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?

[Don McIntosh]

Go ahead, give us a different 'interpretation of Hebrews 11:1-3. I did, line by line. You object to mine, yet you offer no other. I suspect it is because mine is spot on.

This is what really gets me about Christian apologists. Take a text with very clear meaning, but a meaning that is embarrassing to a rational man, and the either have no answer or go off on some speculative journey where 'yes' does not mean yes and 'no' does not mean no.
Please, explain how the text does not mean exactly what it says and what I said.

While you're at it, you can explain that by "this generation" and "while those standing here are still alive" means "2000 years later (and counting). Bible literalists do not take the Bible literally when its meaning is inconvenient. That is what I mean by 'obtuse.'

Danmark, I objected to your interpretation not because it is "spot on," but because you have assumed that the interpretation most uncharitable to believers is also the only possible interpretation. Additionally you seem to have little or no awareness of the larger context of Hebrews 11, the rest of the book of Hebrews, or the Scriptures as a whole.

You have interpreted Hebrews 11:1-3 as a blanket affirmation of "confirmation bias." I mentioned the examples of Abraham, Noah, Sarah and others as counterexamples in Hebrews 11 that would suggest the meaning of Hebrews 11:1-3 is almost certainly not an endorsement of confirmation bias. Rather, Hebrews 11, and the book of Hebrews as a whole, evidently exhorts believers to respond affirmatively to an experience of God's presence and revelation of his purpose. This would be in keeping with the first mention of imperative teaching in Hebrews 2:1-3:

"Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first was spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness with signs, and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?"

Here God has spoken and worked miracles, and believers are held accountable for what they have seen and heard. Elsewhere Hebrews says that believers have "tasted of the powers of the age to come" (Heb. 6:5). Take the example of Abraham. God appears to Abraham and promises, even though Abraham is an old man, that he will have a son with Sarah. When some time passes and that promise has not been fulfilled, Abraham must trust in the promise given to him so powerfully so many years earlier, rather than trust in the seeming futility of the present situation. This understanding is consistent with that of Paul in Romans 4:13-21.

Abraham thus believes in "things hoped for" and "things unseen" (v. 1) not because he is arbitrarily biased but because of God's promise. By holding fast to God's promise and finally seeing it realized, Abraham "obtained a good testimony" (v. 2). (Prior to God making himself known to Abraham, there was no bias whatsoever; Abraham was happily minding his own business in Haran. Again, that same basic pattern holds in the accounts of Noah, Moses, Gideon, and others.) And with the historical principle thus established that God's word is "living and powerful" (Heb. 4:12), we can trust the foundational account of Genesis 1-2, which tells us in so many words that that "the worlds were framed by the word of God" (v. 3). The overriding lesson of Hebrews 11:1-3 appears to be that if God speaks something, it happens; so for instance God said, "Let there be light," and there was light (Gen. 1:3). Therefore we do well to maintain faith until his promises are fulfilled.

You think believers and apologists like me are obtuse? Doesn't bother me. In fact, that stereotype actually helps explain why you would interpret my posts, and Hebrews 11:1-3 for that matter, so terribly. For my part, I suspect you're highly intelligent, though I do have questions about your objectivity and the degree to which you seem emotionally invested in debates like this.

[Danmark]

Go ahead, give us a different 'interpretation of Hebrews 11:1-3. I did, line by line. You object to mine, yet you offer no other. I suspect it is because mine is spot on.

This is what really gets me about Christian apologists. Take a text with very clear meaning, but a meaning that is embarrassing to a rational man, and the either have no answer or go off on some speculative journey where 'yes' does not mean yes and 'no' does not mean no.
Please, explain how the text does not mean exactly what it says and what I said.

While you're at it, you can explain that by "this generation" and "while those standing here are still alive" means "2000 years later (and counting). Bible literalists do not take the Bible literally when its meaning is inconvenient. That is what I mean by 'obtuse.'

Danmark, I objected to your interpretation not because it is "spot on," but because you have assumed that the interpretation most uncharitable to believers is also the only possible interpretation. Additionally you seem to have little or no awareness of the larger context of Hebrews 11, the rest of the book of Hebrews, or the Scriptures as a whole.

You have interpreted Hebrews 11:1-3 as a blanket affirmation of "confirmation bias." I mentioned the examples of Abraham, Noah, Sarah and ....

I challenged you to look at the actual text,
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. 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.
Again you have ignored the text and gone off about 'Abraham, Noah, Sarah....'

What you have NOT done is address the actual text of the Bible wherein Paul declares faith is merely confirmation bias. I gave a line by line analysis proving the point. You have ignored this and gone on about different topics with allusions to different passages, different characters.

