Lukeprog, over at the blog "Commonsense Atheism" has written a blog post about assessing whether or not a religion or worldview is true. One of his criteria is 'Consistency with known facts'. He writes:
If a religious claim contradicts what is known in another field, this may be grounds for rejecting the religious claim, unless the religious claim is better supported than the other knowledge. For example, if a religious system claims that the earth was created 6,000 years ago, but millions of pieces of solid evidence from multiple fields of consistent research conclusively show the earth to be much older than that, then this gives us cause to reject the religious claim. If the religious claim is central to the religion, then the whole religion may be rejected.
I would extend this principle even further: Don't fall into the trap of accepting numerous gross, unsupported speculations and just-so stories that attempt to make reality fit the religion in question. Too many times I have seen Christians defend Biblical inerrancy with just-so stories and speculations to get around the apparent (and probably actual) contradictions in the Bible. But guess what? There's no reason to accept those just-so stories unless you are already committed to Bible inerrancy. So that makes their speculations circular, if one is trying to approach religion objectively, as one should. Let me give you another example: Mormons claim that the Native Americans are descended from Hebrews. But archaeology and DNA evidence conclusively shows that they are not. So what do the Mormons say to this? They say DNA is a young science and so it doesn't have all the answers yet. As for archaeology, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But again, realize that there is no reason to accept these ways of bullshitting around the facts unless you are already committed to defending Mormonism. But you should not be committed to Mormonism unless the facts bear it out as true. And if a Mormon accepts that, then they have to realize they are making a circular argument if they say that they are committed to Mormonism because the facts bear it out but then rely on their committment to Mormonism when the facts don't bear it out.
I would also add something else to Luke's post: It is possible that many religions are consistent with known facts, are logically consistent and consistent overall. So what one wants to look for is the religion or worldview that is the best overall explanation. The best overall explanation can be determined by explanatory scope, explanatory power, simplicity, and so on.
16 comments:
DNA evidence does not say anything, one way or the other, about the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon text speaks of a small group of people from the Middle East (whose genetic identity we do NOT know) who sailed to the western hemisphere spread throughout a geographic area no larger than the size of Guatemala, mingled with the local populations, and then half of them were wiped out in a genocidal war.
Ask any modern geneticist. That kind of event would be impossible to track today, and the primary genetic heritage being from Asia does not rule out the possibility of small infusions of genetic material from other sources.
The only people claiming that DNA evidence has disproven the Book of Mormon are those who are either:
a. ignorant of what the Book of Mormon says, or
b. ignorant of how population genetics work
Or both.
Seth, you're not in any position to accuse me of ignorance, and I'm about to show you why:
"The Book of Mormon text speaks of a small group of people from the Middle East (whose genetic identity we do NOT know)"
According to the following article, the book of Mormon does say that the people were Hebrew:
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/13644/dna-tests-contradict-mormon-scripture
"Ask any modern geneticist. That kind of event would be impossible to track today, and the primary genetic heritage being from Asia does not rule out the possibility of small infusions of genetic material from other sources."
OK, let's ask a modern geneticist. This is from the LA Times article I cited earlier:
"In the 1990s, DNA studies gave Mormon detractors further ammunition and new allies such as Simon G. Southerton, a molecular biologist and former bishop in the church.
"Southerton, a senior research scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Australia, said genetic research allowed him to test his religious views against his scientific training.
"Genetic testing of Jews throughout the world had already shown that they shared common strains of DNA from the Middle East. Southerton examined studies of DNA lineages among Polynesians and indigenous peoples in North, Central and South America. One mapped maternal DNA lines from 7,300 Native Americans from 175 tribes.
"Southerton found no trace of Middle Eastern DNA in the genetic strands of today’s American Indians and Pacific Islanders.
"In 'Losing a Lost Tribe,' published in 2004, he concluded that Mormonism, his faith for 30 years, needed to be reevaluated in the face of these facts, even though it would shake the foundations of the faith."
Of course, the article does mention the type of scenario you brought up. But that was not the original interpretation of the book. Why didn't God give Joseph Smith and his prophets the right interpretation of the text the first time?
P.S. The article I cited can be found on the LA Times website here:
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/16/local/me-mormon16
You think I haven't heard these arguments before?
Most population genetic testing is done by tracing the mitochondrial DNA or "mtDNA." This is passed solely through the female line. No female child, the mtDNA doesn't get passed. So already you're looking at a huge possibility of genetic bottlenecks wiping out any traceable evidence.
Secondly, we don't know what the genes of female line in the Book of Mormon group was. We are told that Lehi came from the tribe of Ephraim and Ishmael from Manasseh (not Judah - so no "Jews" were involved). But it never tells us what their wives were. Which is the info we'd need to determine what mtDNA to look for.
And do you even know what Middle Eastern DNA looked like at 600 BC? You don't. Neither does anyone else. It's impossible to say what the DNA makeup of the time was, given how much genetic drift there was in the Middle East.
