Michael, Mormonism makes many empirical claims that are historical, anthropological, or archeological in character — gold plates, Semitic peoples in the ancient Americas, etc. Someone like Hitchens presumably thinks that these claims deserve no more and no less scorn than mainstream Christian beliefs. But the political marginalization of Mormonism depends on making it seem uniquely “weird.” So I hope the public understands that there is an evidence-based way of believing a claim, and then there is a faith-based one — and that the two have little to do with each other.
By the evidence, we can say with some confidence that dead people do not come back to life, but this does not stop Christians from believing that, on a certain occasion, one did. The claim is so spectacularly at odds with the empirical evidence that it is hard to see a Christian as applying an evidentiary standard at all. The empirical claims unique to Mormonism concern subject matters less conclusive than biology and so are, in a way, not as brazen. This makes it easier for us to see a Mormon as simply defective in his capacity for empirical reasoning. But that would be unfair; again, we should see him as not applying an evidentiary standard at all.
“No, we have no evidence that any dead person has come back to life; but we also have no proof that on that occasion one did not, so I will stick to my faith.” “No, we have no evidence that Jews migrated to the ancient Americas; but they may have been one group living among unrelated indigenous peoples, and perhaps we simply haven’t found the evidence yet — or perhaps God took it away, like the gold plates themselves — so I will stick to my faith.”
I thought of this comment from Wittgenstein (as recorded by a student and published in Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology, and Religious Belief):
I have a moderate education, as all of you have, and therefore know what is meant by insufficient evidence for a forecast. Suppose someone dreamt of the Last Judgment, and said he now knew what it would be like. Suppose someone said: “This is poor evidence.” I would say: “If you want to compare it with the evidence for it’s raining to-morrow it is no evidence at all.” He may make it sound as if by stretching the point you may call it evidence. But it may be more than ridiculous as evidence. But now, would I be prepared to say: “You are basing your belief on extremely slender evidence, to put it mildly.” Why should I regard this dream as evidence — measuring its validity as though I were measuring the validity of the evidence for meteorological events?
If you compare it with anything in Science which we call evidence, you can’t credit that anyone could soberly argue: “Well I had this dream . . . therefore . . . Last Judgment.” You might say: “For a blunder, that’s too big.”
One post decries the Democrats for a predicted October Surprise about Mormonism and it of course gets all sorts of comments agreeing that this is what they do (boo, hiss)... then a few posts later we see that the GOP will do this all by themselves over and over.
Team Obama has unwitting surrogates throughout the GOP and won't ever have to resort to overt attacks on any particular religion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight on. I might add a couple of related thoughts:
1. It is one thing for an atheist to stand on one side and poke fun at everyone of faith. Those of us who have faith understand the atheist's error: he misunderstands what faith is all about. But it is another thing altogether, and a hypocritical thing at that, for a Protestant (evangelical or otherwise) or Catholic believer to throw stones at Mormon belief on scientific grounds. People will say things like, well, at least the Bible points to places we know to exist. That is a weak claim when there are big holes in Biblical archeology, like where is the evidence of the Egyptian captivity, the Exodus, the wandering in the wilderness, and so forth. It also overlooks things like talking bushes, highways through the Red Sea and stories like that. Please don't get me wrong: I believe all these things to be true. But I do so based on faith and not because I think that there is adequate scientific evidence for them. Mormons ought to have the privilege of the same sorts of faith based knowledge.
2. It is common in religious belief to re-define the belief for compelling scientific reasons. Mormons manage to harmonize the modern (Darwinian) understanding of biology in much the same way most other Christians do. This applies to belief concerning the people of ancient America. It is common for mockers (like Michael Walsh) to make straw man arguments, but this ignores developments in religious thought and, again, fails to give Mormons the same benefit of the doubt that other Christians rightly expect.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs a Christian, I slightly resent the implication of there being no evidence of Christ's resurrection. There are many scholars who have written on just that subject, Gary Habermas being one of the best.
As for Mormons, I don't know much about what they believe but I'm honestly not interested. Politically they are allies with conservatives and that is really all that counts. I wouldn't elect one to run my church, but I don't have a problem with a Mormon running this country.
The Dems may try this line of attack but I'm not so sure it's a slam-dunk. We are constantly being told how we're supposed to be respectful of other's views so it is pretty hypocritical to attack Mormonism this way. Ultimately, we can't know the future but personally I don't see this being a very effective line of attack.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are repeating Immanuel Kant's false distinction between faith-based and evidence-based claims. Unfortunately, his distinction remains quite a bit more broadly known and accepted than the subsequent refutations of it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrom what I know of Kant's distinction, I accept it. I started to know of Kant through F.A. Hayek ("all we know, we know through our own minds"). What we know as reality is noumena, not phenomena - but questions of God's ultimate reality are not questions of mere phenomena.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The claim is so spectacularly at odds with the empirical evidence that it is hard to see a Christian as applying an evidentiary standard at all."
