The Cost-effectiveness of Praying for a Testimony

Better Check That Again!

A response to Steve Danderson[1]

By Steven J. Danderson

Okay, I have to say this up front. Danderson just didn't make the grade here. He threw a comparative hissy fit compared to his Archers cohorts, but for the sake of my bud Kevin Graham I am going to try to be nice. But it's hard with stuff like this starting out: It is unclear exactly what James Patrick Holding is complaining about. He appears to claim, as do Dave Hunt and Ed Decker, that Latter-Day Saints act “not on the basis of Scripture or reason, but of a subjective feeling” in asking investigators to pray about the truth of the Restored Gospel. Okay...so it is "unclear" but he managed to figure it out...I'll buy that. Maybe I'll just excuse it as a less-than-competent writer looking for an effective rhetorical beginning. But -- [2]

Yet, this is an irresponsible position. Holding himself quotes Moroni’s statement in the Book of Mormon instructing the reader to “ponder it in your hearts.”[3] Does Holding not know that the word “ponder” means “to weigh mentally; think deeply about; consider carefully”? Yes. What of it? I don't think Danderson is going to get away with a claim that this "ponder" allows us to say that ultimately one will be able to reject these thoughts when we are through "pondering". The rest of the passage clearly indicates that when you're done ponderin', you're gonna see that it IS true. Hence we are right back where we started in the epistemic nightmare. [4] Further, from Holding’s “burning of the bosom” quote, it seems strange that he would not be familiar with the preceding verse, where God chastises Oliver Cowdery for “[taking] no thought, save it was to ask [God].” Why is it strange? This is of no relevance; it remains with the same assumption that God is the one speaking and replying. And it also does not erase that one is assumed, in the rest of the passage, to come to the "right conclusion" when all the thought and pondering is over with. [5]

This reviewer finds Holding’s description of an exchange between a believer and a skeptic to be quite revealing It should be. According to my friends who have extensive dealings with Mormons, it is typical:

If you ask for it, God will give you confirmation that the Book of Mormon (or the Bible, or van Praagh's stories, whatever) are [sic] true.
But what if I ask God and He doesn't answer, or says they are NOT true?
You either didn't ask sincerely or are being misguided. Try again.
I am sincere/I did ask again. The same thing happens.
Then....?

Is Holding claiming that if the skeptic does not receive a witness, the Latter-day Saint, Christian, or New Ager is required to renounce his belief/witness? No...I didn't say anything about these people renouncing "their beliefs" at all. I'm sorry, but I am not responsible for responding to Danderson's paranoia. What I *am* saying is clearly written in the paragraphs that follow. And that is that one thereby has a specific reason to question the "prophetic authority" of the person making the request. While those making assertions bear the brunt of proving those assertions, it does not follow that in the face of insufficient evidence, believers of the original assertion bears the burden of disproving the counter-assertion. And I didn't say it did. Next?

The proper response to statement #2 is that if the skeptic is not convinced of the truth of the believer’s position, the skeptic is not required to believe it. "Not required"? But if they don't, don't they end up in the lowest and least desirable heaven, or maybe even outer darkness? Is this not as much as saying, "You are not required to believe the truth?" Yet, the failure of the skeptic to receive a witness does not mean that the evidences that the believer received are invalid. And I didn't say it did. I sure hope Danderson will stop beating this straw pony into the ground... Holding’s questioning whether a hearer should believe the “testimony” of Oral Roberts, Benny Hinn or practitioners of New Age religion reveals a gross misunderstanding of the LDS position. Nobody is asked to unquestioningly take the testifier at his or her word. They aren't? Then what of that Moroni 10 says, in essence, all you have to do is ask sincerely? There is nothing in any LDS-unique Scripture demanding that type of blind acceptance, nor was it ever asked for or demanded by any leader or missionary in the LDS Church of this reviewer’s acquaintance. I imagine it wouldn't be, for nothing if not impolitic reasons. But it remains that Moroni 10 doesn't tell us any more than that. If some LDS have admitted critical faculty, fine -- then why do we need the internal witness for stuff we can access critically (like the veracity of the Book of Mormon)? It's either one or the other.