As for Southerton, his problem is that he simply assumes that the Book of Mormon is talking about a civilization that spanned most of the North and South American continents in its geography.
An incredibly naive assumption for him to make. Unfortunately for him, it torpedoes his entire argument. The Book of Mormon has dozens of chapters talking about the wars between the people. City names, landmarks, march times... it's all there. From this, we are able to construct a fairly accurate geographic picture of how large an area the Book of Mormon covered.
It wasn't even close to "continental." No larger than Alabama is more like it.
Thus Southerton's arguments collapse entirely. Not because his genetic assertions were wrong, but because his reading of the Book of Mormon was ignorant in the extreme.
Try again.
Seth, your silence on the following point I made is deafening:
"Of course, the article does mention the type of scenario you brought up. But that was not the original interpretation of the book. Why didn't God give Joseph Smith and his prophets the right interpretation of the text the first time?"
I figured you wouldn't be able to process it if I responded to everything. So I helpfully decided to break it down into manageable segments.
I have an answer to that point. But at the moment, your silence on my other points threatens to become deafening if you don't quickly do something about it.
"I have an answer to that point. But at the moment, your silence on my other points threatens to become deafening if you don't quickly do something about it."
I'll respond to your other points after you respond to the point I made.
"Of course, the article does mention the type of scenario you brought up. But that was not the original interpretation of the book. Why didn't God give Joseph Smith and his prophets the right interpretation of the text the first time?"
Why didn't God grant Joseph knowledge of penicillin? Why didn't he reveal to him a code of laws for giving women equal treatment in the workplace?
Truth is, God is a pretty hands-off kind of parent. He generally allows us to work things out amongst ourselves whenever he can. And this is as true of scriptural interpretation as any other field.
We learn God's word line-upon-line. And sometimes our understanding is imperfect. Always room for improvement.
Really, why should God have to wipe Joseph's nose for him and hand him the Book of Mormon geography on a plate when it was already right under his nose in the pages of the Book of Mormon?
I don't believe in prophetic infallibility to begin with. So it really isn't a big deal to me if Joseph Smith got some things wrong. My faith isn't founded on the history of Joseph Smith.
So my short answer to your question is - I don't frankly care. It has little bearing on my religion one way or the other if Joseph did or did not get the geography right.
Why is it an issue for you?
"Why didn't God grant Joseph knowledge of penicillin? Why didn't he reveal to him a code of laws for giving women equal treatment in the workplace?"
Maybe because God doesn't exist. Or because Joseph Smith was a charlatan. Either answer works.
"Truth is, God is a pretty hands-off kind of parent. He generally allows us to work things out amongst ourselves whenever he can. And this is as true of scriptural interpretation as any other field."
If God exists he is a more of an absentee father than a 'hands off parent'. But that's beside the point: What's the point of God giving a revelation if he wants us to find the truth for ourselves?
"We learn God's word line-upon-line. And sometimes our understanding is imperfect. Always room for improvement."
If God wants to communicate something to us, I'm sure he would do everything he could to help us understand, and because he is supposedly omnipotent, we would understand. I mean, if I want you to understand the words I write, then I am going to go out of my way to be crystal clear so that you will comprehend the meaning of my words.
"Really, why should God have to wipe Joseph's nose for him and hand him the Book of Mormon geography on a plate when it was already right under his nose in the pages of the Book of Mormon?"
That's not the issue I brought up. I was asking why the "prophets" of the Mormon church taught that the Native Americans were Hebrews for so long if this was not what scripture says. And if it isn't what scripture says, whose fault is it that numerous men, over generations, misunderstood the word? Think about it: If I make a statement on national TV, and 3/4 of the people who hear what I say misinterpret the meaning of my words, then the blame lies on MY shoulders, not theirs. In the same way, the blame would have to lie on God for not communicating his message clearly. But God, being omnipotent, omniscient, etc. could not have made such an egregious error. So either God does not exist or he did not inspire the book of Mormon.
By the way, I was googling a little earlier and found an interesting webpage:
http://www.godandscience.org/cults/dna.html#AgVkBRIM174w
Here's an interesting quote:
"It is possible that other people groups are the primary ancestors of the Native Americans? Of course, this explanation ignores or falsifies the clear teaching found in the Book of Mormon Introduction, that claims that the Lamanites 'are the principal ancestors of the American Indians' (italics added)."
What do you think about that?
I don't particularly care, because that's not the paradigm of religion I have.
I don't need my prophets to be correct 100% of the time. I'm OK with them being wrong sometimes. But there are things they have taught that I have found invaluable.
And no matter what errors you may point out in Joseph Smith the man, there was absolutely something going on with him that goes beyond mortal capability.
I find prophets to be extremely useful, even if they don't bat 100%. I'll settle for 80% or even less.
This line of argument might work on a Evangelical fundamentalist (which seems to be what atheists think ALL religious people are), but it's not going to work on me. I never expected perfection from my religion to begin with, so you're really just wasting your time here.
Now, I take it that you have no real answer to my other points?
