I’m not a masochist, but I do check the Mormon Times occasionally. And Michael R. Ash’s latest column is a corker: Proof is in the eye of the beholder.
The next several installments will deal with evidence, proof, faith and Book of Mormon archaeology.
Evidence for the Book of Mormon? At last! Unfortunately, he then spends the entire column making excuses for why we shouldn’t expect evidence. That’s always a bad sign. If he had the evidence, he would rely on it. Instead, there’s tap dancing.
I should note two important points regarding the nature of evidence and the necessity of faith. First, I’m unconvinced that any critic would “convert” because of some alleged “proof” because I doubt that any “proof” could ever satisfy those who have truly hardened their hearts against Joseph Smith.
This is not quite right. When I deconverted, it was not because I had ‘hardened my heart’. In fact, I spent years making excuses for the church and trying to shoehorn the facts into my narrow religious belief. Only when I realised that it had no evidentiary basis did I abandon the religion I’d invested so much in.
Now, as someone who’s doing science, I will change my mind if the facts require. I can think of a few things that would make me reconsider the Book of Mormon. One would be evidence of Hebrew or Egyptian writing in Mesoamerica. Another would be if a Native American language showed good linguistic evidence of Hebrew or Egyptian loanwords — solid patterns of correspondence, not piecemeal lists of ‘similarities’. If Ash has this evidence, let him say so.
I might say that Ash’s presumption may be based on his own attitude. I wonder what evidence he’d accept that his beliefs are in error. I hope he shows up in comments, because I’d really like to ask him that one question.
Here’s his other point.
Secondly, the Lord doesn’t work via secular proofs because that would confound the primary principle of agency. While there are evidences that support religious convictions, there are no intellectually decisive proofs, and there will always be evidences that conflict with our beliefs
…
Non-LDS philosophers have argued that in order for us to have spiritual freedom — freedom to make choices — God cannot allow us to know — by secular proof alone — that he exists.
…
If humans had incontrovertible secular evidence for the existence of God, they would be unable to freely choose whether or not to accept God.
So God exists, but he’s not going to give any evidence. And then when I don’t believe in him, he’s going to punish me for not believing in him despite the lack of evidence. If that’s the case, then he values ignorance over knowledge, which is not the kind of being I’d want to worship.
There’s something odd about Ash’s post. Take another look at his two reasons for not giving evidence.
Point 1: If you gave someone evidence, they could still just reject it.
Point 2: If you gave someone evidence, it would destroy their agency because they’d be unable to reject it.
So which is it? Can someone reject evidence, or can’t they? He’s rested his case on two points that contradict each other.
Is this really the best the Mormon Times can do?
22 March 2011 at 2:56 pm
…and if Mr Ash turns up then I would like to ask him why on earth I should accept scripture that tells me I would be destroyed if I would not accept polygamy… and yet this same 'benevolent' god also wants me to just take it on faith that a.) he exists and b.) he said such a mean thing!
Hand me a bucket; I need to be sick!
22 March 2011 at 3:17 pm
The premortal realm experience seems to contradict his second point. If I understand things correctly, we had pretty good evidence for Elohim's and Jehovah's existence when we lived with them in our "first estate" yet we still had agence. And apparently it was somehow a hard decision because about 1/3 of Elohim's kids chose wrongly.
And in my opinion, the stakes were higher in the first estate. At that point, the results of your decision were largely a degree of glory or outer darkness. Although, we can supposedly still become sons of perdition while on earth, it's apparently very difficult to do so.
Now that faith is required, the reward doesn't seem to correlate with the difficulty of the test because now we're just being tested to see how much glory we get.
22 March 2011 at 4:04 pm
Leave it to someone who hasn't been there to make assumptions about people who've been there.
Ash has no credibility to be talking about what atheists think anymore than straight people have to talk about how gay people are either born that way or become that way.
23 March 2011 at 12:38 am
Let's not forget that people in scripture got lots of evidence (allegedly). The Apostle Thomas, all those Nephites… on and on. Was their agency abridged?
So now that Mike Ash has claimed that evidence would destroy our agency, I hope he's not going to undercut that claim by… offering evidence for the Book of Mormon!
If he does, does that mean he was just kidding about Point 2?
23 March 2011 at 1:54 am
Poor Mike Ash has hardened his heart against L. Ron Hubbard and probably wouldn't ever be satisfied with any proof offered to him by a Scientology apologist. So unscientific he is.
23 March 2011 at 5:03 am
My guess is that he would then say something like it's actually a "blessing" that we don't have experiences like Paul, Thomas, the Nephites or else we would be held to a nearly impossible standard of righteousness. I think I've heard that one before.
23 March 2011 at 3:45 pm
Let's not forget that people in scripture got lots of evidence (allegedly).
That was my first thought. What about the seas suddenly parting, the sun stopping, the walking on water, the feeding thousands with a single basket of fare, the immediate clearing of leprosy…?
23 March 2011 at 3:47 pm
Sorry, I know nothing of Mormon teachings so I've assumed the standard Jesus stories apply.
24 March 2011 at 1:58 am
Yeah, Andy, that's correct. They just added their own.