Holding asks, “Is any way left open to simply say that there is no internal witness at all?” Until that position is refuted by conclusive cases of such a witness, there is always room for the possibility that there is no such witness. Glad to hear that admitted. I hope Danderson spreads the word to the folks I have in mind who disagree, for example, a couple of Mormon guys I call "The Brothers Goober". Kevin Graham knows who I mean. Holding must be reminded, though, that the burden of proving that no such witness exists lies with those who take that stance, not with those who believe it. It does? I don't see why. That's like the old "prove there are no pink unicorns" routine. However, my article is clearly one of agnosticism towards this idea -- not "atheism".

Admittedly, until he receives sufficient evidence, Holding is certainly morally free to disbelieve in the efficacy of prayer to obtain a testimony but it is illogical to be forced to follow him in disbelief when he does not provide evidence that such an “internal witness” is impossible. Yes. Didn't he say this already in different words?

Holding asserts: “As a believer I would not consider [asking God for a testimony is] a wise tactic to engage before Skeptics.” Why not? I said "why not": "They will readily produce 'personal testimony' from those who found satisfaction in some other faith or some other alleged revelation." I doubt if Danderson knows Skeptics as well as I do. It is not that, as Danderson puts it: A refusal of a skeptic to seriously consider the possibility that there is a God Who answers prayer sends a signal that it is a waste of both the believer’s and the skeptic’s time to continue. But rather, that they will throw back at you that there are others who say they have a different God who does the same. And then, how will the Mormon make his own internal witness better epistemically-grounded than anyone else's? Surely, there are many more enjoyable and valuable things to do than to argue past each other. Depends who you are and what hobbies you have. As a rule, faith is not expressed when one “goes through the motions” – this was one thing that God had against Oliver Cowdery. Of course the contextual definition of faith does not quite fit, and that becomes an issue next:[6]

Holding reveals a stark misunderstanding of the LDS position when he states: “The Christian paradigm, as the Mormon one, does have a ‘Blue Fairy’ -- the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is said to convict (but not coerce) persons of the truth. In essence our atheist's ‘best case’ scenario is fulfilled already. We are left with that non-believers must simply deny that the Spirit is convicting them -- which is just as much what they would and could do with a non-stop yakking Blue Fairy, and just as much as they would do with Mormonism's internal witness. Hence our premise that the internal witness simply does not provide the certitude -- especially not over evidentiary aspects -- that Mormonism thinks it does.” Both James and Moroni emphasize that querying God must be done “in faith.”[7] How much faith, or even intellectual honesty, is there when one presumes that there is no God Who answers sincere questions? Er, well, according to the proper definition of "faith", Moroni is already wrong. You see, James is talking to believers who are already loyal to God. Moroni is speaking here to persons yet to convert, who could not possibly be loyal in any sense to the Mormon view. So in effect Danderson has just uncovered yet another problem in the LDS position.

Is there sufficient tangible evidence for the Bible, beyond any reasonable doubt? Yes. So that renders Danderson's next questions moot. If not, would Holding not agree that properly weighing the evidence (and filling in gaps in that evidence) demands wisdom? And does the Apostle James not advise those who need wisdom to ask God “in faith”? Yes, but to think that this made the Spirit into some advice-dispensing gumball machine goes too far. If that were so, why did the Bible writers even write anything? [8] After all, Holding’s admits that Decker and Hunt’s claim that the Bible is verified “to the minutest detail”[9] is untrue. I do? Where? Danderson's note cites Decker and Hunt but not me. I am not sure what D and H mean by "minutest detail" but no one would make that sort of claim of any historical document. I think "beyond a reasonable doubt" is acceptable, but you just can't verify every minute detail. How can you prove that it is true what Tacitus says about private conversations, for example?

Holding asks what happens when evidence and the “internal witness” collide, but neglects many instances where collected evidence was wrong. That's not an answer but a dodge. I am asking what happens when the collected evidence IS right and the internal witness says the opposite. For example, Chris Rohmann erroneously claims that US government revenue fell as a result of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981.[10] In 1989, Federal receipts were almost double that of 1980. ? -- Whose internal witness was involved in economic forecasting? [11]

What about competing evidences or interpretation of evidences? Creation science opposes the establishment evolutionary theory[12] – certainly, one (or both) of the proponent groups either presents bad evidence, misinterprets the evidence, or both. Yes, but what has this to do with internal witness versus one of these epistemic models?

How should a sincere seeker sift through the evidence? Perhaps this, too, calls for asking God for wisdom, as advocated by the Bible and by the Latter-day Saints. Hardly. This throws it into a realm of non-testability. The sincere seeker should educate himself where possible and rely on informational networks otherwise. Failing that, they should determine to reserve judgment and not worry about issues beyond their expertise, as I have done with creation-evolution.

