Skepticism of the Churches
Within the broad domain of religion there is much to be skeptical about: faith healers, speaking in tongues, mystical experiences, weeping statues, stigmata, demonic influences, mystical types of energy, reincarnation, oracles, predictions of the future, doomsday preachers, and holy books. The claims to supernatural power and knowledge are so many and varied, it is no wonder that they are treated with skepticism. The skeptical view has been reinforced by the failure of many such claims to withstand scientific scrutiny. (Others have either not been tested or are not testable.)
Our own religion has varying degrees of conflict or consonance with such phenomena. When I read or listen to the debunking of such phenomena I feel a little bit like a kid, laughing with the cool kids at the nerds, yet a little uneasy because I recognize some qualities of the nerds in myself.
Sometimes the discussion turns specifically to Mormonism. When it does, I take some consolation in the fact that portrayals of Mormonism usually miss important details. For example, the eleven witnesses who claimed to have seen the golden plates are often overlooked; the story is thus reduced to the claim of a single person. Not that such people would likely find the story any more believable, but if Mormonism is to be debunked it should at least be done accurately. Unfortunately it is not uncommon that, as Daniel Peterson has observed, "...Mormon history and doctrine are plainly deemed too patently absurd to justify much effort at accuracy." Furthermore, Peterson writes:
I believe that secular anti-Mormonism, which I often find much more interesting and intellectually challenging, will constitute the real locus of action in coming years....I think that he is right. I don't think that we can deny that scientific skepticism has a legitimate role to play in investigating religious claims. Even from a purely theological view we have a stake in seeing that false religious teachers and miracles are revealed for what they are. The challenge is trying to convince others that the foundational claims of Mormonism are not a priori part of the bathwater.
...secularist anti-Mormonism is doing real damage to many fragile testimonies...and an adequate response has still not materialized. This is a challenge that apologists...urgently need to address.


1 comments:
I agree completely. Criticism from Fundy Christians saying "show some evidence for Nephites" can be responded to with "show me proof for the exodus".
However a secular academic doesn't have a religious axe to grind or a position to defend. Believers go to Meso-American archaeologist suggesting they would see the Book of Mormon as evidence. The response they get is quite the opposite.
I revisited Guns, Germs, and Steel this weekend and now I realize why some apologists are saying it should be considered a "anti" book. The books provides history of the Americas including Meso America that creates seriously troubling insights to the faithful.
Jake D.
Post a Comment