I was thinking of this a few months ago and haven't really thought about it since until the last week. It's not a very complex thought string though I don't think I reached a full resolution. Perhaps I will right now.
The scientific theory is a method of problem solving that seeks to disprove theories, not prove them. Indeed, you technically can't "prove" anything - there's no official universal number of tests that need to be run to confirm the truth of something. What we believe we know as facts are in reality theories that have yet to be disproved. It's like we have a single lamp inside a dark and near infinitely large room. We see and have some understanding of the area we're in, and as far as we can tell the rest of the room is just like our spot, but we can't prove there's nothing that exists within the shroud of darkness that we aren't familiar with. The human mind simply does not possess omniscience, and thus is incapable of proving anything, save for mathematical proofs, which deal with abstract and theoretically impossible re-projections of the universe which cannot be otherwise expressed.
With this perspective, the theory of God is by its very nature non-disprovable. Romans 11:33 - "how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" Isaiah 55:8,9 - "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." In fact the scriptures often use the term 'mystery' to describe the ways of God. This essentially creates an inability to lay out specific parameters that would constitute a theory which could be tested. This aspect of the nature of God, I here speculate, is one of the primary causes of disbelief. The scriptures outline a Deity that is scientifically and philosophically untouchable by nature: a cause-all, fix-all to everything in life, whose dubious seeming simplicity and consistent absence of immediate gratification of short-term curiosity is quick to foster speculation in the human mind.
Of course I reject the validity of the speculation based on my own experience. I also reject it because it lacks important foundations of argument on a socio-analytical level. Perhaps in the world of Christianity outside of the Latter-Day Saint church, such speculation is not so easily apprehended. Although the Gospel still stands through the prescribed method of knowing its validity as described in the scriptures themselves, it seems to more easily match the description given by Karl Marx: the opium of the masses. With existence of the Book of Mormon, however, an impressive hole appears in the foundation of the opposing argument.
The most plausible explanation that holds up against the Book of Mormon without admitting it was inspired by God is that Joseph Smith and/or his fellow 'founders' wrote it. I think few would dispute that, if someone was trying to lead people astray with a made-up religion, their fabricated scripture would support their practices and beliefs. Why, then, would Joseph Smith write Jacob 2, which speaks explicitly of the evils of polygamy and the scriptural justification thereof, if he were planning to make some sort of polygamist utopia, as many critics firmly claim? Why would Joseph Smith write Alma 30:7,8 "Now there was no law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds. For thus saith the scripture: Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve." if he wanted to keep people of black skin from holding the Priesthood? We may apply the same question to proposition 8. Perhaps one would say at this point, "then doesn't that make God look hypocritical?" The response I would give would take up several more paragraphs and would be a digression of the matter at hand, and likely not the direction of conversation my opposing party would take at this point. The point of the matter is that the Book of Mormon does not contain the characteristic residue of opium-seekers, not does it contain any other sort of modern human traces. There would be no motivation to write such a book. It does not cater to Joseph Smith's faults. Thus it adds validity to the theory of the God of the Bible on, among others, a socio-analytical level.
The scientific theory is a method of problem solving that seeks to disprove theories, not prove them. Indeed, you technically can't "prove" anything - there's no official universal number of tests that need to be run to confirm the truth of something. What we believe we know as facts are in reality theories that have yet to be disproved. It's like we have a single lamp inside a dark and near infinitely large room. We see and have some understanding of the area we're in, and as far as we can tell the rest of the room is just like our spot, but we can't prove there's nothing that exists within the shroud of darkness that we aren't familiar with. The human mind simply does not possess omniscience, and thus is incapable of proving anything, save for mathematical proofs, which deal with abstract and theoretically impossible re-projections of the universe which cannot be otherwise expressed.
With this perspective, the theory of God is by its very nature non-disprovable. Romans 11:33 - "how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" Isaiah 55:8,9 - "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." In fact the scriptures often use the term 'mystery' to describe the ways of God. This essentially creates an inability to lay out specific parameters that would constitute a theory which could be tested. This aspect of the nature of God, I here speculate, is one of the primary causes of disbelief. The scriptures outline a Deity that is scientifically and philosophically untouchable by nature: a cause-all, fix-all to everything in life, whose dubious seeming simplicity and consistent absence of immediate gratification of short-term curiosity is quick to foster speculation in the human mind.
Of course I reject the validity of the speculation based on my own experience. I also reject it because it lacks important foundations of argument on a socio-analytical level. Perhaps in the world of Christianity outside of the Latter-Day Saint church, such speculation is not so easily apprehended. Although the Gospel still stands through the prescribed method of knowing its validity as described in the scriptures themselves, it seems to more easily match the description given by Karl Marx: the opium of the masses. With existence of the Book of Mormon, however, an impressive hole appears in the foundation of the opposing argument.
The most plausible explanation that holds up against the Book of Mormon without admitting it was inspired by God is that Joseph Smith and/or his fellow 'founders' wrote it. I think few would dispute that, if someone was trying to lead people astray with a made-up religion, their fabricated scripture would support their practices and beliefs. Why, then, would Joseph Smith write Jacob 2, which speaks explicitly of the evils of polygamy and the scriptural justification thereof, if he were planning to make some sort of polygamist utopia, as many critics firmly claim? Why would Joseph Smith write Alma 30:7,8 "Now there was no law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds. For thus saith the scripture: Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve." if he wanted to keep people of black skin from holding the Priesthood? We may apply the same question to proposition 8. Perhaps one would say at this point, "then doesn't that make God look hypocritical?" The response I would give would take up several more paragraphs and would be a digression of the matter at hand, and likely not the direction of conversation my opposing party would take at this point. The point of the matter is that the Book of Mormon does not contain the characteristic residue of opium-seekers, not does it contain any other sort of modern human traces. There would be no motivation to write such a book. It does not cater to Joseph Smith's faults. Thus it adds validity to the theory of the God of the Bible on, among others, a socio-analytical level.
No comments:
Post a Comment