Please address the text in question, Hebrews 11:1-3. Your failure to do so is glaring. If you don't address the actual text and its interpretation, you concede the point. Obfuscations and distractions will not avail. Please give us your alternate interpretation of the actual words:
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. 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.
The text clearly states faith is 'confirmation bias.' it maintains that the Christian, by faith, believes what he cannot see, but rather what he hopes for, that which he has been taught.

[bluegreenearth]

Okay, but the mere fact that you have "interpreted" Hebrews a certain way still falls short of an explanation or justification for the interpretation. Meanwhile, it's not like the writer of Hebrews states outright that faith actually means to "assume conclusions" or "confirm biases." Apparently you have personally inferred that from the text, but so far I have seen no justification for such an inference.

Besides, an argument could be made that when the writer of Hebrews says "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," he actually speaks for all of us. The way a Christian believes God spoke the world into existence is essentially the same way an atheist believes that life arose from a pool of inorganic chemicals without the help of God or anyone else " by faith.

As you recommended, let's consider Hebrews 11:1 to see if it provides us with clarification:

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." - Hebrews 11:1

Your interpretation only superficially equates "faith" to the concept of trust in that it includes the cognitive states of "confidence" and "assurance" but fails to indicate how this application of trust is justified or earned. Without qualifying why it is reasonable to feel assured by what we do not see or without identifying a justification for placing confidence in our hope, you are accepting this claim about the meaning of faith as an axiomatic assertion. Basically, the text is requiring readers to place their highest level of trust in what the scriptures claim about reality without validating if any of it consistently and demonstrably comports with their own observations and experiences. So, if Christians intend for faith to be synonymous with trust in the way it is applied in science, then they must also examine the reliability of their reasons for having faith and be prepared to acknowledge where their application of trust in these claims might not be justified.

I would say the opposite is true: its conclusions being continually in need of self-correction is precisely what makes science an unreliable epistemology. Imagine that I had to correct myself repeatedly in the course of our debate because I was found to be factually in error. You would be right to object if I turned around and said that my position was epistemically more reliable than yours for that very reason " because it was "self-correcting" while yours was not.

Your hypothetical scenario is invalid because I would only have a justification for objecting to your claim if my epistemology could be demonstrated to produce more reliable knowledge than your self-correcting epistemology rather than just asserting my epistemology was more reliable. A reliable epistemology must be able to distinguish between things that exist in our imaginations and things that exist in the external reality we all perceive. For instance, someone from ancient Greece using a Zeus-based epistemology could claim to have possession of knowledge that lightening is produced by Zeus somewhere above Mount Olympus. This Zeus-based epistemology has no need for self-correction since the knowledge it divinely reveals is accepted almost entirely on faith. However, when using a Zeus-based epistemology, the ancient Greeks had no way to determine if the explanation for lightening actually existed in their perceived reality or if it was just something they were imagining. Meanwhile, the scientific explanation for the source of lightening was not accepted as knowledge until it could be verified as existing in our perceived reality through experimentation. Furthermore, this scientific knowledge functions to inform our decisions on the expectation of predictable outcomes. In this case, scientific knowledge about lightening enables us to make future testable predictions about weather which provides us with a tremendous advantage where Zeus-based knowledge fails in that regard.

More to the point, if any given theory or pronouncement of science is subject to being falsified or corrected at any time, it's not a source of knowledge, because it's not true. Probable or justified, perhaps, but not true. I say that because true statements are not subject to correction, let alone falsification, not even in principle.

Remember that knowledge has to be both true and justified. I gave just two of countless possible examples of a theory that was either falsified or replaced by a better theory that was incompatible with it. Clearly a theory that is eventually falsified cannot be true, and just as clearly a theory that is replaced by another because it lacks sufficient evidence, simplicity, explanatory power, etc., cannot be justified. And yet the vast majority of scientific hypotheses have met with one of those two fates.

A fact often overlooked in Christian apologetics and theological debates is that that "truth" is just a word which can be defined by whatever arbitrary metric we want when there is no agreed upon epistemological framework. For example, maybe I want to measure the truth of a proposition by its ability to make me feel emotionally satisfied or comfortable. Given that epistemology, I would be perfectly justified in claiming it is true that my consciousness will survive beyond the physical death of my body because the proposition satisfies my instinct for self-preservation and provides me reassuring comfort. I could also define truth by anything which corroborates the perspective of an authority figure or dictates transcribed in an ancient text. In that instance, I would be completely justified in accepting the proposition that all fossils are evidence of a global flood which occurred only a few thousand years ago because such a claim agrees with bronze-age scriptures Ive defined as being true. On the other hand, someone who defines truth differently will have no reason to accept those claims if they dont satisfy the metrics set by their epistemology.

