You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

ArisKatsaris comments on The elephant in the room, AMA - Less Wrong Discussion

22 Post author: calcsam 12 May 2011 02:59PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (428)

Comments (428)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 12 May 2011 04:27:28PM 20 points [-]

What archaeological evidence should we expect to find if the Book of Mormon is true?

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 12 May 2011 11:27:45PM 9 points [-]

And what archaeological evidence should we expect to find if the Book of Mormon is not true?

Comment author: Costanza 12 May 2011 11:43:55PM 14 points [-]

I'd want to see some or all of the points brought up here addressed. For example:

The detailed history and civilization described in the Book of Mormon does not correspond to anything found by archaeologists anywhere in the Americas. The Book of Mormon describes a civilization lasting for a thousand years, covering both North and South America, which was familiar with horses, elephants, cattle, sheep, wheat, barley, steel, wheeled vehicles, shipbuilding, sails, coins, and other elements of Old World culture. But no trace of any of these supposedly very common things has ever been found in the Americas of that period. Nor does the Book of Mormon mention many of the features of the civilizations which really did exist at that time in the Americas. The LDS church has spent millions of dollars over many years trying to prove through archaeological research that the Book of Mormon is an accurate historical record, but they have failed to produce any convincing pre-columbian archeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon story. In addition, whereas the Book of Mormon presents the picture of a relatively homogeneous people, with a single language and communication between distant parts of the Americas, the pre-columbian history of the Americas shows the opposite: widely disparate racial types (almost entirely east Asian - definitely not Semitic, as proven by recent DNA studies), and many unrelated native languages, none of which are even remotely related to Hebrew or Egyptian.

The source is overtly an ex-Mormon site. But if Mormon doctrine is what they say it is, and the archeology is what they say it is, then it woudn't look good for Mormonism.

Comment author: calcsam 13 May 2011 05:48:41PM *  -2 points [-]

Many of of the claims in the quote aren't true or are misleading.

There are about 60 things that the Book of Mormon claims to have existed in the New World in the designated timeframe, about 8 of which were known to exist in 1830. Between now and then, how many would you expect now to have been found? I'm going to put the rest of this on the next comment; estimate and then read the next one to see how close you were.

I know your prior is that "well, obviously religion isn't true, so this is probably true," but be a bit more careful.

Comment author: calcsam 13 May 2011 06:04:24PM *  4 points [-]

Here are the misleading points of the above quote.

You may want to adjust your priors of archaeology. The Huns didn't leave any horse remains.

And the answer to the above question is 35 have been found, along with 10 that are tentative. The second link is a long article; the first is a short summary.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 13 May 2011 06:22:56PM 3 points [-]

And the answer to the above question is 35 have been found, along with 10 that are tentative. The second link is a long article; the first is a short summary.

Are you referring to my question? You may want to quote questions for clarity. Use '>'

Comment author: novalis 13 May 2011 07:59:02PM 1 point [-]

Which particular limited geography theory do you personally subscribe to?

Comment author: Costanza 13 May 2011 05:56:24PM 2 points [-]

There are about 60 things that the Book of Mormon claims to have existed, about 8 of which were known to exist in 1830.

Are 60 and 8 your own figures, independently counted, or are you quoting a Mormon authority?

Comment author: calcsam 13 May 2011 06:26:21PM -1 points [-]

Quoting a Mormon archaeologist. The link is in my next post. He doesn't give the full list in the link but he gives ~20% of it. I will write him and ask for the full list.

Comment author: Costanza 13 May 2011 06:59:25PM *  8 points [-]

I'm not in a hurry.

To be frank, I would have been much more impressed if a young, ambitious non-Mormon anthropologist had used the Book of Mormon as a cheat sheet to make new discoveries in order to get tenure and fame. That would have been interesting. A religious believer reading his chosen "scripture" and retroactively adjusting his view of the historical record to match is not new. The other religions -- the ones to which you did not choose to convert -- do the same thing. You know they do.

Comment author: calcsam 13 May 2011 07:09:57PM 3 points [-]

A religious believer reading his chosen "scripture" and retroactively adjusting his view of the historical record to match is not new. The other religions -- the ones to which you did not choose to convert -- do the same thing. You know they do.

That is true, good point.

To be frank, I would have been much more impressed if a young, ambitious non-Mormon anthropologist had used the Book of Mormon as a cheat sheet to make new discoveries in order to get tenure and fame. That would have been interesting

It would. Keep in mind though that in the social sciences a lot of research is data-driven rather than hypothesis-driven. My economics professor was explaining last week that most recent good papers in economic history have come because someone got their hands on an interesting data set and then asked 'what can I do with this?', rather than thinking of a clever hypothesis and then looking for a data set to test it out.

Comment author: badger 13 May 2011 07:47:30PM 13 points [-]

Only slightly facetiously, why aren't you studying to be an archeologist or geneticist then? If in your judgment there is a substantial gap in scientific knowledge and it isn't being filled for whatever reasons, why aren't you pursuing it?

I don't think the animal or plant life claims are that important. Maybe they were evidence against before, but with new discoveries, their mention is neutral. It's not like Smith was consciously defying an establishment when he said there was barley in the Americas. I'm also willing to accept that God or Smith might have taken license in translating these terms. The question of whether or not the Nephites had horses pales in comparison to the implication that modern genetics is wrong.

The basic claim of the Book of Mormon is that Jews settled in the Americas, established a fairly large civilization, and most Amerinds are partially descended from them. It's not like these are disputed, minority positions in academia; they aren't even on the radar.

Comment author: JohnH 14 May 2011 04:00:50PM 2 points [-]

Jews settled in the Americas

A slight technicality, they weren't Jews (being from Judah) but Israelites (being Ephraim and Manasseh).

Comment author: Costanza 13 May 2011 07:26:54PM -2 points [-]

I have to say, to your great credit, you seem to be attempting to answer these questions in good faith so far. If you want to stay a Mormon in good standing, you should watch out! If you carry your honesty much further, it will do nothing but get you into trouble with your chosen faith. Remember, we can always check your statements with the local stake or with the Mormon church at large. Do you trust your church to be as rational as you might choose to be?

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 14 May 2011 04:44:51AM 10 points [-]

I don't understand why you posted that paragraph.

Comment author: JohnH 14 May 2011 04:15:57PM 1 point [-]

If you carry your honesty much further, it will do nothing but get you into trouble with your chosen faith.

I fail to see why him being honest will get him into trouble being that one of the basic beliefs of the LDS Church is honesty.

Do you trust your church to be as rational as you might choose to be?

The claim is that it is perfectly rational and that, even if there currently is not, there will be answers for everything.

Comment author: Clippy 13 May 2011 08:05:04PM -1 points [-]

I have to say, to your great credit, you seem to be attempting to answer these questions in good faith so far.

Not this one.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit