"...can be dismissed without evidence."

Implications:
* I don't need to cite a lack of archeological evidence.
* I don't need to mention DNA.
* I don't need to point out plagiarism in scripture.
* I don't need to note historical inconsistencies and revisionism.
* I don't need to mention Mark Hofmann.

I don't need to prove anything to a Mormon!

In fact, I'd argue that I should AVOID entering into a reason- or evidence-based argument with a Mormon because doing so may imply that the claims posited by the Mormon are based on reason and evidence. Which they are not.

It depends what your objective is.

Hitchins is correct that if you want strictly to analyze a topic or discuss it with calm, rational people, you can disregard any proposition that is lacking in evidence. That is logically sound.

But if the interlocutors hold that proposition dear are important to you either emotionally or because they wield some sort of power, and you want to change their thinking, something more is necessary. In short, you have to engage the belief, the believer, or the ideological and social context of the belief in order to isolate the false statement from its supporting infrastructure.

Then the question becomes whether a frontal assault, temperate discussion, or an empathetic wait-and-see approach is best. I think the degree of forcefulness, the degree of frontal assault, is inversely proportional to the target person's commitment to the principle. If she is only minimally committed, like those who watch late night television, a aggressive and derisive attack probably works reasonably well. But if she has built huge edifices and support structures to protect her false believe, it is generally better to use a calm, nurturing, approach that simply presents the correct information in an unthreatening manner so that (some of) has the truth when she is prepared to encounter it. This process may be slow; it may take years. But it may also be the only possible way to move forward.

So yes, I agree intellectually with what Hitchens said. Where the rubber meets the road, however is in dealing with people of varying degrees of commitment to the false statement. At that level simply dismissing a false idea almost always fails to persuade someone to do something differently. The process becomes political and requires some patience and sophistication. That is where things get tricky.

This is a topic I've been thinking about.

I've been reading the latest book from an in-your-face atheist (Dave Silverman). He's an activist (President of America Atheists) and IMO, second tier compared to people like Hitch.

Anyway, Silverman calls the vocal atheists like himself "firebrand" atheists. He's the kind lots of people, many of us here, bash for being a dick (that's his word for what people think of him).

My gut is to shut up about my feelings regarding religion anywhere but safe places like this forum. After all, it just pisses people off and enforces their views, right?

Well, he makes an interesting point. He talks about back in the times of Malcom X and Dr. King. People thought Malcom X was a dick too. He was the firebrand in-your-face black rights advocate. When people realized they would have Malcom X types arising it made them more amicable to the kinder and gentler Dr. King. The extremists have a role, he asserts, by making the moderate reformers for civil rights seem reasonable.

I don't know if I agree with him, but maybe the Dawkins and Silverman types, as hated as they are, can make the tolerant inclusive atheists acceptable by comparison.

Looking at Malcom X and Dr. King now, living in the South, I have respect for the roles they played. Please don't think I am saying racial equality is on a par with atheists getting acceptance. I'm looking at the process of change and acceptance.

Silverman's plea is to call out nonsense and flatly state the truth about being an atheist. Most of us are not willing to do that because we know the impact it can have on our relationships, jobs, etc. However, thanks to people like him, maybe theists will come to accept atheists knowing more dick activists will arise if they don't.

I'm mulling this over. The world needs firebrands or the status quo prevails.


BTW, Silverman was Jewish and makes a case to explain why he will no longer call himself a Jewish Atheist. It was very interesting to read his take on Jewish culture.

He does not write at the caliber of Hitch or Dawkins, but I think he provides a lot of things to consider.

So, I agree with Lot's Wife (really enjoying your posts, Lot's Wife). I also see that progress is made by sometimes offending some. I guess we have to pick our battles and opportunities to make our case as atheists. It typically turns into "He's a dick" instead of considering or refuting the evidence the "dick" is ranting about.