Holding calls belief in things without sufficient evidence “one of my ‘pet peeves’.” Speaking of “insufficient evidence,” where is the support for Holding’s claim that following the LDS pattern gives rise to “rampant cognitive dissonance”? Farrell Till. Dan Barker. Robert Price. They followed the same pattern in their own denominational settings. Now all theists pay the price for their anger and dissonance.

Holding’s “pet peeve” raises two questions:

Who determines what is “sufficient evidence,” and by what authority? Uh, those trained sufficiently in the corresponding fields, along with objective rules of what constitutes sufficient evidence? Our courts of law certainly are not worrying, are they?
Must not everybody from time to time act on insufficient, or less-than-complete, evidence? Sure. But this is no excuse for not gathering what you can, when you can, and instead handing it all over to that burning sensation. Such action should be limited to when no other alternative exists, and when action is REQUIRED in the face of immediate and adverse consequences. You don't need to act quickly to defuse a bomb if it has 17 days left on it.
Holding seems to imply that those who believe whatever he does not must be mentally deficient and gullible to some glib charlatan. I apologize for Danderson's paranoia, but that is not the case. It is however true that I have encountered many opponents incapable of reasoning their way out of a paper bag. I will gladly introduce Danderson to some of these, for example, here. [He] seems quite sure that there is neither any evidence that others see that he does not, nor evidence that is relevant in ways that he cannot see. There seems, however, to be insufficient evidence that this position reflects reality. That's so vague as to be criminal. If it is true, then Danderson needs to engage evidential arguments proving it. Instead, he begs the question: Does Holding hold that he is more trustworthy than God Himself? If not, how can he fault the Latter-day Saints from going to the more reliable source? That of course begs the question that God is the source, and not imagination. Which was the point of this whole essay.

In addition to the typical verdicts of “guilty” and “not guilty,” some jurisdictions allow what is known as a “Scotch verdict” of “not proven,”[13] which allows disbelief without denigrating the intelligence of believers. This reviewer believes that critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would do well to adopt a “Scotch verdict” point of view, rather than falling into the fallacy of equating “unproven” to “disproved.” Oh, we should? Why? And in what topical area? Again, this is merely throwing a blanket to avoid detailed argument.

The second question springs from the fact that information has a positive cost,[14] and that sometimes the cost of obtaining that knowledge is greater than its expected benefit. Whenever this is the case, people choose to remain in a state of “rational ignorance.”[15] Everybody chooses to be “rationally ignorant” in most subjects, because nobody really has the time or other resources to know all things. That is so. This is where I stand in creation-evolution. However, this does not in turn mean that we need an internal witness to make a decision. A fidestic decision, or in my case, a decision based on the weight of evidence in areas I do have expertise in, is enough. Thus because I have such evidential surety in the area of the Resurrection, I see no reason not to side generally with forces opposed to evolution. For example, people who live nowhere near Spanish-speaking people, and expect to meet nobody who speaks only Spanish, may find that learning that language does not bring benefits that are worth the time and effort to learn it. Unfortunately when it comes to eternal life, we do not have that luxury as I am sure Danderson would agree.

Even though the average work week is only about half of what it was a century and a quarter ago, most people still spend most of their waking hours working.[16] How much benefit can people derive from learning things unrelated to the fulfillment of the biblical responsibility to provide for one’s family? I have had this conversation with many people, and it comes down to this: The average American watches several hours of TV every week. Enough said in terms of time. As for benefit, I will state for the record that the depth and richness that accompanies serious Biblical study WILL benefit all persons in the long run. I have examples among my readership to prove it.[17] Every day, people make decisions based on incomplete evidence. Does a driver refuel his tank at gas station X or is there a gas station Y that offers cheaper fuel that can be reached before the tank is empty? Waiting to go to station Y incurs the cost of possibly running out of gas and having to walk. It's unfortunate that eternal life is not comparable to getting a tank of gas for $1.25 versus $1.67. And if you spend even 4 hours a week watching TV, you are not in a comparable position to being close to Empty.

Tourists usually choose to eat at a McDonald’s, rather than a no-name diner. Why is that? Admittedly, consumers are not paying extra money for quality. In fact, the no-name diner’s quality may be significantly better (and cheaper) than McDonald’s. Perhaps Danderson should consider the irony of this.

