Dawkins vs. the Book of Mormon

I remember walking down the streets of Santa Maria in southern California as a week-old missionary. One afternoon a twenty-something in a convertible with his friends drove by and shouted,
"The Book of Mormon isn't true because it's written in old English. They didn't talk that way when John Smith wrote it!"

Elder Root, a sturdy, dark-haired, Canadian held his hands out and looked at the sky, "I guess it's not true! Thanks for letting us know!"

I've heard the archaic English argument several times since then, most surprisingly from the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. Dawkins used this as his opening challenge to the Book of Mormon in an interview with Brandon Flowers on a Norwegian talk show last week.

There are plenty of legitimate questions to ask about the veracity of the Book of Mormon (and the existence of God) but that one is the religious equivalent of challenging an evolutionary biologist by asking, "if humans evolved from monkeys then why are monkeys still around"?

Yes the Book of Mormon was translated into archaic English not current in 1830. This was a choice (conscious or not) of the translator Joseph (not John) Smith to match the style of the the King James version of the bible. In fact the KJV itself was translated into archaic rather than contemporary English for the time, taking the Book of Mormon's linguistic style further back in time. "Thou," "thee," "verily," and "it came to pass" were nary heard on the bonnie streets of London in the 17th century. The translators chose to use old-sounding language to lend reverence and mystery to the text.

So why does such a shallow question resonate with such a highly intelligent man? Why doesn't he choose one of the many sophisticated and relevant arguments against the book?

One answer might be that he doesn't care. This may have been the first anti-Mormon observation he encountered, and since he knew from the beginning he wasn't going to believe in the book, this argument seemed like a slam dunk. But Richard Dawkins does care, to the point of writing books about why people believe in God.

I think that Dawkins has fallen prey to the fallacy of the single cause (also causal oversimplification). Dawkins believes that people believe in God for only one reason: to explain mysterious processes (lightning, earthquakes, the human mind etc.). In this worldview, because science explains (or will explain) all natural phenomena, it eliminates the need to invent God. Dawkins is an excellent evolutionary biologist (though I side with Gould on matters of contingency and morality) and his scientific explanations for seemingly impossible natural patterns are good and sound. From Aurora Borealis to human consciousness, we are learning more and more that seemingly impossible complexity and beauty can arise naturally, making it less compelling to say "there must be a God, otherwise how could an ... angler fish exist?"

Cool fish no doubt, but not the primary reason I believe in God. (Photo credit: THEODORE W. PIETSCH/UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON)

While Dawkins has effectively shown how asymmetric natural pressure can push us up "mount improbable," how has he overlooked other foundations of faith? I think that because he believes his position is so obviously correct, he can't empathize with the believer. This assumption of ignorance or irrationality has rendered him culturally autistic, unable to imagine the minds of believers to explore the basis of their belief. Because of this, he hasn't touched on the thousands of other reasons why people believe in the reality of a spiritual world.

I believe in God (and the veracity of the Book of Mormon) because of personal experience and the sensations of joy, gratitude, wonder, and universal love I feel when I consider and investigate these topics. Part of my belief does stem from an inability to explain certain mysterious events in my life (see my post on Coincidence) and as such that part of my belief is vulnerable to explanation. I like that. I like being vulnerable to new information and understanding. I like how doubt provides a humble and empowering lookout from which to examine my beliefs.

For the record I believe that evolution by natural selection is the mechanism by which all animals (including humans) arose, and I believe that God knows each of us and desires our happiness.

So Dr. Dawkins, if you read this, consider these two links my rebuttal. Here's a post my cousin Brigham wrote about Why we need the Book of Mormon. And here's a song my friend Matt and I wrote up at Toolik Field Station on the North Slope a few years ago called The Mormon Code. Matt is from North Carolina and had heard that Mormons owned the Nintendo codes and that we funded the church by selling them to school children.

This picture was in the background slideshow at the talent show while we played the song. In case you were wondering, we won the talent show that year. And the year after. And the year after that.