The evidence is the testimony of witnesses. This is found in the books of the Bible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, and the testimony of witnesses is one form of evidentiary standard that is valid and accepted in a court of law. One them becomes interested in ascertaining the reliability of the witness but if they are deemed reliable then the testimony is a valid evidentiary standard.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith all due respect, the conflation of the empirical claims of Christianity and Mormonism by Mr. Steorts is way off base. Christianity and Mormonism are historically-based religions: either something happened, or it didn't. In the case of Mormonism, there is zero evidence supporting the historical claims. In the case of Christianity, there is much evidence to support the historical claims.
The Book of Mormon purports to chronicle the story of a lost tribe of Israel that made its way to North America. Unfortunately for Mormonism, there is zero archeological evidence supporting the story. Moreover, analysis of DNA in native Americans compared to Semetic peoples shows that there is no relationship. In other words, there is nothing outside the Book of Mormon to support its story.
In contrast, the archeologist's spade has been a friend of Christianity. There have been numerous archeological finds that corroborate the basic story of the New Testament. With respect to the resurrection of Christ, consider the following: (a) Christ died. His death is well documented in the gospel accounts. Moreover, if the Romans were good at anything, they certainly knew how to kill someone. (b) The tomb was empty. In addition to the gospel accounts, contemporary Jewish accounts seeking to discredit the early Christian movement talked about different plots associated with the movement of the body - but all of these accounts assumed that the tomb was empty. (c) Evidence of appearances. The gospel accounts and the even earlier letters of Paul document appearances by the risen Christ. These accounts were written while the witnesses were still alive, which would invite cross-examination. We don't see any evidence of any refutation of these eyewitness accounts. (d) Societal transformation. Large numbers of Jews converted to Christianity and abandoned social customs that had defined their culture for thousands of years. Christianity swept through the Roman empire in a very short period of time. What could account for these sweeping societal changes? Certainly one explanation is that these people had experienced the risen Christ.
Yes, dead people generally don't come back to life, and any such claim to that effect should be examined. But to suggest that the Christian belief in the Resurrection is simply based on faith is a failure to understand the basics of Christianity - it is faith based on facts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHuh?! You state there is no evidence outside of Mormonism for the existence of an ancient Israelite tribe in North America, which is true enough. But then all the evidence for the ressurection you list comes from the Bible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is an interesting parallel between LDS Christians and non-LDS Christians. Following the lead of NYYooper: First, LDS Christians are in complete agreement with claims a-d above. But further, where is there a mandate for people of faith to base that faith in archeology? Consider that NYYooper summarily dismisses the claims of LDS Christians, then goes on to base his argument mainly on claims made by witnesses reported in the Bible. By similar logic, should we not also consider the claims made by witnesses to assertions made by LDS Christian witnesses, including individuals in uniquely LDS scripture?
To list only a few of many:
1. There were witnesses to the claim that angelic messengers revealed the source of The Book of Mormon - Another Witness of Jesus Christ, to Joseph Smith. They claim to have handled the metal plates whereon the text was inscribed, not unlike Thomas handling the body of Jesus;
2. Witnesses attested to the appearance of angelic beings appearing to them in the process of restoring the ancient principles of Christianity via the emerging LDS church, not unlike the testimony of the original twelve apostles;
3. Large numbers of people have and are aligning themselves to the LDS Christian church, as in the early days of non-LDS Christianity.
In the same spirit, "...to suggest that LDS Christian belief is simply based on faith is a failure to understand the basics of Christianity - it is faith based on facts." There is a growing body of scholarly material supporting the LDS position, including word studies of The Book of Mormon which add amazing veracity to the origins of the volume. Granted that many have attempted to dismiss and discredit the witness of historical LDS Christian adherents. Nevertheless, there is no rationale to dismiss the claims of LDS Christians any more than those of non-LDS Christians. That is, assuming a person keeps an open mind.
Parenthetically, it is interesting how non-LDS Christians enjoy suggesting that genetic science ought to put "Mormonism" to rest, yet ignore the scientific "proof" on the origin of the species. Geneticists are noticeably absent in declaring that Adam and Eve were our first parents. Those with an interest in the DNA argument might enjoy perusing the following: External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is a growing body of evidence from New World archaeology that supports the Book of Mormon. Dr. John Clark of the New World Archaeological Foundation has compiled a list of sixty items mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The list includes items such as "steel swords," "barley," "cement," "thrones," and literacy.
In 1842, only eight (or 13.3%) of those sixty items were confirmed by archaeological evidence. Thus, in the mid-nineteenth century, archaeology did not generally support the claims made by the Book of Mormon. By 2005 forty-five of those sixty items (75%) have been confirmed. Therefore, as things stand at the moment, current New World archaeological evidence tends to verify the claims made by the Book of Mormon. (John Clark, "Debating the Foundations of Mormonism: Archaeology and the Book of Mormon", presentation at the 2005 FAIR Apologetics Conference (August 2005). Co-presenters, Wade Ardern and Matthew Roper. S. Kent Brown, "New Light: 'The Place That Was Called Nahom": New Light from Ancient Yemen," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8, no. 1 (1999): 66-68.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is a growing body of evidence from New World archaeology that supports the Book of Mormon. Dr. John Clark of the New World Archaeological Foundation has compiled a list of sixty items mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The list includes items such as "steel swords," "barley," "cement," "thrones," and literacy.
