Please humor my curiosity and answer the following survey questions (more questions after the fold). You don’t have to be a member of SHAFT to take the survey, only a visitor of this site.
A demographic survey of SHAFTers
69
Monthly Archives: June 2010
Humean, all too Humean: The Problem of Induction
The most enduring challenge to science has come not from religion, but philosophy. David Hume, an 18th-century Scottish philosopher, articulated what we now call “the problem of induction,” and it has wreaked epistemological havoc on the foundation of science for centuries.
Induction, for the purposes of this post, is a form of reasoning that makes inferences about what will happen from what has happened. Science relies heavily on induction in making generalizations and predictions. But Hume believes that we can reason absolutely nothing about the future from the past. To do so presupposes the uniformity of nature—that the future will resemble the past.
There is a temptation to respond that we know that the future will resemble the past, because past futures have resembled past pasts. This begs the question, however. It assumes the very thing it attempts to prove, and is thus circular.
Atheists need to understand the implications of Hume’s argument. Hume is not saying that we cannot know with a certainty that, for example, the sun will rise tomorrow. He instead says something far more radical: that we have no reason whatsoever to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. The fact that the sun has risen every day of recorded human history is immaterial; again, the future need not resemble the past.
So are we atheists who trust science guilty of the same faith that we accuse religious people of having? In a later post, I’ll introduce a few possible solutions to the problem of induction. But I’d first like to hear your thoughts.
Thoughtful defenses of theism
Last week, I criticized what I see as intellectually lazy apologetics. So today, I want to draw your attention to a couple of thoughtful defenses of theism instead.
DasAmericanAtheist, one of my favorite atheist YouTubers, recently did a video where he defends theism against a theist arguing for atheism. Perhaps it flirts with sophistry, but I think it’s a really cool idea.
Honor thy father? Bad father figures in the Bible
The Bible gives a categorical commandment that we honor our fathers. This commandment was so important to the Hebrews that they proscribed the death penalty for transgressing it. In Leviticus 20:9, we read: “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.”
To be clear, it’s not wrong to honor your father (especially today, Father’s Day!). But I’m not so sure every father deserves our unconditional love, respect, and obedience. My father has certainly earned those things from me—a million times over. Other fathers, however, have not.
Steve Wells over at Dwindling In Unbelief has compiled a list of bad father figures in the Bible. You’ll have to check out his full list, but I just wanted to highlight a few examples:
Noah got stumbling drunk and passed out—naked—in his tent. His poor son Ham inadvertently discovered him in this condition. Realizing that Ham saw him naked, Noah curses Ham’s son Canaan and all the descendants thereof to be “servants of servants” (a rather disproportionate response).
Lot, the only “just and righteous man” in Sodom and Gomorrah, volunteered his daughters to be raped by a mob so as to spare his two male guests (angels). Later, his daughters would rape him and bear his children.
Abraham was willing to offer up his son Isaac as a human sacrifice, as you all know.
Jephthah killed and burned his daughter, whose only crime was to greet her father upon his return from battle.
And then of course you have Yahweh, the father figure in the Bible, who drowned millions of his children and (depending on your Christology 
sent his “only begotten Son” on a suicide mission.
Elder Russell M. Nelson on atheism
In a recent address to LDS young adults in Boston, Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Twelve Apostles talked about the need to defend religious freedom and the family against “atheistic forces.” Below are some excerpts from his address:
Opposing forces are competing for our allegiance: right versus wrong, good versus evil. They are not always easily discerned…These forces are, in fact, conflicting religious systems of belief. They are theistic (godly) forces and atheistic (ungodly or satanic) forces.
Theistic forces, be they Islamic, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, or Mormon, are based on the fact that there is an absolute right and wrong. Theistic forces inculcate an ethic to revere the righteous judgments of a loving God, and to obey civil and divine law voluntarily. Theistic forces instill a conscience to do what is right, and obey laws that otherwise might be unenforceable.
Firing squads and the blood atonement
Today, just minutes from my house in Draper, UT, convicted murderer Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed by a firing squad. Gardner is the first man in 14 years to receive death by firing squad in America, and only the third man since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976.
His execution has renewed a national debate about capital punishment. I oppose the death penalty, but I think the firing squad is preferable to other methods. Gardner actually requested it; it’s a quick death. I also agree with what Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, in a Fox News editorial, wrote regarding the firing squad: “I support firing squads because of the personal responsibility they impose on those who execute, and because the full awareness of the horror of taking another life may actually lead to fewer executions.”
But this is not the appropriate forum to discuss the merits of capital punishment. I mention this story for its connection to Utah and Mormonism.
Lazy Book of Mormon apologetics
I probably read more Mormon apologetics than I do critical ‘anti-Mormon’ literature. And as a debater, I cannot help but be impressed by some apologists. They are often very inventive with their arguments—talented mental gymnasts, if you will.
Hugh Nibley was notorious for selectively mining ancient cultures for parallels to Mormonism. John L. Sorenson argued that when the Book of Mormon anachronistically mentions horses and elephants, what is actually meant is ‘tapirs‘ and ‘mammoths,’ respectively. Others like Louis Midgley played the postmodernist trump card that objectivity is a fiction and thus all perspectives (Mormonism included) are valid.
But not all apologists are so clever. Enter Kerry “The Backyard Professor” Shirts. Shirts has been published in FARMS and is one of the creators of FAIR, an LDS apologetics website. Many of his arguments are just downright lazy. Consider this video, where Shirts argues that the phrase “and it came to pass” proves the Book of Mormon is true.
Feedback, please
With your help, the USU SHAFT blog has enjoyed tremendous success. It was voted “Best New Blog” in the 2009 William Law X-Mormon Awards. And since August 2009, when it was launched, the site has received nearly 30,000 visits and 70,000 pageviews! Not bad. Not bad at all. But there is always room for improvement, so I’m requesting your feedback.
Any feedback—positive or negative—is appreciated, but your responses to the following questions would be especially helpful:
- What is your favorite SHAFT post? Your least favorite?
- Would you like to see more authors contribute to the blog?
- Which topics are discussed too often? Which are not discussed enough?
- Do you like the layout/appearance of the blog?
- How is the frequency of new posts?
- What sites should we include/delete from our blogroll at the right?
- Do you feel welcome to express your opinions here?
- Any other suggestions?
Thanks in advance!