Posted by:
Gwylym
(
)
Date: November 26, 2010 09:30PM
Christianity and Mormonism requires apologists to shore up the believers when difficult questions are posed in regards to their scriptures. These apologists make it their responsibility to provide answers or explanations on difficult or troubling questions. One of these questions for Mormonism is where are the Book of Mormon lands located? For Christianity, a question might be where is the evidence for the Exodus?
All researchers, archaeologists and historians give their interpretation of the facts.
“However impossible absolute “objectivity” may be (and all acknowledge that today), it is still a worthwhile and essential goal for philologists and exegete, specialist in material culture, or historian. Either there are empirical data or there are not; and the historian who opts for the second alternative puts himself out of business, at least as a serious scholar and not a demagogue.” (William Dever What Did the Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know It? pp 87-88)
“Simplistic as it may sound, the chief requirements for dialogue may be courage and honesty. By “courage,” I mean the individual scholar's willingness to put his or her ego up for stakes; to abandon long-cherished positions when necessary; and to acknowledge how and why one's mind has changed. By “honesty,” I mean simply citing other scholars accurately, in context, and crediting one's sources fully; not pretending to an expertise one does not possess; resisting the temptation to indulge in personal polemics that stem from a sense of inadequacy, either in oneself or in the evidence at hand; and refusing on priciple to distort the evidence or another scholar's view.” (IBID p 88)
It is my experience that apologists typically select only the evidence that supports their beliefs; and they resort to circular reasoning, taking quotes out of context and when these tactics fail they resort to ad-hominem attacks.
The following list shows some of the tactics that apologists use. The list was found on the internet (unfortunately I do not have a citation). I have amended the list to include some of my thoughts.
Apologetics ignores contradictory facts.
Apologists have a tendency to ignore facts that do not fit their model or belief. Once a stance is taken, apologists will not revise their theory based on new facts or counter-arguments. They will try and denigrate or ignore those facts and if that cannot be done then they will make ad-hominem attacks on the one presenting the new data. Primarily information on Mormonism will be given but the list also applies to Christian apologetics.
Apologetic "research" is incomplete or shoddy.
Apologists quote other apologists and do not check facts. Hearsay is used, quotations from other apologists and adherence to myth. Apologists and pseudoscientists generally do not check sources. They will quote each other in a circular fashion.
Apologetics begins with a belief—then a hypothesis is written—and then only items which appear to support it are collected.
Apologetics is there to help “prove” or make an apology (in the Greek sense) for a belief. “Evidence” is searched for and all conflicting evidence is dismissed or ignored. Apologists do not investigate, they rationalize. They work in possibilities and not probabilities.
Apologetics is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.
Apologists do not deal in controlled and repeatable experiments. The emphasis is not on meaningful, controlled, repeatable scientific experiments but on finding tidbits of information that give some sort of credence to their hypothesis.
Apologetics relies heavily on subjective validation.
The Book of Mormon mentions a river in the Middle East that Lehi and his family crossed in their journeys. Modern apologists find a wadi that does not flow like the river mentioned in the Book of Mormon yet they report they have proof now. Or, a rock is found with the letters NHM inscribed on it and they use it as a proof of the Book of Mormon Nahom. This could also be Naham, Noham, or any other combination of vowels. They may quote DNA studies that mention that American Indians have the X haplotype without mentioning the X1 or X2 subclades and what those mean.They subjectively validate their hypothesis with this type of information. The equivalent is done with "proof" of the Exodus.
Apologetics always achieves a reduction to absurdity if pursued far enough.
The Mormon Prophets have stated time and again that American Indians are descendants of the Hebrews. Apologists now go to the absurd position that the Book of Mormon setting was a very small area, regardless of the fact that this hypothesis is counter to “prophetic” teachings and the Book of Mormon itself. Another example is the horse from the Book of Mormon. Apologists indicate that it may have been a deer or a tapir and not an actual horse. Absurd. A human cannot ride a deer or tapir. The same for swords. No steel or swords have been found in pre-Columbian America. So apologists say that the swords are actually macuahuitls.
Apologetics always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.
History, archaeology, geology, etc are rarely used except where pseudoscientific claims give credence to their hypothesis.
Apologetics often contradicts itself, even in its own terms.
I have heard some Mormon apologists claim that the Book of Mormon took place solely in upstate New York while others claim that it took place in one small area in central America.
Apologetics does not progress.
Once the hypothesis is set that is it. It is final. This despite new facts that may come out that counter the hypothesis.
Apologetics attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).
Apologetic books and writings give possible examples but the examples are not probable or confirmable. There is no way to easily prove against a possibility. Anything is possible. But is it probable? Apologists (and especially Mormon apologists) use non sequiturs, ad hominem attacks and resort to emotion when the argument goes against their hypothesis.
Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion, sentiment, or distrust of established fact.
i.e. Non-experts in the field writing as experts. Also they resort to statements such as “scientists are denying the truth. They know we are right but Satan has control of them.”
Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic theories that contradict what is known about nature.
Apologists only advance their claims and ignore any evidence that may counter their claims.
Apologists appeal to the truth-criteria of scientific methodology while simultaneously denying their validity.
Apologists will quote from archaeologists or pseudo-archaeologists when it advances their cause but will denigrate a finding that is counter to their hypothesis.
Apologists are there to help the “weak” firm up their testimony. And these apologists rely upon pseudoscience and pseudoscience practices to prove their hypothesis while ignoring good science at the same time.
Many Christians, especially fundamentalists consider the Bible to be literally true. If the Bible is literally true, why then does the historical, geological and archaeological record differ?
As Dever stated, either there is empirical data or there is not. What does it mean if the empirical data does not match the Biblical record?
For everyone... Can the Bible still be useful if it is not empirically true?
What is the difference between spirituality and religion?
Is a church or religious sect necessary for spirituality?
What is spirituality and can the Bible help one be spiritual without the Bible being empirically true?