I think this is one of the reasons you don't engage in these conversations to begin with. Lack of evidence has always been a hallmark of faith. Taking it to the extreme, as all of us are want to do at times, means that evidence against is the hypertrophy of faith.

When someone is ready to have a discussion I think that history, both the lack of and the existence of, and evidence are the surest way to demonstrate Mormonism's failures. Until then I am content to tell them that I simply disbelieve. That I activity disbelieve. That I have my reasons, and I think they are very good.

I have found that the reasoning that resounds most with Mormons is ironically the fact that man's reasoning is so much more sound than god's. I reckon that most Mormons have at one time or another questioned the pointlessness of it all.

Just my two cents.

I think with Mormonism, pointlessness is the point. It deepens the mystery and strengthens the faith. Because that's all Joseph had to go on. That and a strong libido.

"Lack of evidence has always been a hallmark of faith. Taking it to the extreme, as all of us are want to do at times, means that evidence against is the hypertrophy of faith."

Indeed, as Mark Twain wrote, "Faith is believing in things you know ain't true."

The BoM IS the evidence. It is bogus, fictional evidence, which is what the citing of archeological evidence, cultural evidence, etc, is meant to demonstrate.

That a secret handshake will get you into heaven is asserted without evidence. That can be dismissed out of hand. Even there, showing that it is a Masonic secret handshake is counter evidence of a sort.

They believe they do have evidence though. They would cite the Book of Mormon as evidence. They would cite that a mere boy could not write such a thing. They'd be wrong, but to them, it's pretty solid evidence.

They would cite the witnesses and their testimonies concerning the gold plates.

They do not believe the evidence which is presented to dispute their evidence. They're not thinking with rationality and reason, but to them, they've got everything and we've got nothing.

The biggest problem is getting them to even look at the opposing evidence. They dismiss it without even examining it. That's the frustrating part which makes having a discussion with them rather pointless when they're stuck in that sort of mindset.

A mere boy did not write the BoM.
Joseph Smith was a married man when he wrote it, with his wife Emma acting as scribe st times. As did Oliver Cowdery.

Glo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A mere boy did not write the BoM.
> Joseph Smith was a married man when he wrote it,
> with his wife Emma acting as scribe st times. As
> did Oliver Cowdery.


Yes, but try to convince a Mormon of that.

> A mere boy did not write the BoM.
> Joseph Smith was a married man when he wrote it,
> with his wife Emma acting as scribe at times. As
> did Oliver Cowdery.

"Yes, but try to convince a Mormon of that."

Back when I was debating TBMs, I had to do that a few times. I would simply ask them a) what year was Joseph Smith born and b) what year did he publish the BOM. The answers are 1805 and 1830, making Smith 24 when he published it. The historical documentation is replete with accounts of the "translation" process occurring from 1828-30.

TBM: "Show me one shred of evidence that the Church is false".

You: <tons of hard evidence>

TBM: "None of that matters".

How can you argue with that? They win.

Here's the problem: Mormons are taught that one's personal feelings are the ultimate judge of truth. Worse, their paradigm for evaluating those feelings is: if you feel good about TSCC, it's the Holy Ghost affirming truth; if you don't feel good, Satan is deceiving you (which God allows). They know this paradigm is true because TSCC said so and because they have warm fuzzy feelings about it.

If you try to dissuade them, it only proves to them that you are a tool of Satan. They then apply one of the three or five stock reasons you are no longer in tune with the "spirit." You have now lost all credibility with them and they will write off anything you say as dangerous apostate rambling.

There's no way to get TBMs to listen until the shelf finally cracks or something happens to generate some severe cog dis.

So true.

If they don't use evidence to draw conclusions consistently, you can't know when they are unable to separate emotions and facts. You have to question them to determine how objectively they are addressing evidence.

They drift in and out of delusion depending on how the issue intersects their emotion based conclusions.

If they don't value or posses critical thinking skills, reasoning likely won't impact their preconceived conclusions.

