If you are looking for archaeology, you can try
this link too, and tell me what you think.
zerinus
Thanks for the link. First, regarding the Book of Mormon, we are not talking about a mere lack of evidence, we are talking about literally no evidence whatsoever for the nations and people described, despite diligent search for years by Mormon archeologists. With the Bible, you do have the surviving documents of the Old Testament, as opposed to the golden plates which, to my mind, conveniently disappeared. I’ve thought that if God was really trying to “restore” the Church through Joseph Smith that it would have been a good idea to at least leave the golden plates behind to validate his mission.
Further, again, the Bible describes peoples and cities which actually existed, like the Egyptians and the Israelites themselves, whereas the BoM describes peoples and cities not even named anywhere else outside of it. And the Bible has further evidence backing it up which has built up over time. So, as I recall, there is evidence for the city of Jericho, and recently even Ur. Not too long ago evidence was found for the existence of King David. If the Bible described peoples, nations, and cities that showed no evidence of even existing that would be a huge problem. It would point to the Bible as a book which is unreliable.
Regarding the Exodus I did find reference to the “Ipuwer Papyrus” which is an Egyptian document whose writing parallels some of the plagues. Granted, it is controversial as to whether or not it is really describing the plagues. Here is a link:
konig.org/wc52.htm
Here is another link regarding evidence for the exodus:
bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm
In the article you linked there is this quote:
“Thirdly, religion is a matter of faith, not of science or archaeology. We accept things on faith, even though there may not be a rational justification to support it. That applies to all true religions, in all ages of the world.”
In regards to Catholicism, this statement is false and this attitude has actually been condemned by the Church as fideism. Here is a quote from an article on fideism from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"Fideism owes its origin to distrust in human reason, and the logical sequence of such an attitude is scepticism. It is to escape from this conclusion that some philosophers, accepting as a principle the impotency of reason, have emphasized the need of belief on the part of human nature, either asserting the primacy of belief over reason or else affirming a radical separation between reason and belief, that is, between science and philosophy on the one hand and religion on the other. Such is the position taken by Kant, when he distinguishes between pure reason, confined to subjectivity, and practical reason, which alone is able to put us by an act of faith in relation with objective reality. It is also a fideistic attitude which is the occasion of agnosticism, of positivism, of pragmatism and other modern forms of anti-intellectualism. As against these views, it must be noted that authority, even the authority of God, cannot be the supreme criterion of certitude, and an act of faith cannot be the primary form of human knowledge. This authority, indeed, in order to be a motive of assent, must be previously acknowledged as being certainly valid; before we believe in a proposition as revealed by God, we must first know with certitude that God exists, that He reveals such and such a proposition, and that His teaching is worthy of assent, all of which questions can and must be ultimately decided only by an act of intellectual assent based on objective evidence. Thus, fideism not only denies intellectual knowledge, but logically ruins faith itself.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the Church has condemned such doctrines. In 1348, the Holy See proscribed certain fideistic propositions of Nicholas d’Autrecourt (cf. Denzinger, Enchiridion, 10th ed., nn. 553-570). In his two Encyclicals, one of September, 1832, and the other of July, 1834, Gregory XVI condemned the political and philosophical ideas of Lamenais. On 8 September, 1840, Bautain was required to subscribe to several propositions directly opposed to Fideism, the first and the fifth of which read as follows: “Human reason is able to prove with certitude the existence of God; faith, a heavenly gift, is posterior to revelation, and therefore cannot be properly used against the atheist to prove the existence of God”; and “The use of reason precedes faith and, with the help of revelation and grace, leads to it.”
newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm
Thus faith and reason go together. Of course I’m not going to be able to find archeological evidence of Joseph Smith’s visions or the descending of the Holy Spirit in the Upper Room at Pentecost. However, since Joseph Smith is claiming to be a prophet and receiving revelation from God and further claiming that the BoM is true and valid we should expect to see archeological evidence where it is warranted, such as the existence of the peoples and nations in the BoM. If these are absent (along with the gold plates), it is not “faith” which would cause one to believe Joseph Smith or the BoM. It can either be, quite frankly, gullibility or simply an act of the will which chooses to believe regardless of the contrary evidence. And that is not true faith.
I have been reading “God Is No Delusion” which uses philosophy, reason, and evidence to refute the claims of Richard Dawkins’ book, “The God Delusion.”
The book is quite good and necessary in a time such as ours:
amazon.com/God-No-Delusion-Refutation-Richard/dp/158617231X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229903058&sr=8-1
God bless.
