Questions concerning why or whether we should believe in implausible things that lack evidence come up tangentially in many threads on this blog. They often comes up when people are trying to show that that the Book of Mormon is not believable because it has stuff in it that is at odds with current understanding of archeology or history. At risk of starting another boring discussion of archeological evidence , I am genuinely curious about in these questions and how believers answer them.
I think it is clear that both LDS and Evangelicals (1) believe things to be true that are historically very implausible and (2) believe these things without the type of objective evidence that is generally accepted as required to establish historically implausible things, and (3) believe that its extremely important to believe these things to be true, despite there implausibility and lack of objective evidence.
When it comes to my questions, it is irrelevant what specifically these beliefs are are and I think its probably counterproductive to compare lists, even if one religion had a longer list, there is are things on each or their lists of implausibilities that are important and maybe even critical to the religion.
It seems that in order to be a strong member of either group you cannot take the position of agnosticism even when there is barely any of evidence to justify belief. It seems that in order to be a strong follower you need to overlook the lack of evidence and embrace some things as doctrine (e.g. Inerrancy of the Bible, the divine power behind the translation of the Book of Mormon, or even the Resurrection).
Apologetics of course is the activity of making these implausibilities seem more plausible, or at least not silly, but they seem to be more of an afterthought rather than the primary ground of most people’s belief. Without some other ground to believe, it seems that there is no compelling reason to engage in apologetics. However should our faith fail if our apologetics do?
So, arise the questions:
A. Should you believe that some stories are true even when there is no historical evidence?
B. On what basis should you trust stories that are not historically proven, or very plausible?
C. Can you be a good Christian if you are not willing to accept some things that are unsupportably implausible?
D. Do Mormons and Evangelicals answer these questions differently?