As far as I'm concerned, anything can be dismissed, with or without anything. Believe whatever you like, for whatever reasons you like. Why is it any business of mine?

But Hitchens's formula has always bothered me. It seems to be trying to get at a reasonable principle, but it just seems so naive about what constitutes "evidence". The fact is that most religious believers think that they do have evidence. What the believers call evidence just isn't recognized as such by everyone else.

So who is the official judge of what kind of stuff gets to count as evidence? If anybody thinks it's an objectively obvious call, I'd say that they've merely found a way to use the language of reason and still be irrationally certain about things they want to believe.

Assessing what counts as evidence, and how much it counts for, is not a conveniently clear and objective pre-phase that comes before deciding what to believe. It is part of the decision process—for everyone.

Student of Trinity Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As far as I'm concerned, anything can be
> dismissed, with or without anything. Believe
> whatever you like, for whatever reasons you like.
> Why is it any business of mine?
>
> But Hitchens's formula has always bothered me. It
> seems to be trying to get at a reasonable
> principle, but it just seems so naive about what
> constitutes "evidence". The fact is that most
> religious believers think that they do have
> evidence. What the believers call evidence just
> isn't recognized as such by everyone else.
>
> So who is the official judge of what kind of stuff
> gets to count as evidence? If anybody thinks it's
> an objectively obvious call, I'd say that they've
> merely found a way to use the language of reason
> and still be irrationally certain about things
> they want to believe.
>
> Assessing what counts as evidence, and how much it
> counts for, is not a conveniently clear and
> objective pre-phase that comes before deciding
> what to believe. It is part of the decision
> process—for everyone.

I find that an incredibly naive view, however, it does prove the point made in your last paragraph.

It should concern you what people think and believe: it's the "pre-phase" as you describe it, of action. And action tends to lead to a lot of people dying at some point.

As a physicist would you invest a lot of time debating with someone who proposed Newton was wrong? I doubt it. Why? Because the observable evidence is overwhelming.

There is a huge difference between faith based statements of fact where there is no intention to gather observable evidence and scientific hypotheses which provide a framework for experimentation.

"As a physicist would you invest a lot of time debating with someone who proposed Newton was wrong? I doubt it. Why? Because the observable evidence is overwhelming."

COMMENT: Someone who proposed that Newton was wrong? You mean someone like Einstein?

__________________________________________

"There is a huge difference between faith based statements of fact where there is no intention to gather observable evidence and scientific hypotheses which provide a framework for experimentation."

COMMENT: Most people of faith proceed with at least some commitment to restraints imposed by science and physical evidence. However, such commitment is coupled with a respect for spiritual experiences, which they also count as evidence for religious truth. Moreover, the deeply religious do proceed with an intention to search for and accumulate such spiritual evidence. Finally, there is no obvious reason to insist that a person discount such spiritual experiences as evidence, particularly when such experiences are viewed to confirm their faith and are not otherwise contradicted by scientific evidence. So, you're right there is a distinction between the kinds of faith involved in religion and science, but it is not as clear cut as you seem to suggest. And Hitchens' certainly does not capture such distinction in his couplet.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "As a physicist would you invest a lot of time
> debating with someone who proposed Newton was
> wrong? I doubt it. Why? Because the observable
> evidence is overwhelming."
>
> COMMENT: Someone who proposed that Newton was
> wrong? You mean someone like Einstein?

Einstein didn't propose that Newton was wrong.
He *did* propose -- and evidence demonstrated -- that Newton didn't have the whole picture, and unlike Newton, gave an explanation as to how gravity works, instead of just measuring it.

Newtonian physics was explained by Einstein, including the circumstances (rare in our personal experiences) where Newton's math doesn't work. Most of the time, it does, and Einstein explained how.

Einstein didn't propose that Newton was wrong.
He *did* propose -- and evidence demonstrated -- that Newton didn't have the whole picture, and unlike Newton, gave an explanation as to how gravity works, instead of just measuring it.

COMMENT: You are absolutely wrong! Newton's theory was based upon absolute space and absolute time, both of which were refuted and replaced by special and general relativity. SR and GR were NOT extensions of Newtonian physics, they superseded it. This is a basic scientific fact!
_____________________________________

"Newtonian physics was explained by Einstein, including the circumstances (rare in our personal experiences) where Newton's math doesn't work. Most of the time, it does, and Einstein explained how."

COMMENT: See comments above. Remember, Ptolemy's math also worked "most of the time," but notwithstanding his theory turned out to be wrong. Same with Newton. Einstein was not in the business of explaining Newton. He was in the business of explaining Maxwell, and in particular the inconsistency of Maxwell's conclusion of the constancy of the speed of light in view of Newton's theory of motion and absolute space and time. And that explanation required an all new theory.
___________________________________

"The fact is that most religious believers think that they do have evidence. What the believers call evidence just isn't recognized as such by everyone else."

This reminds me of LDS apostle Dallin Oaks' remarks in a speech titled "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon":

"In this message I have offered some thoughts on about a half-dozen matters relating to the historicity of the Book of Mormon. On this subject, as on so many others involving our faith and theology, it is important to rely on faith and revelation as well as scholarship. I am convinced that secular evidence can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon."

If you're advocating for the authenticity of an alleged historical document, you shouldn't need "faith and revelation" to help decide the issue. Either the BOM is historical or it isn't. You shouldn't need "faith and revelation" to determine the BOM's historicity any more than you would for any other allegedly ancient artifact. Since there is no physical evidence to support the BOM's authenticity, then "faith and revelation" is all that Mormons have in their arsenal. If those are your only weapons, any advocate of any religious belief system on the planet can "prove" his beliefs to be every bit as true as Mormons "prove" theirs. Look at Scientologists, for instance. Their belief system is wacky and dubious, but tens of thousands of them are troo believers in it.

This is a great discussion. My comments are mainly aimed at what Dagny wrote but are relevant to a lot of the other posts, so I'll put it here at the bottom.

Dagny's point is that if there is an atrocity that society does not want to address, you need an extreme force (Malcolm X) to frighten people enough that they'll look at the issue and then embrace a relatively moderate solution (Martin Luther King). This is politically true. Perhaps an even better example, if more shocking, is the Palestinian problem. The Palestinians were a people in control of a land. A mass influx of Jews shifted the balance of power, and then well-trained Jewish Terrorists (Menachim Begin's crowd, for one) drove the British out in the late 1940s. Voila. No Palestinian state.

The solution to this, for the Palestinians, was terrorism. A wave of terror extending well outside of Palestine and harming Europe, the US and a lot of other peoples and regions. Over time the Palestinian terrorism became such a problem that outsiders felt they had to intervene to stabilize the situation. They did that by embracing a relatively moderate terrorist regime and giving it a Palestinian state and then effective recognition by the US, Europe, Japan, Egypt and many other governments. Support for the more extreme Palestinian movements ebbed substantially and the new state was relatively stable. The solution was partial but it helped considerably, and it was the only way the Palestinians were able to get the world to stop ignoring their right for at least part of Palestine. So I accept the Malcolm X argument and believe it, historically and politically, is often valid.

In my view Mormonism exhibits the same dynamics but in a more subtle way. There already is a Mormon Malcolm X, a collective Malcolm X, who is furiously lashing out at the members. That Malcolm X comprises the modern secularization that is undermining all churches, the prominent and now popular atheist writers and speakers, the ready availability of Mormon history and, most importantly, the cruel and inhumane men who run the LDS church. Malcom X destroys women, gay people, the children of gay people, married couples, families, and indoctrinated children. The vast majority of Mormons have encountered Malcolm X. They have seen him lurking in the foyer, staring sullenly from a corner of the ward library, even checking his email during Sunday School. He frightens them.