In 1842, only eight (or 13.3%) of those sixty items were confirmed by archaeological evidence. Thus, in the mid-nineteenth century, archaeology did not generally support the claims made by the Book of Mormon. By 2005 forty-five of those sixty items (75%) have been confirmed. Therefore, as things stand at the moment, current New World archaeological evidence tends to verify the claims made by the Book of Mormon. (John Clark, "Debating the Foundations of Mormonism: Archaeology and the Book of Mormon", presentation at the 2005 FAIR Apologetics Conference (August 2005). Co-presenters, Wade Ardern and Matthew Roper. S. Kent Brown, "New Light: 'The Place That Was Called Nahom": New Light from Ancient Yemen," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8, no. 1 (1999): 66-68.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe claim Christians make that one did come back from the dead on a particular occasion, is not without evidence. For instance, there were over five hundred witnesses to the matter, many of which went on to grisly deaths while maintaining their testimony. I could point to other evidence, but if their testimony doesn't faze you, then I expect nothing else would.
By the way, I'm surprised you don't seem to know Christopher Hitchens passed away recently. And I might add, by this point, he probably has a different view about the evidence of a certain one coming back from the dead.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe have no evidence other than the bible that Jesus ever lived. Oddly, we have evidence that others lived contemporaneously with Jesus, numerous histories, records and whatnot. And not a jot about a man coming back from the dead or claiming to be the son of God--well, except for Gaius Caesar.
I mean think about it, Pollo and Vorenus from the TV series Rome are historical figures, mentioned in our historical records--a couple of Roman legionaries--but no mention of Jesus?
It's like everything about him was written on gold plates or something.
H.P Lovecraft wrote a great myth cycle, using locations and situations that are almost verifiable. You can see some of his locations in Boston, in New Orleans, but, try as you might, you won't find the mighty Miskatonic, or shadowed Innsmouth. The bible has a similar mix of real locations and people and...others.... that exist just past verifiability.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1) Of all the people who lived prior to the modern age of record keeping, we only have evidence that a few hundred of them actually lived. So your claim that there is no evidence that Jesus lived is meaningless.
2) We do have evidence that Jesus lived, he was mentioned several times by the historian Jospephus.
3) As I mentioned elsewhere. The New Testament was written within a few decades of the events mentioned.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The claim is so spectacularly at odds with the empirical evidence that it is hard to see a Christian as applying an evidentiary standard at all."
Unless you consider eyewitness testimony to be evidence...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, there was one person in one letter who said there were 500 witnesses, which is a lot different than there being 500 different letters from different witnesses. In fact it seems to me that if there had really been that many witnesses, we should have seen many more than just one contemporaneous account, and I'm even using contemporaneous loosely.
So Cincy guy, if you do have evidence beyond what was written by Matthew, Mark, or Luke, I'd really love to see it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"But that would be unfair; again, we should see him as not applying an evidentiary standard at all."
Indeed, and that's why I didn't agree with Hitchens's argument that Romney's Mormonism sheds light on his reasoning abilities more broadly. Religious beliefs are treated as exempt from normal standards of evidence and reason; people consciously and deliberately don't treat religious and nonreligious beliefs in the same way. If you believe that Jesus came back from the dead, for instance, we call you a Christian. If you believe that Elvis came back from the dead, we call you insane. Critically, one can believe the first while laughing at the second, and one can do so even though the evidence for both propositions is roughly equal (the other commenter mentions five hundred witnesses to Jesus's resurrection; I'm sure we could get at least that many for Elvis.) Just in the same way, I see Mitt's Mormon beliefs and practices as loopy; I also see them as largely irrelevant to his ability to function as a chief executive.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'll make you a deal, Lorraine. You go find something to document that even five people went to their deaths witnessing that Elvis returned from the dead - and then I'll gladly take up your argument with Christianity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"As one of a thousand elements of my own testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, I submit this as yet one more evidence of its truthfulness. In this their greatest—and last—hour of need, I ask you: would these men blaspheme before God by continuing to fix their lives, their honor, and their own search for eternal salvation on a book (and by implication a church and a ministry) they had fictitiously created out of whole cloth?"
"Never mind that their wives are about to be widows and their children fatherless. Never mind that their little band of followers will yet be “houseless, friendless and homeless” and that their children will leave footprints of blood across frozen rivers and an untamed prairie floor. Never mind that legions will die and other legions live declaring in the four quarters of this earth that they know the Book of Mormon and the Church which espouses it to be true. Disregard all of that, and tell me whether in this hour of death these two men would enter the presence of their Eternal Judge quoting from and finding solace in a book which, if not the very word of God, would brand them as imposters and charlatans until the end of time? *They would not do that!* They were willing to die rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse