Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

[bluegreenearth]

For example:

Hebrews 11:3

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at Gods command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

There are numerous verses following the one above that equally proclaim, "By faith," something is understood or known to be true. Therefore, in this context, "faith" is being encouraged for use as an epistemology. How does "faith" function to reliably distinguish true claims from false claims or does it fail in that regard? What would demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Christian community that "faith" is not a reliable tool for discovering what is true or false?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 116 by Realworldjack]

At this point, I will simply copy, and paste from another post of mine explaining these things, and you can give me your answers as to how we have such overwhelming evidence to support these things I have listed to be things we can know.

Once again all you have presented is evidence of claims being made. When you keep referring to the author it is quite clear that you are not certain of the identity of this author and everything else associated with him is purely speculation. What we need is irrefutable first hand evidence of a resurrected Jesus.

Tales of dying and resurrecting gods are not unique to Christianity, and those stories had to have arisen from the imaginations of human beings for reasons we can no longer access. It seems to me that people get indoctrinated into particular religious beliefs and some then rigorously attempt to rationalise those beliefs. I doubt that too many start off as non-believers and then get converted by being presented with flimsy evidence that suggests their deity came back from the dead. Once you rely on faith to shore up any belief you know that there is no rational justification for that belief. Faith props up countless other religions and they all can't represent the truth. They all can, however, be false.

Once again all you have presented is evidence of claims being made. When you keep referring to the author it is quite clear that you are not certain of the identity of this author and everything else associated with him is purely speculation. What we need is irrefutable first hand evidence of a resurrected Jesus.

You really need to go back and read more carefully, because everything I had to say would be facts we can verify. Let us take a look,

So then, as we can clearly see, this author tells his audience, who is someone by the name of Theophilus, where he got his information, and why he is writing this information, and the reason given is, so that "Theophilus can know the certainty of the things he has been taught".

You see, everything I say here is a fact, and I also forgot to include the fact, that this author tells Theophilus he had, "investigated everything carefully from the beginning".

You see, what I have just said would be a fact, and we have evidence to support the fact that this author would have been able to actually investigate as he claims he did, because we have overwhelming evidence which would demonstrate that this author did indeed travel with Paul, which means he would have been alive during the life of Jesus, would have known the Apostles personally, and would have known the claims they were making first hand.

Moreover, as was mentioned, it would be a fact this author begins to use the words "we" and "us" when describing the events of the travels of Paul, as if he is there to witness the events himself, and it would be a fact this author continues to use these words, all the way, and up until Paul travels to Rome in order to stand trail, is arrested, and this author ends his letter with Paul being under arrest, waiting to stand trial, and this author reports this arrest lasted for some 2 years.

As we move to the letters of Paul, we know it to be a fact, that Paul mention the name of Luke, several times in his letters, and send greetings to others in the name of Luke, which means we know there was someone by the name of Luke traveling along with Paul for years on these journeys.

Then, when we turn our attention to one of the letters Paul addresses to Timothy, which would have been written while Paul was under arrest, we have Paul reporting to Timothy that, "only Luke is with me", which would supply us with overwhelming evidence that the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have surely been, Luke.

The whole point here is, I am using facts, to support my case, and all you are doing is to say these are all simply "claims", when it is not the claims I am referring to, but rather the facts, involved, and what we need from you is some sort of facts, and evidence which may demonstrate to us, how in the world all these facts, and evidence which we can demonstrate to be true, could have possibly been fabricated?

In other words, anyone can throw out the idea that these things could have been fabricated. It is quite another to actually sit down and examine all the facts we know to be true, and determine if it would even be possible for the facts we have to have been fabricated?

So then, what we need from you is, some sort of facts, and evidence to suggest the facts, we can know were somehow fabricated, because thus far, you have failed to deal with any of the facts, at all.

Tales of dying and resurrecting gods are not unique to Christianity, and those stories had to have arisen from the imaginations of human beings for reasons we can no longer access.

As we have seen, comparing one claim to another claim, is not an argument at all, and even if we were able to falsify all of the other claims you would like to compare this claim to, it would have absolutely nothing to do with the truth, or falsehood of this claim. Rather, this is just another way of avoiding having to deal with the facts, as we have them.

It seems to me that people get indoctrinated into particular religious beliefs and some then rigorously attempt to rationalise those beliefs.

I will agree this is indeed true, but again it has nothing whatsoever to do with the claim of the resurrection being true or false, and is simply another way of dodging the facts, and evidence we have which can be demonstrated.