However, what the consumer pays for is not quality per se, but the knowledge that the quality and the price of the meal will fall within certain parameters. For most people, this near-certain knowledge is worth more than uncertainty about the quality of the experience at the no-name diner. Hmm. If this analogy holds, then it would work like this: The average believer chooses nothing more complex than Josh McDowell, over a Ben Witherington, because the price of knowledge falls within certain parameters and they know they won't be challenged by McDowell. Twinkie and Ding-Dong diet. Need I say more?

While Holding correctly states that, “the preaching of the apostolic church did not focus on such things as ‘personal testimony’ -- i.e., ‘what Jesus has done in my life’ -- but on evidence: The empty tomb, OT prophecy fulfilled, the miracles of Jesus,” he begs the question of whether the evidences he cites (and others) are even factual (they could be mistakes or even lies). Huh? In this context whether they were mistaken or lies is beside the point. The point is methodology. As for begging that question, Danderson is apparently unaware that I have covered these issues in other venues. While it is logical to accept somebody’s word until it is proven false, how does one know? Danderson may find this of interest. While Holding quite properly notes that “[the ‘internal witness’] offers more opportunities for people to deceive themselves,” he ignores the fact that the LDS position requires the intellectual honesty of fewer people to be monitored. That'a a virtue? It seems rather lazy to suggest that it is! In fact, the LDS position requires only one person’s motivation to be in order: That individual who actually asks God. But of course, it is better only if God is the source to begin with...which is precisely the question at hand. In Holding’s paradigm, one must not only ensure one’s own intellectual honesty, one must also confirm the factual accuracy of those who provide the evidence. That's fine with me. What's Danderson's problem? Is Touched By an Angel on tonight?

Several years ago, the late Walter Martin made the claim that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owned several large companies.[18] While some of the claims were true (the Church acknowledged ownership of Beneficial Life, for example[19]), Martin’s claims that the Church owns Marriott and other Fortune 500 companies are not. Without knowledge of the discipline of finance or familiarity with the securities laws of the USA, who would know how true were Martin’s claim? Anyone with access to a public library. I can give Danderson at least two simple ways to answer that question and it does not require any knowledge of "the discipline of finance" or "securities laws". In fact it can be answered easily from one or two databases available at public libraries, which either you or your friendly librarian can access. Next question? [20]

Summary and Conclusion

James Holding’s criticism of the LDS practice of praying for a testimony is lacking for the following reasons:

Contrary to what Holding implies, people are admonished in Scriptures accepted by the LDS to ponder the Gospel as a whole, and the Book of Mormon in particular. But it is still assumed that when they are done pondering, they will reach only one conclusion, which forestalls the virtue of this advice.
While admittedly, tangible evidence falls short of the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, it does not follow that there is zero evidence. In what specifically? This is a comment of no tangible worth.
Insufficient evidence for does not mean evidence against. No one said it did.
Holding shifts the right to determine truth from an objective God to subjective humans Danderson begs the question that God is the one involved to begin with, which is the point at issue.
Holding provides no means of sifting or weighing the evidence. Further, he provides no means to determine whether the evidence itself is either good or bad. That's what education is for, folks. Elementary logic. Epistemic methods have been decided before Danderson and I were twinkles in our great times 200 grandfathers' eyes.
While it is possible for people to deceive themselves into believing falsehoods, the LDS system is the most cost-effective. To put it another way, one could say it is the laziest. It is far less costly to monitor one’s own spiritual state than it is to monitor not only that, but also one’s mental state (can the individual himself provide good evidence?) and the mental and spiritual states of others who provide evidence. Not a bother for me. Why not for you? What's on tonight that you can't miss? The Emmys? The Miss America pageant?
One can always trust God; one cannot always trust anybody else, including oneself. One also cannot trust that God is the one speaking, for even under this, oneself IS the one who is deciding it is God speaking to begin with. Danderson's advice is self-refuting.

[1] James Patrick Holding, Inside Connection: A Digression of the LDS Concept of Internal Witness. Available from http://www.tektonics.org/insidejob.html; Internet. Accessed 15 July 2003. All references to Holding come from this source.

[2] Ed Decker and Dave Hunt, The God Makers: A Shocking Expose’ of What the Mormon Church REALLY Believes (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1983), 82.

[3] See also Moroni 10:3.

[4] Webster’s New World Dictionary, 3^rd College ed., s.v. “ponder.” Emphasis added.

