C
Contarini
Guest
I agree that it depends on what you mean by “reasonable doubt.” And I suppose that when I think of the truth or falsehood of Mormonism I’m thinking more of the basic claims about God and human nature made in Mormonism than I am about some of their claims about early American history. Probably I am downplaying the importance of those claims for Mormonism.What would you define as “reasonable doubt.” Now you might be able to say that it hasn’t been proven false beyond any doubt. I might quibble with your statement that it hasn’t been proven false beyond a “reasonable doubt.”
At the same time, my point stands that ostensibly reasonable people do believe these claims, however unbelievable you and I find them (I agree that I can’t see any reasonable ground for believing them, and I see what looks to me like pretty conclusive evidence against them). And in religious matters I’m willing to define “beyond reasonable doubt” as “incapable of being believed by a reasonable person, where ‘reasonable person’ is not defined circularly as someone who does not believe these things but is rather based on other criteria.” For instance, I am unaware of anyone I’d consider a reasonable person who believes in Scientology. If I met or learned of such a person, I’d have to reconsider not my belief that Scientology is false, but my belief that it is obviously false beyond a reasonable doubt. This in spite of the fact that I would continue to see Scientology as lacking any grounds for belief and having an awful lot of points against it.
But your point about the historical evidence is a good one. It’s easier to take my approach when speaking of something like the nature of God. Mormonism does (which in a way I find refreshing) pin itself to certain kinds of historical claims, and those claims do seem pretty hard to swallow at best.
Edwin