I doubt that too many start off as non-believers and then get converted by being presented with flimsy evidence that suggests their deity came back from the dead.

Note here, I deal with facts, and evidence we can know, while you simply continue to share your opinion. With this being the case, allow me to share my opinion, concerning your opinion.

There are many folks (including myself) who will stop when they hear what they believe to be a claim which is extraordinary. As I said, there are some claims which are extraordinary which I do not care about attempting to investigate.

However, if I do not care enough to investigate the claims, then I certainly will not insist the claim would have to be false, and I also would not insist there would be no reasons to believe the claims, and I certainly would not spend my time day, after day on a web site dedicated to debating the subject, when all I had to offer was my doubt.

With that being said, I have no problem with those who simply choose to doubt the claim of the resurrection because it is extraordinary. My problem comes in when these same folk insist the claim would be false, and there are no reasons to believe the claims, and they refuse to deal with the facts we have, and all they have to offer is their doubt.

Once you rely on faith to shore up any belief you know that there is no rational justification for that belief.

This is a tired, and worn out argument which again has nothing to do with the truth of the matter, and you can hide behind it if you like but, I do not need faith in order to believe the claims of the resurrection, because we have facts, and evidence to support the resurrection, and as long as there are facts, and evidence involved, faith is not required.

It seems to me, you are the one who operates pretty much on faith, seeing as how you refuse to deal with the actual facts we have, and instead rely on the trust you have in your doubt.

Faith props up countless other religions and they all can't represent the truth. They all can, however, be false.

And here we go again, not dealing with the facts we have for the claim, but making comparisons which would have nothing whatsoever at all to do with getting to the truth of the matter.

When one refuses to deal with the facts, it does not in any way cause me to have doubts about the position I hold, but rather gives me all the more reason to understand I have every reason to hold this position.

[Realworldjack]

The difference between us seems to be, you seem to be under the impression that any time you doubt something to be true, that this is some sort of evidence the claim must be false, while I understand that my doubt would have no bearing upon the matter.

This is at least the second or third time you've straw-manned my perspective in this exact way. I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself over and over again just so you can ignore my actual position. Enjoy wallowing in your unconscious confirmation bias and logically fallacious tactics because I'm moving on to other people who care enough to be intellectually honest.

Okay, well let's just see if it was a straw-man? First, if you will notice, I used the words "seems"which demonstrates I am giving you an opportunity to correct me, in that I am not making a definite statement, so it cannot be a straw-man. So, why does it "seem" that way to me? Well let us see.

but the improbability of him faking his death justifies your doubt that it is true.

The reason why I use the words "seems" is because I am assuming here that you would be under the impression that "the improbability of him faking his death justifies your doubt" that Elvis actually faked his death?

If I am correct here, then the difference between us is, I am not attempting to justify my doubt, where you would be?

You go on to say,

Even though you have a justification for doubting the conspiracy theory

But you see, I have never said such a thing, because this would not be the case concerning me, so I am assuming then, that this would be the position you hold, which is, there is justification for the doubt, which would mean we hold two opposing positions concerning our doubt, with me not attempting to defend my doubt as being justified, while you seem to be under the impression that it would be justified?

You then go on to ask this question,

According to your perspective, do the people making the claim about Elvis faking his death have a justified belief?

My answer was, and still is, "I would not know, and do not care to know", while I am assuming you hold the position that, these folks would not "have a justified belief"? And all you seem to be using to justify, that they would not be justified in their belief is the "improbability of Elvis faking his death" which I see as nothing but doubt, and so you seem to be placing far more faith in your doubt, than I would ever place in my own doubt.

So then, unless you can correct my understanding of you position, then it would seem that I would be justified in understanding this would be a difference between us, and I would not have been, straw-manning you.

Enjoy wallowing in your unconscious confirmation bias and logically fallacious tactics because I'm moving on to other people who care enough to be intellectually honest.

Anyone can make these sort of statements. However, it is quite another to actually demonstrate what you say. You go ahead and move on, which I expected from the start, because I could clearly see you were heading down a dead end road.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 117 by Danmark]

Again, this is comical, and also expected! You continue to fail to deal with the facts we have, and instead, you are comparing one claim which you have doubts about, to another claim you have doubts about, when the two claims have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

Moreover, even if you were to be able to demonstrate one of these claims to be absolutely false, it would have nothing whatsoever to do with the other claim, and whether it would be true, or false.

So then, I can only imagine one would attempt to make such a comparison, because they understand they are not able to deal with the real facts involved, and this is the only ting they have, because they cannot possibly imagine this type of comparison would be have anything at all to do with the facts, at hand.

Seriously! This comparison you are making, (because it cannot be called an argument) would have nothing whatsoever to do with determining the truth, or falsehood of either claim, and it certainly would not demonstrate there would be no reasons to believe either of the claims.

The point is, I am dealing with the real facts, and evidence we have, and you are simply making comparisons, which have nothing to do with anything at all.

'Seriously' you have offered no evaluation whatsoever, no analysis. You have claimed the comparison is not apt, yet you have not explained why. You have made no effort to explain why or how the facts are not analogous or otherwise do not apply. This is the argumentative equivalent of name calling or labeling. You have not made a counter argument.
Contradiction is not argument. To refresh, an argument is a definite series of statements to establish a proposition.
[citing Monty Python ]

And let me add, for good measure, "Hrrrmph!"

[bluegreenearth]

Enjoy wallowing in your unconscious confirmation bias and logically fallacious tactics because I'm moving on to other people who care enough to be intellectually honest.

Anyone can make these sort of statements. However, it is quite another to actually demonstrate what you say. You go ahead and move on, which I expected from the start, because I could clearly see you were heading down a dead end road.

For everyone else who has been monitoring my exchange with Realworldjack,

I am providing you all with this brief exposition in order that my next public correspondence with Realworldjack not be perceived as self-contradictory. Most of you probably read my last response to Realworldjack in this thread where I expressed my concerns regarding his difficult behavior and my intent to discontinue further dialogue with him as a result. I had previously given Realworldjack multiple opportunities to appropriately respond to my posts with relevant counterpoints, but all he kept giving me was the impression that he wasn't interested in properly understanding or representing my perspective. To his credit, I subsequently received a cordial email from Realworldjack where he offered me an explanation for his attitude and expressed his appreciation for our conversations. I am conditionally accepting the "olive branch" he is offering with the understanding that he will try to first steel-man my perspective or at least ask for clarification before constructively criticizing any point I've attempted to convey.

Thank you.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 121 by Realworldjack]

Unjustified extrapolation from letters is hardly an establishment of facts. You need to provide verified first hand eye witness accounts of a resurrected Jesus. All else is hearsay. We are also knee deep in forgeries and interpolations when it comes to writing from that period. Even half of the writing attributed to Paul is disputed, including Timothy 1 and 2. The analogies provided to you illustrate how much more likely it is that the story of a resurrected Jesus is the product of human invention or error than that a god/man came back to life. It is not up to us to say how or why. The burden of proof is with those making the claim that a resurrection event actually occurred. On this account you have only managed to establish that evidence for the claim exists, but not for the event itself.

[Don McIntosh]

For example:

Hebrews 11:3

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at Gods command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

There are numerous verses following the one above that equally proclaim, "By faith," something is understood or known to be true. Therefore, in this context, "faith" is being encouraged for use as an epistemology. How does "faith" function to reliably distinguish true claims from false claims or does it fail in that regard? What would demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Christian community that "faith" is not a reliable tool for discovering what is true or false?

There are some interesting points being raised here. I'm a little late to the dance, and I haven't read all the responses, so if I say something that's already been said, forgive me...

Is faith a viable epistemology? To answer that, I would first call attention to probably the most common definition or understanding of knowledge, as "justified true belief" (or as Socrates put it to Theaetetus, "true opinion"). Apart from some isolated exceptions pointed out by Gettier and a handful of others, this traditional definition is still most widely held and still holds for almost all situations.

Given that knowledge is best defined in terms of justified true belief, belief is an inescapable element of knowledge, and therefore knowledge cannot be had apart from belief. Common experience suggests as much. I can believe something without knowing it, sure, but how could I possibly know something without also believing it? My subjective will must agree with, or acknowledge, the objective truth at hand if I am to know anything at all.

To the degree that "faith" means "belief" (of a particular religious kind), therefore, faith is an essential aspect of (a particular religious kind of) knowledge. If this is what Scripture means when it says "by faith we understand," then it seems there's not much objectionable about an "epistemology of faith" " and when compared to self-defeating atheistic epistemologies like logical positivism, much to commend it. The problem, of course, is that this faith still needs to be true and justified. But those are separate questions.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 123 by Danmark]


It is up to the one making the comparison to demonstrate how the two would compare. If there is no comparison (and there is not) then the only thing one can do is to point this fact out, and allow the one making the comparison demonstrate how they would compare.