[5] D&C 9:7-8.

[6] D&C 9:7.

[7] James 1:6; c.f., Moroni 10:3.

[8] James 1:5.

[9] Decker and Hunt, 87.

[10] Chris Rohmann, A World of Ideas: A Dictionary of Important Theories, Concepts, Beliefs, and Thinkers (NY: Ballantine Books, 1999), 391.

[11] Statistical Abstract of the United States 1995 (Washington DC: US Department of Commerce), 333.

[12] Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? Rev. and Exp. (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1987); c.f. Carl Sagan, Broca’s Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science (NY: Ballantine Books, 1979).

[13] Webster’s, s.v., “Scotch Verdict.”

[14] Friedrich Hayek, “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” The American Economic Review, 35 (1945): 519-30, in The Economic Nature of the Firm: A Reader, ed., Louis Putterman, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 66-71; see also Thomas Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions, (NY: Basic Books, 1996), 143.

[15] Bryan Caplan, “Rational Ignorance vs. Rational Irrationality,” available from http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/ratirnew.doc; Internet. Accessed 15 July 2003.

[16] W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm, Myths of Rich and Poor: Why We’re Better Off Than We Think (NY: Basic Books, 1999), 53-9. As of 1996, the average person labored 7.3 hours on the job and another 3.5 hours at home; with eight hours of sleep, this leaves only 5.2 hours of leisure and other activities during the average workday. Which is more than enough, thank you, to dig into issues of eternal life. Decide whether it is worth it.

[17] I Timothy 5:8.

[18] Walter Martin, The Maze of Mormonism (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1978), 16-22.

[19] N. Eldon Tanner, “Q&A: Questions and Answers: My nonmember friends seem to know a lot about the Church’s financial system and business interests. They say we own controlling interests in many national companies, some of which manufacture products that are against our standards, like liquor and tobacco companies. What can I tell them?” New Era 5 (July 1975), 47-8. Available at http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm; Internet. Accessed 15 July 2003.

[20] By law, all “publicly traded” companies (that is, those with that stock can be bought at any US stock exchange) must send to the Securities and Exchange Commission all financial statements and a list of all “substantial owners” of company stock. This data can be accessed at the SEC website: http://www.sec.gov/ or at the SEC’s Edgar database: http://www.freeedgar.com/. Ironically, this is so easy to do that Danderson refutes his own complaint in providing it!

And now an update. Danderson has replied with comments under the title "Hissy Fits and Bouncing Checks: Paying the Costs of Gospel Knowledge," having apparently had his feelings hurt by having been corrected about what we were actually writing here and correctly identifying his paranoia in thinking that I am thinking what I am plainly not thinking. As I have told Kevin Graham now and then, it is clear -- sorry, folks -- that certain Mormons DO have a persecution complex. The minute that the "how dare yous" and the "are you saying (what wasn't said)s" and the "anti-Mormon" bombast comes flying, it is time to get out the hankies and prepare for a flood. It does not change much here in a new reply. Danderson says, "[Holding] appears to think that I advocate substituting what he calls the internal witness' for hard facts and logical thought while obtaining testimonies." I don't say any such thing at all, but Danderson goes on to comment for several lines as though I did anyway. He IS right that I advocate "compiling evidence" (who doesn't!) but then muffs again to my comment, “Moroni 10 says, in essence, all you have to do is ask sincerely.” Danderson claims that "not once did Moroni state that sincerely asking was all the investigator should do." Rather he notes that we are told by Moroni to read, remember and ponder before asking. But this is still the same problem I noted as before: The clear implication is that when you are done reading, remembering, and pondering, you need to ask; and the implication is, you'll get the "right" answer -- based on asking sincerely. That's the only aspect that depends on a non-objective activity. Anyone can read and ponder, and thus asking sincerely remains all you have to do past what everyone would do?

Danderson claims that "if there is no other evidence to evaluate" he may rely on feelings. This still leads to my continued question: What happens when feelings and evidence conflict? What if you get the same "feeling" when evidence is positive, when it is negative, or when it is equivocal? Danderson never answers this question, and instead makes the patently absurd claim that declining to seek information at "unacceptable costs" (! -- like WHAT? Having your beliefs shattered???) is "wise stewardship"! I have news for Danderson: It hasn't cost me more than the price of a tank of gas every few months to access all the information in the 1300+ articles on my website, plus my book. What in the world does he mean by an "unacceptable cost" here???

