The Alien Landscape
Topic: Buskirk Review

A critic of Stephen Greer observes,

The CSETI difference is Greer's impatience with the traditional notion that we have to wait passively for them to show up. He believes we can prime the pump. Armed with a hardware cornucopia (high-power halogen lights, radar detectors, walkie-talkies, still and video cameras),

BUT,

Greer for years has studied both Transcendental Meditation and the Baha'i religion. TM emphasizes that civilization advances through quantum leaps in consciousness, while Bahaism stresses the spiritual oneness of mankind....

"The craft is round," Lisa says. "A ball. With many different lights around it. They communicate telepathically. If you say, 'Come in peace,' they'll come. If you think negatively, they won't come." "Right, right," says Greer. "That's very true."

http://www.mufon-ces.org/docs/outsidemagazine.pdf

The technology has a context, ultimately a spiritual, faith demanding one. 

To read about Billy Meier's photographs, see here http://www.billymeier.com/photos.htm. These photographs have been the subject of intense debate between believers and debunkers.  Though Meier's apologists are passionate, according Meier's website, "the decision as to their authenticity [the photos] ultimately lies with each and every individual." And the context of the technology is spiritual and social enlightenment:

Semjase had met Billy Meier face to face more than 135 times. She had brought other ETs with her - Ptah, Asket, and Quetzel. They all looked human. They had been coming to Earth for a long time. They gave Billy Meier amazing information about everything from science to philosophy. They were concerned about us - humans - their little brothers. We were, and still are, destroying ourselves and our planet. Nuclear-weapons proliferation, famine, disease, and pointless religions that miss the goals of spiritual evolution were the key topics of their message. http://www.tjresearch.info/Dilettoso.htm

There is the interplay between technology, proof, and spiritual enlightenment, and of course the existential journey of the discovery process. In Billy's words,

By the mid-1970s, I was prepared for the spiritual philosophy to which the Pleiadians educated me. It is a philosophy emphasizing the immortality of the individual spirit or soul, and its purpose in life is to learn, even when it means making mistakes and learning from the mistakes. The learning goes on in successive lifetimes, or reincarnations, over which time the soul gradually evolves and accumulates memories and knowledge normally unavailable to us except as feelings of conscience. http://raphael-labro.org/billy_meier2.html

I'm just curious what exactly, makes Joseph Smith's life and message so much different than Meier's? What makes Joseph Smith a prophet, and Meier a pseudo-scientist? How does Meier's "scientism" fail to wholesale miss the domain religion gives us access to? Or has Buskirk simply lumped the entire UFO community together as one entity and is not aware that there is in fact, irrespective of Sagan's more narrow case, a strong religious streak within the alien community? In fact, in these cases it would appear the "science" is a mere supplement to a greater goal. Take a look at the names of some Pleiadian books: "Family of Light," "Bringers of Dawn," "Comes the Awakening." Where are the warp drive schematics?

The various kinds of alien reports over the years yield a cosmic narrative. While Mormons have the aristocratic falling out in heaven, the creation, and Noah and the ark, alien mystics have their own backdrops to stage mankind and its problems:

http://ufo.whipnet.org/alien.races/exopolitics.org/index4.html

http://galactic.to/kjole/nordic/human-et-history.html

http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/alien_races.html

The accounts vary. But typically you have all alien races stemming from the Lyrians. Dr. Buskirk should be tickled to learn of the Grays, a race of technology crazed control freaks devoid of any humanity who blew up their home world in nuclear war and fled underground where they've mutated from normal human form into the little gray guys with big eyes (it's dark down there). They are all, I suspect unequivocally, logical positivists. And they are the ones responsible for abductions and cattle mutilations. The kind of weekend activity we of course, expect out of men of the enlightenment who don't have a church where they can "surround themselves with symbols and objects linked with the divine." (10) The Pleiadians, on the other hand, having already overcome many of their own social problems are religious sages. They stand with Buskirk against the totalizing of narrow thinking modernism and call man back to his spiritual roots. But they, like the angels in Mormonism, weave a fabric of nuanced spiritual experience along with impressive real-life encounters and photographic evidence. Not everyone gets to see Moroni or heft the plates, but all are welcome to meditate and receive "sudden strokes of ideas" (31) from the Pleiadian.

And let's not forget the grand-daddy of all alien cults, Heaven's gate. Where is their obsession with technology and scientific explanations? Hard Sci-Fi just doesn't sell universally to all those who reject traditional religion. It would seem there is a strong religious appeal, religious by Dr. Buskirk's criteria, not Sagan's, within the UFO world.

It's ok to Laugh at People who Believe in Aliens rather than Angels
Topic: Buskirk Review

Because that's just pseudoscience. Dr. Buskirk agrees with Sagan on the absurdity of UFO research and also includes "fundamentalists" in his grouping of those who provide neither scientific nor religious value,

This craving for certainty is manifest in the searching for signs of UFO visitations; proponents claim that there is hard evidence, including photographs, movies, physical marks on abductees, and a crashed flying saucer stored in Area 51. These physical data relieve the UFO believer of the difficulty of developing faith in an unseen God, offering instead a cheap certainty. Rather than cultivating personal experiences of the sacred, UFO cults replace faith with credulity and blind trust in supposed scientific evidence. Not only can science supposedly prove the existence of these alien or higher beings, but it can to some extent explain their powers.

Of course, the foundational story of Mormonism begins with three literal witnesses to a set of Golden Plates, and then eight more witness who don't get to see, but can touch and heft the plates. And does Buskirk follow FARMS at all? It seems there is plenty of interest in establishing through the historico-critical method, the credibility of the Book of Mormon witnesses, archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, and Parallels to the ancient world.  Granted, the FARMS associates I've interacted with don't see their attempts as aiming for "absolute certainty" but plausibility, and following Dr. Peterson, possibly the upper hand in the evidential debate.  But I don't think Dr. Buskirk really understands the diversity of UFO communities. For instance, Acolytes of Billy Meier, famous for his photographs of spacecraft, like FARMS, will boast the credibility of their evidence, but they don't believe the matter as settled with the absolute certainty Dr. Buskirk talks about. In fact, they emphasize the "personal responsibility" of those who undertake UFO studies to "decide for themselves." For a great many of these people, a personal, spiritual journey is involved. The aliens reveal themselves to those who are ready. Consider the well-known Dr. Stephen Greer, founder of CSETI, who takes tour groups into the mountains to communicate with alien crafts.  Sometimes those experiences entail a literal close encounter, but the usual it would seem to be is "telepathic" communication, the efficacy of that communication mitigated by personal desire for enlightenment.  Which bring us to the next point,

Alien cults display faith in science—a kind of scientism—to the point of a near worship of technology. Humans now love new toys: shiny new cars, MP3 players, flat-screen televisions... Men and women thoroughly indoctrinated in the modern worldview can satisfy their religious needs without the supposed mystic mumbo-jumbo of traditional religion. Better yet, it’s rather easy. No faith is required, and the aliens don’t ask much in return...far more appealing than a Galilean Jewish peasant who lived two millennia ago.

Dr. Buskirk is way off here. Alien buffs are often openly New Agey and mystical. If it makes sense to speak of a post-modern world, without question, "Alien cults" are are a good fit for that landscape. The techno-geek private investigators exist, but that clinical world doesn't appeal to many of those who are religiously obsessed with aliens. And to the extent that technology does impress the faithful, consider, as Buskirk does later in his essay, that Jesus Christ built his following in part by turning water into wine and raising the dead.  Like Meier or Joseph Smith, Jesus launched his religious campaign with material feats.  The next segment will document a little bit of Meier and Greer and some of the variable terrain within the alien landscape Dr. Buskirk I don't believe has encountered.  And that terrain, it seems to me, can be an awful  lot like Mormonism at times.

Why hasn't Carl Sagan experienced the Sacred?
Topic: Buskirk Review

Dr. Buskirk believes in maintaining a categorical purity between the domain of science and the domain of religion, religion is the realm of the normative and science, the descriptive.(8) But "meaning, purpose, and ethics"(31) somehow derive from spiritual and mystical experiences which I gather, are the results of "encountering the sacred." Yet he isn't clear on how those experiences expressly relate to meaning, purpose or ethics. He observes,

"In an infinitely old universe with an infinite number of appearances of galaxies,..(wonders go here)" Sagan admits, “Whenever I think about any of these discoveries, I feel a tingle of exhilaration. My heart races.” This sense of wonder makes him an excellent science writer and teacher, but ultimately such wonder does not satisfy the same purpose or meet the same needs as religion. No sense of purpose or meaning, no ethical demands, can be founded solely on the findings of science.(12)

But strangely, he later recounts this story of Moses as an authentic "spiritual" experience,

These experiences have a transcendent character to them, seeming otherworldly, contrasting the reality and majesty of the sacred with the nothingness of man. As Moses remarked following his vision of all of creation: “Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed” (Moses 1:10). The emotions that accompany religious experiences vary from person to person: some people feel an emotional warmth associated with spiritual experiences..(31)

It's not clear that the experience of Moses meets Dr. Buskirk's definition of religion, and if it does, why Sagan's doesn't. His argument; "you can't get an ought from an is," but that seems to say nothing of Sagan being overcome by what in fact, is. Moses in a similar way is overcome by what is. As was Abraham when beholding the inner workings of stars, according to Nibley's commentary on The Apocolypse of Abraham.  Did Moses or Abraham behold ethical demands? Did they behold purpose? Did they behold nothing of what is when they viewed everything God had created? One might try and rescue Dr. Buskirk's position by claiming that ethical demands are part of what God created, but that would be no more ingenious than saying Carl Sagan beheld the United States Constitution and would complicate his categories. While the experience of Moses may differ here in degree, it's not clear at all that it differs in kind from Sagan's. Naturalists may be overcome with how small man is when looking through a telescope as a religious person is when beholding creation in a vision. A lot, however, turns on what Dr. Buskirk means by "meaning, purpose, and ethics," which isn't clear. By ethics, does he mean personal, moral inclinations, or does he really mean ethics, the reasoned understanding of moral inclination and obligation in the abstract?¹ Having a vision and looking through a telescope may both be morally inspiring, but neither tells us what we ought to do or why we ought to do it.

But Dr. Buskirk isn't consistent in his articulation of science. Science it appears, can give us purposes and obligations, but only if those purposes and obligations are bad,

I argue that although technology may be neutral, science comes with some unchallenged philosophical baggage that has been damaging at several levels(18).²

This "philosophical baggage" whereby men become "cogs in a machine"(16) is nothing other than the notion of final cause or teleology at work - which is the explicit domain of religion according to Dr. Buskirk.  It is after all,  the "religious" articulation of  purpose that predestines some men to eternal damnation, if for no other reason, than for the righteous to appreciate their own state of joy.³  Mankind as mere cogs goes hand in hand with the presupposition that an external purpose of life must exist.

These "religious" assumptions about the world were a real challenge for Darwinian evolution to overcome in its uphill social battle as described by Edward J. Larson in his wonderful book, Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory. And that's not just because of Darwinism's challenges to religion, but its challenge to western presuppositions generally. Rejecting both special creation and the privileged heredity of Lamarckism, not to mention tracing the origins of humans back to Africa, Darwinism failed to be a welcome discovery for those encumbered by the baggage of Aryan mythology(147). One might say that if purpose is the domain of religion, some of the failures of secularism might be attributed to men of science only succeeding to divorce themselves of God half way.

1. See the definition of morality in the Catholic Encyclopedia
2. Another way of arguing would be to say that the "philosophical baggage" which comes along with science could create meaning and purpose for Carl Sagan.
3. The End of the Wicked Contemplated by the Righteous - Jonathon Edwards

My Commentary On Buskirk's Review of Sagan
Topic: Buskirk Review

This is my commentary on Allen R. Buskirk's, Science, Pseudoscience, and Religious Belief from FARMS' review of books, which is a review of Carl Sagan's, The Demon Haunted World. Note that, whenever a number appears in parentheses by itself, it refers to the Adobe Reader page number of Dr. Buskirk's essay.
 

---

First I want to comment on Buskirk's introduction and conclusion. He cites a Wall Street Journal review in the beginning,

"Carl Sagan’s “The Demon-Haunted World” [is] a repetitious, cloying, sanctimonious, self-regarding—yet oddly entertaining—sermon on the evils of superstition."

And Dr. Buskirk himself concludes, "Although I appreciate the reminders of the need for clear thinking and evidence, ultimately Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World offers little positive contribution to current dialogue concerning religion and science."

I agree with both statements. I've never seen Sagan cited in any book or paper on the philosophy of science and I'd be surprised if the case ever were otherwise. But books that shelve with dignity in a university do very little to educate the masses. Sagan's work was an ambitious and much needed introduction to thinking critically. Its controversial and entertaining style only ensured that it would strike enough emotion within the reader, whether anger, awe, or amusement, to be read cover to cover. If a better book than his should have been written, then someone should have written it.

I wasn't, however, surprised to find agreement with Buskirk on a number of his criticisms of Sagan. In fact, I'm glad FARMS did this review because frankly, Sagan was a bit narrow minded and pretentious - as are some, or many, of his followers who decided they could stop learning altogether after finishing his book. Religiously minded folks who have been around the block a bit should have little problem finding flaws in Sagan's philosophy. I hope that upsets some critics, but in a way that they become even better critics, and not just apologists.

I wouldn't say though, that my agreement with Dr. Buskirk runs very deep. I found his categorization of science and religion too rigid and the place of philosophy in his world especially problematic, and I don't think he succeeded in articulating examples of religion or religious knowledge in a way that fits his own definition religion's domain. I also think he doesn't appreciate the diversity within what he considers pseudoscience, he seems to fail to realize that if Sagan can only see science at work in the world, then the misrepresentations likely aren't unique to "traditional religion." I address this and more. Actually, I already have done the addressing, I just need to do the posting.

Meat, Potatoes, and Beer
Topic: The Miracle Of Sin
It's been a rough week at work and consequently, my schedule has been thrown off quite badly. This meant last night, because I worked very late, I came home and only had the motivation to make some macoroni and cheese, play on the comp a bit, and go to bed. The problem here is, the night before I had worked out very hard and I even managed to get some exercise in at work last night. So I just wasn't eating the right food, or enough of it. Therefore, I woke up this morning fatiqued and sickly and work today was a struggle. But I knew there was cure for my condition, left a little early, and got started.

First thing was to hack off a couple of slabs of beef and get them in a lemon juice and soy sauce marinade. A half hour later, with what strength I had left I managed to put them on the grill. I use a high flame as my goal is to sear the outside while leaving the inside a little rare. With the proper marinade, searing, a little Montreal Steak Seasoning and some garlic, even a cheaper cut will taste incredible.

Along with the steak I had mashed potatoes with just a little salt and butter and mixed vegetables I cook with a few drops of olive oil and lemon juice. But the key factor that tied it all together was a cold bottle of Lawson Creek Red Ale. What a meal. Solid but not too heavy, and just enough alcohol to get that slightly warm feeling. I could feel my former strength being restored. With a good night's sleep, I'll be back to normal by tommorow.

Something a Mormon will never know is the enhancement the right alcoholic beverage can bring to a good dinner. They'll take a Tylenol with codine or any other number of drugs which bring about a far more pronounced altered state than what Satan has provided for us in the natural remedy of beer. But moderation be damned, there will not be a drop of alcohol ingested (unless it's Robotussin and they don't bother to think about it then).

I urge all my Mormon brothers and sisters to go to the store and buy a six pack of beer. In the name of the vain images of the world, Amen.

The Real World
Topic: Postmodernism
I wanted to follow up on the second point I made in the last post since this is one of the main issues many take with postmodernism. Kant brought the issue of mind constructing reality to the table. The world as a "construction" isn't new with postmodernism. And clearly, the belief that mind, or society "constructs" reality doesn't necessitate everything just being one gigantic fantasy.

The heritage which gives rise to postmodernism certainly includes Edmund Husserl. Husserl doesn't see the point to epistemology, he thinks psychology is the way to go, and especially, how the mind "intentions" objects before it. His study is phenomenology. Now, in Husserl's project, this is a rigid, cold, scientific undertaking. Yet, it involves "bracketing" the real world, or refraining judgement on what "really exists" independent of the mind. This of course, led to misunderstandings by many of those who read him.

Another important continental figure who didn't see the need to make explicit a "real world" is Ferdinand Saussure. He constructed a theory of signs where there are signifiers and signifieds, the signifieds being mental imprints, but without explicating a reference to something in the "real world." Again, Saussure perceived his own research as thoroughly evidential and scientific.

It's important now to point out that "empericism," the self-described school of thought for a great many of those who condemn continental thinking in totality in fact also tends to ignore or even flat out deny a "real world." On the more extreme side is the position of instrumentalism, which basically understand the readings from instruments, any referents being purely speculative. In fact, the anti-realist attitude itself was invented by one of the great heros of those who oppose continental thinking and postmodernism, William of Ockham.

Ockham was opposed to the idea of universals being "real" objects. A universal is basically a set. In other words, is there a such thing as "people,"(or just Jane, Ted, and Bob)? Ockham says no. Now, there are plenty of conceptions of realism, and denying universals doesn't necessitate denying other "realities" but it sets a precedent and certainly might have some startling implications.

Consider the fact that in number theory, numbers are commonly defined as sets. If you look at a few different groupings of objects, they might all have "Seveness" in common. But for a true empericist, only the objects themselves exist. Or take the philosophy of mind, is the mind a "ghost in the machine"(Ryle) or are there only neurons and synapses? When standing in the middle of campus, do you ask yourself, "where's the university?" And what about moral statements? In what way are so-called obligations "real things" if one is an empericist?

Any one of these philosophers or positions I've mentioned can be the subject of endless debate. I'm not trying to give my opinion on who I think is right, but I'm just pointing out that the tradition from which many point fingers at "postmodernism"(which remember is often confused with anything at all continental) is itself replete with the same "failing" of ignoring or questioning "reality."

I will state my own position on one thing, to demand a clear confession of a "real world" and the potency of science and facts is pointless. Such naive realism doesn't help answer any interesting philosophical questions or even help science.

I know, I still haven't got to any postmodernism yet.

Learning to Drink Beer
Topic: The Miracle Of Sin
Those who leave the church, especially males, should at some point enjoy drinking beer. There are of course, exceptions. But acceptable exceptions do not include reasoning such as, "I just can't stand the taste" or "I like to be in control" or "I don't want church members to think I left the church because of sin, so I'm going to live the 'moral' aspects of the gospel better than the average member!"

The last excuse here I've dealt with in the first post of this series. Sin can play a healthy role in an apostacy. And besides, no Mormon will ever believe an apostate didn't sin horrifically even if all the evidence points otherwise.

A taste for beer is sometimes acquired. But in my case, and in other cases I'm aware of, beer becomes desirable even before the first sip simply because the easier-to-drink options become too sweet. To never desire a beer might indicate one isn't drinking at all. And while there are no "sins" in atheism, it's unfortunate that some would prefer to not enhance their lives with the relaxation and happiness alcohol can bring.