So then do please tell us, how, and why the "Elvis sightings" and the resurrection would compare, and how, and if we were able to demonstrate one of these claims to be absolutely false, how this would have anything at all to do with the other?

My guess is, the only comparison would be, both claims seem unlikely in your mind, which causes you to have doubts about both claims, and therefore they compare in your mind, but in reality one claim would have absolutely nothing to do with the other.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 125 by brunumb]

Unjustified extrapolation from letters is hardly an establishment of facts.

The facts are, we have the two letters addressed to Theophilus, along with the letters of Paul, which clearly demonstrate that the author of the letters to Theophilus did indeed travel with Paul, which would clearly indicate that this author would have been alive during the lifetime of Jesus, would have known the original Apostles, and would have known the claims they were making first hand. The question is, how in the world could these facts, and evidence been fabricated?

You need to provide verified first hand eye witness accounts of a resurrected Jesus. All else is hearsay.

No, because I am not under obligation to demonstrate that Jesus in fact resurrected, but rather there is good reasons to support the resurrection. With this being the case, I do not have to provide proof, but rather the reasons there are to believe the reports.

This does not mean everyone will agree but if you insist there would be no good reasons to believe the claims, then you are then under the burden to demonstrate how, and why these reasons would be false, along with the facts, and evidence in support.

My point is, we can all look at the same exact facts, and evidence, and come to completely different conclusions, and both have good reasons for the conclusions we have.

Because you see, all you are really doing is to say, "the claims could be false" without giving us any reason to believe they may indeed be false. On the other hand, and am pointing out the fact that we have the accounts, along with the evidence inside the letters themselves, and asking how, why, and if there would be any way for these facts, and evidence to have been fabricated, and you continue to fail to deal with these facts, and evidence.

Even half of the writing attributed to Paul is disputed, including Timothy 1 and 2.

Can you imagine why these letters would be disputed? Well, it is because those opposed understand exactly what I have been saying. In other words, they understand that if Paul was the actual author of these letters, then this would absolutely mean there would be very good evidence in support of the claims. Therefore, the only option they have is to question the authorship of the letters.

The question is, have you actually read the letters in question yourself in order to determine what all would have had to be involved, in order for this to even be a possibility? Or, are you simply taking the word of others? Because I will assure you that if you actually read the letters in question, you will clearly come to the understanding that it would be next to impossible for this to be the case.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 123 by Danmark]


It is up to the one making the comparison to demonstrate how the two would compare.

That is exactly what I did:
Elvis 'allegedly' died in 1977 at the age of 42. There were unverified 'sightings' of him for a few years after he died; few today, 42 years later. Elvis would be 84 today. I guess we have to wait until 2050 to be reasonably certain that if he didn't die in 1977, he's certainly dead now.

Jesus allegedly died in about 33 CE, aged 33-36. There were unverified 'sightings' of him for a few years after he died; none today, 2000 years later. I guess we don't have to wait until 2050 to be reasonably certain that if he didn't die in 33, he's certainly dead now.

Since you claim there is no comparison, tho' you fail to explain why, I'll point out the points of comparison:
1. Both are men who apparently died.
2. Both were supposedly seen alive after death.
3. Both have now been dead long enough that those sightings have diminished in frequency.
4. Both have now been dead long enough that they would have by now died anyway, of natural causes. The certainty of the death of Jesus today is greater because he's been gone 2000 years; however, in the case of Elvis it's only been 84 years, so the certainty of his death is lower.

[bluegreenearth]

To the degree that "faith" means "belief" (of a particular religious kind), therefore, faith is an essential aspect of (a particular religious kind of) knowledge. If this is what Scripture means when it says "by faith we understand," then it seems there's not much objectionable about an "epistemology of faith" " and when compared to self-defeating atheistic epistemologies like logical positivism, much to commend it. The problem, of course, is that this faith still needs to be true and justified. But those are separate questions.

The way you are defining "faith" does not appear to be consistent with the way it is being used in the context of Hebrews 11: 1-31. In those verses, "faith" cannot be equivocated with mere "religious belief" because it would be circular reasoning to declare that a religious claim is believed to be true by way of a religious belief. You are welcome to adopt such an epistemology but would have no justification for objecting when people from competing religious traditions utilize it to declare their beliefs are known to be true by faith.

As for logical positivism, that epistemology doesn't define atheism and is not necessarily endorsed by most modern atheists. If you brought that up because you think all atheists are logical positivists, please don't make that assumption in the future. Thanks.