When I asked, “Is this not as much as saying, ‘You are not required to believe the truth?’” Danderson answers, "It sure does" -- then goes on to admit that such persons "must also bear the consequences of their choices." That is precisely my point: One MUST believe the truth, or consequences result. I have asked how Mormons make their internal witness better than anyone else's where a skeptic is concerned; Danderson makes a non-relevant reply: 1) "Elijah never stopped Baal worshippers from asking their god to accept their offering" (Of course not; it was in his interests to let them make fools of themselves, and let's remember he had them all KILLED at the end!) 2) "why deny the skeptic the freedom to experiment by asking among all deities that lay claim to our worship for the real Most High to come forth?" (This is not an answer to my question, which is, HOW Mormons can claim their version of the internal witness is better grounded epistemically! Saying, "Certainly the real God is not so helpless that He cannot manifest Himself over the pretender" begs the question of how to determine that the "real God" is behind the manifestation in the first place! Noting that Jesus "commands that we are not to waste time with those who refuse to accept the Gospel" is avoiding the question, not answering it -- and Danderson should realize that even when engaging such time-wasters, there remains a price of informing (or not) those who ARE sincere who are observing the conversation. Danderson's Josh McDowell attitude towards apologetics is disastrous.

Danderson denies his burden of proof for the existence and verification of the witness, and reels out a spate of examples with no apparent relevance, such as, "Einstein bore the burden of proof that his physics theory was superior to Newton’s." Einstein and Newton deal in objective and testable realities; the internal witness does not. Jesus' appeal in John 7:16-17, which Danderson claims sets the tone, does not erase our burden to provide tangible evidence -- and nowhere in the missionary preaching of Acts is an appeal like John 7:16-17 in evidence. Let us remember that that passage is in SPECIFIC response to this question asked by the crowd: "How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?" This is not a criteria for belief, but a response to a specific criticism. Nor is God-belief in the same category. There is no cosmological, ontological, or "design" argument for the internal witness; reasons for God-belief are not "spiritual" reasons but logical and evidential ones.

In dealing with James 1:5, Danderson apparently did not read my linked article on the meaning of faith, and does not address the use of James, and claims that Moroni is speaking "to those who have not converted, but are disposed to convert if they had a good enough reason." I fail to see this at all. Moroni writes to his "brethren", the Lamanites (Moroni 10:1). Do they need convincing of the historical record? It does not solve the problem anyway, to say that "I submit that if anybody is not willing to act upon promptings by the Spirit, then Moroni is not speaking to that person." This only magnifies the need for a solution to the epistemic quandry I have laid out.

To my point that the Bible has sufficient evidence, Danderson provides a non-answer: "The problem is that most of the world’s population remains unconvinced of this 'fact.' There are, in fact, many web sites devoted to 'errors' and 'contradictions' in the Bible." And I have news for Danderson: These sites are run by rank amateurs, people who do not so much as lift a finger for research, and they are without excuse. It is not expensive to find answers to these things, and if you watch an hour of TV a day, you have the time to give up to do it. Nor is it any trouble, as Danderson implies, working out "signals sent by credentialing." Danderson posits "Walter Martin (PhD, California Coast University" vs. "Stephen Robinson (PhD, Duke)" -- without making any statement on Martin's credentials, how about Robinson vs Blomberg, along with Owen, Mosser, and a host of other Ph Ds? And how about critical comparison of their arguments?He asks about Asimov; that in itself is a no-brainer, for even Asimov admitted he was just copying what others said. I think it speaks for itself that Danderson tells us that he was "led by the Spirit [using others as a guide]" to a source that tabulated economic information for him. One wonders whether "the Spirit" is just a superfluous add-on in context -- merely an imagination based on Danderson's preconceived notions. If I had found later that his source ("led to by the Spirit") was in error, what would he have said?

Danderson writes, "Mr. Holding finds it ironic that people should go to McDonald’s, rather than to a Mom-and-Pop diner, where hamburgers might be cheaper and tastier. I do not." He should. What it amounts to is an admission that refusing to do legwork means paying a price. Hamburgers are obviously not eternal life, however, so to wave this off as equivalent in the sense that "it is a time-waster to look elsewhere" (I do not speak here of issues of the LDS church's business affairs, but of more pertinent matters of doctrine!) simply won't work.