These forces are putting immense pressure on Mormons inside the church and making it difficult for them to remain. In short, hundreds of thousands of LDS members are already in a position like reasonable northern white people during the civil rights movement or Europeans and Americans shocked by Palestinian atrocities in Israel and Europe. They are frightened by the church on the one hand, the ex-Mormon world on the other, and intuitively inclined to seek a moderate alternative.

If this is correct, then what is missing is the equivalent of a Martin Luther King--someone who is relatively warm, relatively reasonable and who espouses a vision of freedom. That is the role I think we in the ex-Mo community can and should play. Intellectually there are many examples of this, each of whom may be criticized on various levels--Jeremy Runnels, John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, Infants on Thrones, the Mormon Youtube girl, the pro-LGTBQ Mormons and sympathizers. But no matter what one thinks of any of these individually, they collectively focus on problems and discuss them in a moderate manner; they discuss, and embody, a moderate alternative between what the church claims to be and what it actually is.

Our role can be the emotional complement to that intellectual alternative. Troubled Mormons need emotional bridges from dissonant membership in the church to ex-mormonism. They need people who will listen and perhaps provide a little direction from time to time. They need empathy, as evidenced by USN77 and others who plant a seed and let it reach fruition on its own time. If offered that emotional support, my guess is that the next decade or two could bring half a million defections. And as those people move, others will start to look more deeply at the church and then already have a network of friends and family on the outside to help them make their own transitions.

The worst thing we could collectively do (recognizing, of course, that every individual situation is different) is to make Malcom X look reasonable. How do we do that? By becoming more shocking, more threatening than the church has already made itself appear. Expressed differently, we shouldn't persecute Mormons since that will put them on the defensive, vindicate the church's nonsense about persecution in the last days, and encourage members NOT to look objectively at the church.

The Church is Malcolm X. He is doing our work for us. We need primarily to be available and sympathetic.

Thank you, LW. Excellent thoughts and comments.

Yeah, well, you're the one who brought a serious framework to the discussion!

If this couplet is intended to suggest that a proposition made without evidence is per se unworthy of consideration and therefore should be dismissed out of hand, then it is obviously false.

Science often begins with ideas that are initially purely theoretical and without supporting evidence. The merits of such ideas are their ability to provide explanatory power to an issue or problem by initially assuming that they are correct. At that point there is a search for evidence and confirmation, or otherwise falsification. In any event, in science dismissing ideas out of hand that are presently unsupported by evidence would be an historical anomaly, and arguably disastrous in practice.

If Hitchens' comment was intended only to apply to metaphysical ideas, wherein there is no clear confirmation path, then it is still problematic. First, what is metaphysical today, and inaccessible, might be accessible tomorrow. More importantly, science itself engages in such ideas, because they are encompassed by models that though unverifiable, do provide potential explanations of phenomena that are not yet fully understood. Thus, although there is no evidence for the existence of parallel universes, such a concept when part of a theoretic model helps to explain such things as the anthropic principle ( why the laws of the universe appear to be "fine-tuned" for life) For that reason alone it is worth pondering and considering.

Perhaps Hitchens was just saying something about *religious* claims lacking evidence, for example the basic claim that God exists. Even in this context it is hard--at least for me--to see why dismissing such claims made without any apparent evidence is somehow preferable to attempting to refute them with apparent evidence. Isn't a discussion still worthwhile?

Our understanding is arguably enhanced by consideration of interesting and popular ideas regardless of the lack of evidence in their favor? In fact, even ideas that prove to be false can increase our understanding of what is true, or what might be true. (A great scientific example is Newton's theories of space and time.)

It seems to me that following people like Hitchens we often get so caught up in disputing religion in general and Mormonism in particular that we miss the opportunity to discover and appreciate insights that might be buried under what appears to be a rather simplistic overall falsehood; labeling all such things as nonsense to be dismissed out of hand.

