to dangerous ground, but what do you mean, Xanikk999, by saying that Mormonism is 'crazy'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

The practices and beilefs that they have outside of other milder christian denominations are absurd. Just read and if you cant figure it out il clarify it. Not to mention they have a practice of trying to convert people by walking to their doorsteps and knocking on the door. Thats minor but very annoying.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

So when you say that our beliefs are 'crazy', what you are saying is that they are different from the beliefs and practices of other Christian denominations? I know what our practices and beliefs are, I was just wondering why you find them so absurd.

And by the way, knocking on people's doors is more effective than anyone realizes, and it doesn't really bother most people, even those who don't want to listen.

 

[Xanikk999]

So when you say that our beliefs are 'crazy', what you are saying is that they are different from the beliefs and practices of other Christian denominations? I know what our practices and beliefs are, I was just wondering why you find them so absurd.

And by the way, knocking on people's doors is more effective than anyone realizes, and it doesn't really bother most people, even those who don't want to listen.

Well if you must know i find all organized religions absurd. And also the fact about how mormonism was started. I think its very absurd to beileve jesus visited the united states (Please correct me if that has nothing to do with mormonism but dont ridicule me). And also the fact that it was founded for absurd reasons.