In response to my strong and conclusive argument that God would never inspire a false or easily misinterpreted work, you say, "Well, I'm OK with it if he did." Sorry kid, that's not an argument, and I'm not wasting any more of my time on you.
Typical.
Don't play along with the idiotic assumptions an atheist has made about what religion is supposed to offer, and he runs off and pouts.
Sorry I didn't make my religion dumb enough for you to have an easy target.
And I still note that you didn't respond to my responses on Southerton. So I guess you are conceding here that the text of the Book of Mormon (not Joseph's assumptions about the text, but just the text) is NOT refuted by DNA arguments.
Sorry that your supposed silver bullet turned out to be a dud. Try researching the Mormon responses to your critiques before you make them next time. You'll save us all a lot of time.
"Don't play along with the idiotic assumptions an atheist has made about what religion is supposed to offer, and he runs off and pouts."
I'm sorry you're so stupid. I didn't make any "assumptions" about what religion has to offer, I reasoned logically from the claims of religion to a conclusion about what it should offer.
"And I still note that you didn't respond to my responses on Southerton. So I guess you are conceding here that the text of the Book of Mormon (not Joseph's assumptions about the text, but just the text) is NOT refuted by DNA arguments."
If you'd actually bothered to read my responses you would have seen that I DID respond to your bullshit assertion that the Lamanites were just a tiny group of people. I linked to the following webpage which responds to that in depth:
http://www.godandscience.org/cults/dna.html#krhuTbOvbBd9
I also quoted from it. Are you so dumb that you can't remember that, or are so blinded by your idiotic faith that you couldn't resist responding before you actually read what I wrote.
You're a fanatic, and the world would be better off without people like you who will sacrafice reason before the altars of fools like Joseph Smith.
The text that website refers to is from an introduction that was written by the Church and added to the book long after Joseph's death. That intro is not a part of our canonized scripture.
And anyway, the quote is outdated. The intro no longer says the Lamanites were the principle ancestors. Only that they were "among" the ancestors.
Mormon 7:1-2 and Doctrine and Covenants 19:27 do not make any claims about the size of Nephite civilization, nor whether Lehi's group were their only, or even principle ancestors.
So our scripture are doing just fine. The sweeping claims that you claim are there, simply are not.
As for the other genetic claims the website makes, they only work if you assume a continent-wide population in the Book of Mormon, which the text plainly refutes.
Mormons have written extensively responding to claims like those put forth by the website you reference to. You can read a good sampling of the articles written on the subject here:
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai195.html
Well, Maybe I ought to learn more about Mormonism to sort out whether all this is true or not. Nevertheless, you do hasve the fact that the church authored an introduction which stated that the Native Americans were Hebrew. I would presume that one or more of the prophets at the time had a hand in composing the introduction. Why did they misinterpret the facts? Why didn't God guide their interpretation of scripture. This brings us back to the argument I made earlier.
Anyway, I'm not interested in debating forever. You can have the last word here.
I've probably been too heated in this exchange. So I'll stand down as well.
To answer your final question...
I don't think you're going to be satisfied with my answer. Because it speaks to fundamental expectations of what religion is meant to offer in a person's life.
For a lot of people, religion is supposed to be a source of certainty and security. And those are the primary motivations in their worship life. They want to feel like they have all the answers, or at least all the answers that matter. And if the religion doesn't provide that, they feel gypped.
I grew up in the LDS faith assuming that this is what religion is about - having it all figured out.
And honestly, I never liked it much. It felt stifling. Like everything in the universe could be boiled down to a pat Sunday School answer. It was tedious, monotonous, and insufferably self-congratulatory. And I was constantly inwardly rebelling against it throughout high school and even during my two-year missionary service in Japan (age 19-21).
Then I discovered REAL Mormon history. Not the dumbed-down version you get at church (where a variety of learning abilities have to be catered to). But the whole outrageous, controversial, messy, and even disturbing span of Mormon history.
I thought it was absolutely wonderful. No longer were characters like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young just statues on a pedestal, but real living breathing men with a whole range of problems and issues. It was a fascinating story.
I found I actually liked Joseph and Brigham better once the mask of sainthood had been removed. I loved the new ambiguities in Mormon doctrine, the contradictions, the missteps, all of it. It opened a whole universe of exploration to me. It was like my religious life coming alive after being asleep.
You see, I found something besides just security and certainty to value in religion. Exploration, dilemma, creativity. All of these things are irrelevant in a religion where everything is figured out. But in an open-ended religion, where prophets are merely signposts, and not inerrant, where scriptures have to be tested against other knowledge, and contextualized with the historic mindsets of the men who wrote them, and where being a part of a religion does not automatically immunize you from screwing up (even at the top level). In that kind of religion, you really have room to grow intellectually.
This is the kind of stuff I value in religion. I still value having answers on limited questions and some degree of certainty. But it is balanced with an equal measure of excitement at not being tied-down, and free to explore a theology that is more open-ended than I ever thought it was in high school.
Anyway, hope that ends this conversation on a little more positive note than I started it.
Best wishes.
Post a Comment