Hitchens was a very intelligent man, a witty speaker and afraid of no one. That made him fun to watch.

He was also, though, as you note, a bit facile. His dismissal of the basis of most religions was blunt and refreshing but as epistemology it was not robust.

"Hitchens was a very intelligent man, a witty speaker and afraid of no one. That made him fun to watch."

COMMENT: Agreed. And I would add that on occasion genuine insights emerged through his unceasing rhetoric.

________________________________________

"He was also, though, as you note, a bit facile. His dismissal of the basis of most religions was blunt and refreshing but as epistemology it was not robust."

COMMENT: Well, his blunt and facile dismissals were often not logically sound, as in the present case, notwithstanding how refreshing they might be to those of us who have managed to finally escape our religious attachments. Moreover, in my view his epistemology was not only lacking in robustness, it was misleading and to that extent dangerous to those who tended to equate his gifted writing skills with sound logic and argument.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it was misleading and to that extent
> dangerous to those who tended to equate his gifted
> writing skills with sound logic and argument.


Indeed, "gifted writing skills" too often mask for "sound logic and argument." And where it is misleading it is often on purpose.

Agreed on all points.

The one place where I differ slightly is regarding his writing skills. I could never get into him; he was a journalist through and through.

Damn fun to watch, though.

Richard Feynman said somewhere that "the scientific method of theoretical physics is: No Holds Barred". That rings true to me, and although I'm no Feynman, I've made a living from theoretical physics for nearly thirty years. I've never consciously used any formulaic "method". I don't remember ever hearing any colleagues even talk about "the" scientific method. All we do is think hard about things, with the same mixture of optimism (so as not to miss opportunities) and skepticism (so as not to get sucked in) that you have to use in any kind of business.

Sometimes you test your hypotheses as hard as you can. Sometimes you work at forming new bold hypotheses —— and it is work. Good hypotheses don't just pop up. Real ideas are rare. The creative side of science is even less reducible to rules than the destructive side, but it is just as essential. To me it involves risking a lot of hard work —— even years of your life —— on assumptions whose validity is absolutely uncertain. Whatever conclusions scientists may reach about topics outside their own fields, the work of scientific research takes faith.

At least in physics. I'm not really sure about biology, in which theory seems to have a much weaker role. Perhaps Rutherford was right that all science is either physics or stamp collecting. If biology is more purely empirical than physics, then maybe that makes biology less scientific, not more.

Student of Trinity Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Richard Feynman said somewhere that "the
> scientific method of theoretical physics is: No
> Holds Barred". That rings true to me, and although
> I'm no Feynman, I've made a living from
> theoretical physics for nearly thirty years. I've
> never consciously used any formulaic "method". I
> don't remember ever hearing any colleagues even
> talk about "the" scientific method. All we do is
> think hard about things, with the same mixture of
> optimism (so as not to miss opportunities) and
> skepticism (so as not to get sucked in) that you
> have to use in any kind of business.
>
> Sometimes you test your hypotheses as hard as you
> can. Sometimes you work at forming new bold
> hypotheses —— and it is work. Good hypotheses
> don't just pop up. Real ideas are rare. The
> creative side of science is even less reducible to
> rules than the destructive side, but it is just as
> essential. To me it involves risking a lot of hard
> work —— even years of your life —— on
> assumptions whose validity is absolutely
> uncertain. Whatever conclusions scientists may
> reach about topics outside their own fields, the
> work of scientific research takes faith.
>
> At least in physics. I'm not really sure about
> biology, in which theory seems to have a much
> weaker role. Perhaps Rutherford was right that all
> science is either physics or stamp collecting. If
> biology is more purely empirical than physics,
> then maybe that makes biology less scientific, not
> more.

Why does scientific research require faith? What do you mean by faith?

In scientific research you have to work hard without knowing whether it will be worthwhile.

