Tweet
Originally posted by oxcoug
View Post
LA Ute, whose opinion I respect, has said something to the affect that it doesn't all have to make rational sense but it can't make no sense at all. It cannot be utterly absurd. I think what you are saying is that these things are ideas that allow people to not view it as utterly absurd, even if the evidence never approaches the level of independently satisfying any sort of burden of proof (which ever one wants to use).
I have described these as being very similar to the notion of reasonable doubt. In a criminal trial, I am not necessarily trying to set up a convincing alternative view as much as I am trying to make a juror ask them self whether they can really know for sure if the allegations are true. Is there a reasonable doubt? Have all the reasonable hypothesis of innocence been excluded. Similarly, such evidences, mostly circumstantial, don't attempt to independently set up a convincing alternative view, they are simply holding the door open that, from an evidentiary standpoint, the book might be an ancient record. There is a reasonable doubt that the critics are wrong on the evidence.
This of course excludes spiritual evidences (however one wants to define those, people certainly differ) which are in my opinion the only evidences that matter. I don't believe that it is necessary for belief to be plausible on the evidence because in my view there is such a paucity of non-spiritual evidence in favor of, and such formidable counter evidences and arguments, that trying to hold that door of plausibility open is more of a willing delusion than a reasonable view of available evidence. I also think that it frequently sets people who are new to the evidentiary arguments up for disappointment.
Why it should be that the non-spiritual evidences tilt so far in one direction, I cannot say. Certainly there are familiar explanations. But to me what is tough to deny is that Moroni's promise works for many, many people. The spiritual benefits and evidences are significant, even if they themselves are delusions in the eyes of some. I don't view them that way, not my own experiences nor those of others. That is not to say that I know we are right to be see them as evidence of the BOM or the divine or what have you, but I try to nurture that hope inside of me that they are that we call faith. For me this is a choice (though I know that some say faith is a gift and there is authority for that idea). Faith is the ultimate exercise of my free agency. For me that is enough because practicing my faith is sufficiently rewarding for me and my family.
What I believe comes from subjective experience that I think I share with others; it appears to me that I do. That doesn't whitewash any of the panoply of problems that people raise and often lose their testimonies over nor does it invalidate the spiritual experiences of people like Faith who believes that the spirit led her out of the church. That is okay, because these ultimate questions are questions I can only attempt to answer for myself. Only I can set the bar for how much evidence and what kind is satisfactory. I share all that only to make that point that I don't begrudge anyone the pursuit of objective evidences, or of plausibility as you put it, if that is important to them. I only say that it appears to me that serious pursuit of such things is hurtful more often than it is rewarding from a faithful perspective.
Comment