I have asked about being vulnerable to self-deception where the alleged internal witness is concerned. Danderson replies that he "did not refute that claim" because he agrees that it is true (!) -- which still doesn't explain why he didn't address it -- and then remarks that, "self-deception is possible whether or not one uses the LDS pattern of testimonybuilding." That it is possible is not the point; it remains that it is far EASIER where no objective check is available. One who is self-deceived by an alleged internal witness is hardly on the level of, say, an Acharya S who perpetrates the self-deception that all credentialed religious scholars are in error and she and a handful of 19th century freethinkers with no credentials are correct. The checks on such self-deception are palpable; they are not going to fool others (unless they too maintain paranoia); and persons of this scale, who WANT to deceive themselves, end up deeper and deeper in the hole. Danderson might consider instead the irony of that particular. The answer to checking expert claims is more homework -- not making up a self-installed authenticating witness!

Danderson says, "What I find ironic is that a man who hails from the Reformation tradition of 'Justification by Faith Alone' should accuse a group that is more Jacobian than Pauline in its view of the faith/works relationship of engaging in blind faith." I say no such thing anywhere; in fact, because "faith" is loyalty based on evidence, "blind faith" is an oxymoron.

Finally, these notes:

I noted that Danderson "cites Decker and Hunt but not me." He claims that this was to "avoid redundancy" but that is not the point. We still do not have a place where I allegedly say that the Bible has not been verified to the "minutest detail."

Danderson says in a note, about my being a librarian, "If I were to cross his path in need of reference help, I think I will go it alone. From his ad hominem attacks, I have sincere doubts about his friendliness." To those who remain willfully ignorant, yes. The amount of requests I got for absolutely idiotic material ("I want a list of all the Latin names of animals") is enough to drive anyone of good sense insane. I openbly admit to not following the "kiss their rears" model of customer service. "The customer is always right," is it? I'm thinking of going into a place that claims that, pointing to the sign and saying, "I say your store manager is an axe murderer. So am I right? Call the police."

Finally in a note Danderson notes that he is often "exposed" on a weekly and daily basis to atheists, and thus he questions my claim that he does "not know skeptics." I am sorry, but exposure to a handful of atheists in one place isn't suffficient. Danderson needs to take a look at the Secular Web, at the likes of Acharya S, the Roman Piso theorists, and Earl Doherty, to name a few.

It looks like Danderson has some "final comments" and the first few seems confused. First, Danderson speaks of his "conclusion that Holding disagreed with Decker and Hunt" but he has been on about how I allegedly agreed, not disagreed, with them (on the "minutest detail" hyperbole) and Danderson claims that I have not yet "cleaned up" my response, to which I can only say that Danderson's spectacles are in need of Windex.

Second, it is claimed that I again "misconstrue" Moroni and Danderson in that I "think that no action is required," but the simple fact is that Moroni says zero about action beyond what he instructs. He does not tell people to ask sincerely and look it up to confirm what the witness tells them, and no amount of Mormon exegetical massage therapy will chance that. To note that James implies action (2:17-26) is a false lead. As I note in the article on faith, which Danderson did not check (merely saying he can't find my definition in the Bible (!), and quoting Hebrews 11:1, which the article addresses), faith is not what happens before one believes; it is what one does after one believes, based on facts.

If Danderson wishes to complain further about being satirized, he will need to consult this to see why his appeal to "Do unto others...." is an anachronism and why indeed he is in error about Jesus' "expectations". Actually if I say and do things as stupid as described (asking for all the Latin names of animals) I really hope others will wake me up from that delusion of importance rather than encourage it. I also do not know how or why Danderson gets an idea that I claim to know "all about" him. I do know that he has not been down in the trenches with the worst of the atheist/skeptical set, for otherwise he would have responded specifically concerning those I cited as examples (i.e., Acharya S).

It remains an absurdity to claim that "no check exists" to the internal witness "other than God Himself". I am sure Danderson does not use this sort of epistemology when an error appears on his bank statement, or on his credit card bill. He obviously believes that checks exists in the real world of epistemic determination; either that, or he will have to admit that he is living out a deception. Which is less costly, doing legwork or not? In the long run, not doing it will be more expensive.

One thing we can agree on: "...humans act on insufficient evidence all of the time." Where we disagree is in thinking that it is all right to do so whenever time permits us to do otherwise. For the Mormon devoted to the doctrine of internal witness, there is little alternative but to sacrifice objectivity upon this altar of insufficiency.