It can take many years before evidence for or against a hypothesis really becomes clear, either way; but during that time there is still a lot of work to be done, to figure out what the idea really means, what it implies, and how it can be tested. During all those long years, you can't be sure whether any of your work will ultimately be worth anything. If your ideas all turn out to be wrong, you can't even necessarily console yourself by saying that they had to be tested, because there are sure to be colleagues who will tell you that the mistakes were obvious from the start. And "it had to be tested" is anyway a pretty lousy consolation prize for a life in research. You don't go into science just to discover what doesn't work.

You don't have to be certain that your ideas are exactly correct; but neither do religious believers have to be certain that their beliefs are right in every detail. To actually work in science, you have to be able to keep up your spirits with the belief that there is enough truth in your working assumptions that your work won't be wasted. By definition this belief must go beyond what the evidence warrants, because if conclusive evidence were already there, your work would not be research.

Thank you, ST, for your contributions to this post. I greatly appreciate your input on the Board, both here and elsewhere.

HB

I'm not familiar with Hitchens' entire body of work; though I think some are overthinking Hitchens' specific statement here. Some are reading into it meaning that is not supported by a direct reading.

Hitchens is merely stating that one *can*, not *must* or even *should*, dismiss unsubstantiated assertions in the absence of evidence. We don't need to accept assertions that are not supported by evidence; though we are still free to do so if we choose to. Likewise, we don't need to provide counter-evidence if we choose not to accept unsubstantiated assertions; though we are still free to do so if we choose to.

A way of restating Hitchens is simply that the onus of proof is upon the person making an assertion.

As getbusylivin wrote, we don't have to prove anything to Mormons; it is enough that we are not required to accept their assertions as gospel.

Mormon apologists may claim that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but that doesn't absolve them from the need to actually provide evidence if they want us to accept their assertions.

"Hitchens is merely stating that one *can*, not *must* or even *should*, dismiss unsubstantiated assertions in the absence of evidence. We don't need to accept assertions that are not supported by evidence; though we are still free to do so if we choose to. Likewise, we don't need to provide counter-evidence if we choose not to accept unsubstantiated assertions; though we are still free to do so if we choose to."

COMMENT: It seems to me you are splitting hairs here. If someone "can" dismiss a claim, the implication is that no consideration or investigation is warranted with respect to that claim--simply because there is no evidence. Sure, one "can" walk away and not pay any attention, but they can also do that if there is supporting evidence for the claim. The fact that a claim is supported by merely *some* evidence is sometimes not much better than being supported by no evidence; for example when there is an obviously better explanation supported by better evidence. After all, the claim that the earth is flat is supported by some evidence, e.g. our everyday psychological experience. So here, Hitchens was clearly making the false assertion that a claim without evidence is unworthy of consideration.
_____________________________________

"A way of restating Hitchens is simply that the onus of proof is upon the person making an assertion."

COMMENT: Well, that is not what he said here, and such a statement requires much more discussion as to what the "onus of proof" entails and why it attaches to persons making claims without evidence.
_____________________________________

"As getbusylivin wrote, we don't have to prove anything to Mormons; it is enough that we are not required to accept their assertions as gospel."

COMMENT: We don't have to prove anything to anyone. Nor do we have to accept assertions from anyone. However, if someone (a Mormon) makes a claim that interests us to the point we desire to refute it, then we should start with contrary evidence or logical argument, which is why the RfM Board exists.
______________________________

"Mormon apologists may claim that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but that doesn't absolve them from the need to actually provide evidence if they want us to accept their assertions."

COMMENT: The "evidence" for Mormons is only tangentially physical or scientific. The bottom line is their commitment to spiritual experience as evidence, however problematic that may be to those that insist that evidence must be physical and scientific to count in favor of a proposition or claim.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: It seems to me you are splitting hairs
> here.

That made me chuckle, coming from the hairiest of hair-splitters this board arguably has ever generated.

Carry on!

Ha Ha!