Which brings us to our next point, the "buzz" not being worth the tradeoff of losing control. Losing control of course, is part of enjoying life. Those who wish to never be out of control should refuse to ever have another orgasm. A rewarding experience is often punctuated by loss of control.

To tie it all together then, overcoming the fears and superstitions of Mormonism should lead most apostates to enjoy drinking. And enjoying drinking will almost always lead to beer consumption, for many, beer will become the staple alocholic beverage. The next post in this series will educate the apostate on the various beer choices.

God Is Morality (II)
Topic: All Is Permitted
In my post God is Morality is God is Morality I tried to illustrate some of the dubious moral reasoning popular among Christians. In this post, I'd like to clarify why the title of that post was appropriate - how it is that Christians can appear dumbfounded at the prospect of considering morality without God.  Christians often have difficulty disentangling God from morality similar to the way some have difficulty understanding how paper money holds value if it's not "backed" by gold. Take away the gold and the money is meaningless.  But the reality is, just as money continues to exchange without gold, people still seem to talk about right and wrong without God. And the analogy continues, because just as the value of money has never stayed constant, with or without a gold standard, what is considered right and wrong changes too, independent of the supposition of an Almighty Deity.

But the temptations to continue with the analogy will obscure what I believe to be the key point. Because more important than what can be argued explicitly about the connection between God and morality, is the tacit inseparability in the minds of so many Christians between the very word "God" and the very word "Morality." A lifetime of having a definition reinforced devoid of any kind of abstract thinking about the principle is responsible. The effect is, that even after what has appeared to be a somewhat productive conversation on morals, I'll often leave a perfectly intelligent believer confused because whatever other criteria I can offer in place of God which by the believer's own arguments should account for morals to the same degree God does, doesn't yet find identity with the string of phonemes G-o-d which just happens to trigger some kind of vague but lifelong familiar thought-concept that gives a solidness to the idea of morality.  In other words, in the final analysis, for a vast sweep of unreflective Christians, godless morality, in their minds, doesn't fail rationally, but because the superglue which binds the word "God" and the word "morality" together can't be dissolved, their minds are unable to even conceive of the question.

The following excerpt from Aldous Huxley's Crome Yellow is instructive:

"Look at them, sir," he said, with a motion of his hand towards the wallowing swine. "Rightly is they called pigs."

"Rightly indeed," Mr. Wimbush agreed.

"I am abashed by that man," said Mr. Scogan, as old Rowley plodded off slowly and with dignity. "What wisdom, what judgment, what a sense of values! 'Rightly are they called swine.' Yes. And I wish I could, with as much justice, say, 'Rightly are we called men.'

Posted by gadianton2 at 7:22 PM

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Faith is Bad
Topic: Lectures On Doubt
One of the things believers can't decide on is whether they have faith in their religious beliefs or if their beliefs are more or less an established fact.

In the last Skeptic's Boot Camp installment we learned that believers love to take the position of radical skepticism, denying the possibility of knowing anything, apparently in order to make all knowledge appear as worthless as their own religious beliefs. But what I'd like to know is, what happened to the importance of faith? what happened to being blessed for not seeing yet believing? Why do believers feel they need to make arguments like this?

Under the Christian-backed-into-a-corner problem of induction, since the existence of China "can't be proven either(!)" how can we criticize people who believe in Jesus? A very interesting situation as now not only do Christians admit the weak factual standing of their beliefs by lowering the bar down to about a millimeter above ground level but they also deny the potency of their faith as it's nothing more extraordinary than inferring the existence of China.

Interesting indeed, because we also hear of "Evidence That Demands A Verdict," and Jesus "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord" arguments intended to more or less establish the factual proof of Jesus. In Mormon apologetics you have the similar kind of arguments surrounding the credibility of the 11 witnesses. You'll often hear that the integrity and circumstance of those witnesses are so solid as to meet the highest judicial standards. But if that's true, then why are we also told that Moroni took back the Gold Plates because otherwise we wouldn't need faith? It's like God is up there scratching his beard, "Now let's see, we'll give them 11 of the most credible witnesses who could ever be asked to testify in a court room but it's going to be the difference between faith and absolute knowledge if we let them have the murder weapon!"

Another way of looking at it would be, if we throw out the Bible or throw out the Book of Mormon witnesses, we might as well throw out our entire legal system. But provided we don't throw out our legal system, we still require faith! Because even the most open and shut court ruling doesn't give us absolute certainty! Nothing, of course, could be more absurd. That's the kind of faith that moves molehills not mountains.

So what's exactly wrong with Faith anyway? It is in fact faith to a Christian, that is precisely what's wrong with the beliefs they are opposed to. Christians will accuse atheists of having greater faith than believers for holding positions they believe are dubious like evolution. They'll regularily point out that science is often wrong, rigid, and overconfident -- because it's just a religion too!

There is little choice for Christians then. Either they have to allow all other religions and beliefs to be justified on grounds of faith as they are and secular knowledge to be more objectively established, or they have to appeal to evidence and try and make it look as if their religion offers the best evidential case amongst competitors. And when they go the latter route, they turn to a position of faith that makes faith at best, mundane, and at worst, the achillies heal that brings down everyone else.

All or Nothing
Topic: Lectures On Doubt

One of the tactics of believers is to invoke, typically unwittingly, the problem of induction in the favor of their favorite deity. The problem of induction, to those skeptics out there new to the game, is the problem of making general inferences from finite samples.  It doesn't follow that if one only observes white ducks throughout their life, then there exist only white ducks. As opposed to deductive reasoning which provides certainty.¹ If a black duck is discovered, it follows deductively and immediately that the statement "All ducks are white" is false.  In a previous Skeptic's Boot Camp I gave the example of Newtonian physics. It didn't matter how many observations seemed to prove it, the problem of induction held that it could not be considered ultimately true.  There has never been a satisfactory solution to the problem of induction. 

Many times, when a believer is getting his time piece polished by an atheist, the believer will reach down and revealing all he has left demand, "But how can we know anything at all? Look how often science is wrong!"  At that instant, the atheist can raise his hands in the air victorious. Although, further instruction should be provided for the sake of hoping to improve the world just a little bit.  The obvious route to go from here is to point out that if this reasoning bolsters God, it also bolsters every heinous crime imaginable. The believer should be requested not to object if a pedophile justifies his actions on the same grounds.

Sometimes I'm surprised that even some of the more articulate religious thinkers take this line of argument.  Mormon Egyptologist John Gee has made the point that since Egyptology is controversial, then the Book of Abraham just might be vindicated one day.² Of course, it would be interesting if he'd give any other theory in his field of equal controversy more than five minutes of thoughtful consideration.

Today, James Faulconer, a Mormon BYU philosopher who I respect quite a bit to be honest, made this point on a blog:³

"If a person insists on a certain, rationalist and Enlightenment understanding of intelligibility and reasonableness, then the gospel doesn’t make sense. No religion can be reduced to a rational system with neither remainder nor absence and without contradiction. But, as Godel proved, neither can arithmetic, so that inability on the part of religion isn’t much of a strike against it."

I was pretty surprised by that statement.  It's probably the most verbally sophisticated articulation of this fallacious reasoning I've ever seen. While not invoking induction here, but rather a very obscure subject in logic, the result is the same.  While this isn't a strike against religion, it's also not a strike against Time Cubeism, flat earthism, masochism, or any other insane or destructive belief. I'd bet everything I own that no Enlightenment thinker would have ever expected Mormonism or any other religion to be demonstrated formally complete before it could be considered "reasonable."

If absolute metaphysical certitude isn't achievable, then who dares to criticize any religion as irrational?

1. The problem of induction lurks behind deduction too when considered epistemically.
2. References to Kuhn in Abracadabra, Isaac, and Jacob
3. Times and Seasons