wenglund wrote:Quantum See wrote:Wade,
I understand the desire to give the other person the benefit of the doubt. I am not sure, however, that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof is the best choice in cases of fraud.
A quick google of "standard of proof for fraud cases" produced the following from the Tennessee Business Litigation Law Blog:Standard of Proof for Fraud Cases
It's not clear what standard of proof should be applied to cases alleging fraud. The Western Section Court of Appeals' recent opinion in Capital Mgmt. Partners v. Eggleston is the closest we have to a definitive answer right now:
The clear and convincing standard of proof is appropriate to those cases where a party seeks the reform or rescission of a written instrument due to fraudulent inducement. But in all other cases involving claims of fraud, the standard of proof is preponderance of evidence.
Still, the Court of Appeals in Eggleston acknowledged that the law in Tennessee is anything but clear. For now, the best course of action for trial judges may be to follow the trial court's lead in Eggleston: state on the record what the court's ruling would be under both standards.
Of course these are legal matters, but I think that legal precedence is useful for many kinds of critical thinking.
Is it possible that Joseph Smith and the LDS church are telling the truth about their claims? Yes. Is it unfair to label these claims as fraudulent? Yes--but only as the claims are put forth as faith claims. When fact claims are made, the factual evidence must be provided. If there is no factual evidence for the factual claims or the evidence is said to be forthcoming, the claims must remain "faith claims until futher notice." To state these claims as fact-based without factual evidence is fraudulent, in my opinion, as is proved by the lack of evidence for which there is no reasonable doubt. My 2.
I was aware of the "proponderance of evidence" critiria, but I chose the "reasonable doubt" criteria in discussions such as this because, in part, there is too often a marked lack of the rigors of critical thinking and jurisprudence that would otherwise tend to appropriatly weed out some of the irrational and immaterial "evidence", thus making judgement of "preponderance of evidence" in places like this quite vulnerable to misuse. To me, it is better in such situations to error on the side of caution.
In terms of your deliniation between faith and fact, you seem to be treating them as descrete notions, rather than as polar ends of the same confindence continuum. At what point on the continuum does calling something a fact become fraudulent to your way of thinking--when someone has a little confidence, or alot of confidence, or unwavering confidence in the verity of the thing?
To your mind, what constitutes factual evidence--empirical evidence, eye-witness testimony, hearsay or circumstantial evidence, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, etc.?
I ask because depending upon how you answer these questions, you may inadvertantly render much of legitimate science as fraudulent--particularly the "soft" sciences. For example, while "evolution" (or the origins of man) is still called a theory, many consider it a "fact" because of all the circumstantial evidence that inductively supports that theory. Yet there is no direct factual information of evolution from one species to another. To you, is it fraudulent to consider the theory of evolution as fact?
Other examples of this include: black holes, super strings, the existence of quarks, various theories about the nature of gravity and light, historical interpretations or anthropological, sociological, and psychological explanations for why people have done or are doing what they do.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Wade,
You make a very good point. The "facts" of any case are just the available "evidence" and these "facts" are what are on trial and are therefore up to interpretation.
I like your idea of the fact/faith continuum. It makes sense. And I think that is what the court system is all about: proving what is fact and what is not. And this is an interpretive exercise. Our court system relies on interpretation to decide what the facts are--the interpretation of "reasonable" people.
Fraud as defined by law.com is:
the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right.
The key here is the idea of intent and I think this is what you are driving at. If we come to interpret the "facts" as provided by the LDS Church as not "proven" and therefore not facutal the question is then, did Joseph Smith and the LDS church "intentionally" deceive? Deception without intent is no deception.
So how does a reasonable person interpret the available evidence as factual proof that Joseph and his church intended to deceive? Well that is a question of the standard of proof:
1. Beyond Reasonable Doubt
2. Clear and Convincing
3. Preponderence of Evidence
How are these standards chosen? By precedence and the moral judgment of "communities" of people over time.
Even though I agree with you that theories like evolution, for example, are not “proven” facts, I cannot interpret the scientific community’s profession that the theory is nevertheless a true theory (i.e. as close to a proven fact as you can get) as an act of fraud primarily because their profession in no way deprives me of money, property or legal right.
Religious institutions which require money and frequently the promise or covenant of money, property and time have crossed a line when proffering theories as truth (or as close to proven fact as you can get – for what is a truth claim if not a factual claim?).
So based on the accepted standard of proof is it reasonable to conclude fraud in the case of Joseph Smith and the LDS Church v. The People? There is reasonable doubt, I grant you that. Long ago I posted a thread on another forum about my gnawing doubts about the goodness of the LDS general authorities in which I used the term “doubt.” I also have a reasonable doubt that the theory of evolution is true but a preponderence of the evidence tells me that it is likely to be true. And it has to do with the quality and the quantity of the evidence. You could align your continuum of faith---------fact with evidential continuum from insufficient evidence---------incontrovertible evidence.
Faith is almost always a matter of insufficient evidence, which I believe is often a precursor to finding better evidence. What is a hypothesis anyway? But the hypothesis must generate better than insufficient evidence to become theory or ideally proven fact.
Is there probable cause to take the LDS Church to court for fraud?
The church offers their claim that they have a controlling interest in the gateways to eternal salvation and thereby eternal freedom from the all-too-common unhappiness of mortal life—a benefit which can represent tremendous value to many people. And a claimed benefit for which many are willing to contribute significant value in the form of time, money and property. If a reasonable person interpreted the evidence as insufficient to believe that the proffered benefits could be provided after committing years of time, money and property would the accusation of fraud apply?
What kind of “evidence” has Joseph Smith and the LDS Church provided? Is this evidence sufficient to be interpreted as proven? Should a person or organization persist in receiving “real” benefits in the form of money, time and property for the benefits they claim for which they can produce no more than faith-based evidence?
So if I can produce no more than faith-based evidence of my transcendent benefits while requiring you (not simply suggesting that you contribute), under the auspices of Ultimate Authority, to pay me in time and money, could a reasonable person infer fraudulent intent?
And if there is more than faith-based evidence (i.e. insufficient or hear-say evidence), what is it? AND….can that evidence pass the tests of preponderance and even reasonable doubt?