O.K. You got me, rt. Guilty as charged.

"the hairiest of hair-splitters this board arguably has ever generated." (?)

Well, the top of my head declares otherwise; but it is nice to be recognized as the best at something on the Board, although hair-splitting would probably not be my first choice.

The first step in exploration is often to assert something that has no evidence. If the assertion is correct however, one can assemble supporting evidence. But until the assertion is made, there is no cause or focus to collect evidence. In some cases though, due to the nature of the assertion, gathering direct evidence is impossible and the experiment has to be corroborated by secondary effects that the original assertion predicts or explains.

This is how the classic thought experiment works as typified by Einstein: "Imagine you are riding on a beam of light..."

The problem is that Mormon theology has never gathered any evidence, either direct or indirect, and has not explained or predicted anything. Mormonism has instead come to depend solely and entirely on emotional validation. And there is no arguing with that.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean but asserting something that has no evidence.

The more education and experience a person has the easier it is to see patterns where others don't. To you and I it may seem like they are pulling something from thin air but the reality is their experience allows them a perspective that may be foreign to us. They have evidence it just isn't empirical. The beauty of science is that most things are considered independently by multiple parties. It is the willingness to submit your findings to other people to review that sets science apart.

Mormonism and other self reinforcing belief systems operate the same way. You and I lack the appropriate perspective to see the patterns that they see. Their experience with their field allows for a very in-depth study. They lack the willingness to seek another's perspective so their study may just reinforce their beliefs about the magical properties of oil extracts. Nonetheless they have evidence, it just isn't empirical.

You raise a good point, Jacob.

However, I think a distinction needs to be made between "reasons to believe" a theory and evidence for that theory. As you suggest, the knowledge and experience of a scientist, perhaps with confirming computer models, may provide a reason(s) to believe that a proposition or theory is true when there is yet no empirical evidence to support it. I take Einstein's thought experiment, as noted by MarkJ above, to be an example of this; From the thought experiment (and other observations) Einstein had reasons to believe that Newtonian physics was wrong given the constancy of light.

Evidence in a scientific context means empirical evidence; i.e. a physical, measured result that is uniquely predicted by the theory and that one can "see" from some experiment. Sometimes such evidence is indirect, as when sophisticated detectors are used to "see" the result of collisions of subatomic particles. Moreover, sometimes the inferences from the observed quantities are questionable, ambiguous, and therefore debatable, such that it is not always clear even in science whether some observable fact supports a theory or not.

I am finding this to be an interesting thread. Especially the diversion into scientific theory. I am a physicist, at any rate, I have a Ph. D. in Physics. But for sound economic reasons I spent a long and interesting career using principles of Physics and Mathematics to solve problems that people were willing to pay me to solve, rather than extend scientific boundaries. My early education in science (in the UK) used a historical approach: we learned about a historical theory (phlogiston comes to mind) and then about the data that falsified it. I grew up with a disdain for all scientific theories. To me a scientific theory was like a frightened child hiding behind the laboratory door, fearful for the day when that little bit of data would appear to show it false. I "believe" without evidence that current theories will be shown "wrong."
In a sense, Newtonian mechanics is wrong. But it is very useful. It is the basis of many tools that are suitable for their intended purpose.
If Mormonism were a scientific theory it would have been left back there with phlogiston, at the first little bit of data.

I think this is correct.

Science is a succession of approximations--hopefully increasingly accurate approximations--of reality. I'm not sure I'd describe Newton's work as "wrong," preferring the word "incomplete". But the basic idea is the same; and it is a reasonably good description of epistemology in general. In many cases intuition precedes the confirming data and then, in turn, is invalidated by later data, which leads to a new round of questioning and intuitive surmise.

The scientific process is creative, and messy. But the relationship between data and conclusion is stronger than for most other fields of intellectual inquiry.

For a discussion of scientific messiness, I suggest Against Method by Paul Feyerabend.