More commonly, truth is defined as that which corresponds with reality. This understanding of truth seems intuitive and tempts us to accept the definition without objection. The problem, though, is our perception of reality and what reality actually is may not be identical. Therefore, an objective method for determining if a claim actually corresponds with reality is not possible under that definition of truth. The limitation with many definitions of truth is that they are rendered useless by the fundamental and functional purpose for believing something is true in the first place. The pragmatic reason to believe anything is true at all is to use that information to guide our actions. Sooner or later, the truth of a claim is measured by its power to inform our decisions under the expectation of predictable outcomes. Decisions based on true beliefs will manifest themselves in the form of experiences that were correctly anticipated. Decisions based on false beliefs will eventually fail in that goal.

Remember also that in science theoretical conclusions are always tentative and probabilistic, that is, not entirely true. That's largely because science depends upon inductive and abductive rather than deductive reasoning. Consider the inference below:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is mortal.

The conclusion follows inescapably from the premises. If the premises of a deductive argument are true, and the argument is valid, then the conclusion is not simply probable or justifiable, but true. Now consider the inductive argument:

Every swan ever observed has been white.
All swans are white.

The conclusion doesn't really follow in a logical sense, but only seems justified in some probabilistic, intuitive way. We just basically tend to think that if every particular instance of X to date has exhibited property Y, then all X are Y. (And in this case the seemingly scientifically justified conclusion "All swans are white" has turned out to be false. It was thought to be true by most people in the world until the first black swan was discovered in Australia in 1697.)

If the claim, "all swans are white," was divinely revealed knowledge using a faith-based epistemology, the discovery of a black swan would have to be ignored, denied, or White Swan apologists would argue that the newly discovered bird is more accurately described as a black goose rather than admit to a mistake. After all, a faith-based epistemology must be more reliable since it never requires correction. I'm sure there are more clever White Swan apologetic arguments other people could offer in defense of a faith-based epistemology.

That sounds reasonable enough at a glance, but "not yet falsified" is hardly equivalent to "true." And again, for us to have knowledge about X our beliefs about X should be both justified and true. Here the fact that the theory has so far survived numerous falsification tests means that belief in it is increasingly justified, yes, but the fact that it may be falsified next week means that it is not true in any meaningful sense. I realize that may seem, to use your own phrasing, counterintuitive, but I will try to explain why that must be so nonetheless.

Theoretical science largely depends, as you mentioned, on predictive power. Lets take your first example:

For example, paleontologists used the Theory of Evolution to predict that the ancestor of all amphibians should be a transitional species featuring a skeletal structure with characteristics of both fish and amphibians.

Here we have a phenomenon, a certain transitional species (T), purportedly predicted by evolutionary theory (E) and subsequently observed. Now given that there are upwards of eight million species of organisms on earth, it would not surprise me in the least if we found a species just like T even if creationism were true and evolution were false, simply because of the sheer range of diversity of organisms and characteristics available for observation. Also I have big questions about the level of subjectivity involved in determining which characteristics belong to either fish, or amphibians, or both; but let's assume the criteria are perfectly objective and unambiguous, and that such a transitional species has in fact been discovered. In that case, your argument would go something like this:

If E, then T
T
E

Wrong. The argument would go something like this:

If E is false, then not T
T
E is not false

This is not affirming the consequent. As such, I can justifiably dismiss the rest of your criticism since it isn't valid.

The same objection holds for all the other predictions you listed for evolutionary theory, or for any number of predictions listed for any other scientific theory. So here we have another reason why scientific inferences should be tentatively accepted rather than dogmatically declared. Observations in keeping with predictions may make a theory stronger and more useful than it was before, but will never render a theory true.

Science neither demands nor requires dogmatic acceptance. To do otherwise, would make science a faith-based enterprise. If scientific "truth" is not sufficient enough to inform your decisions, then don't use it. No one is forcing you to use a scientific epistemology to develop your knowledge base. Just don't expect your faith-based knowledge claims to inform any of your practical decisions with any measurable or consistent reliability.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 160 by Don McIntosh]

Additionally you seem to have little or no awareness of the larger context of Hebrews 11, the rest of the book of Hebrews, or the Scriptures as a whole.

The way I see it is that the larger context of Hebrews, or Scriptures, or the Bible, or any allegedly Holy Text is religious propaganda. All interpretation is then done in the service of that goal.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 149 by bluegreenearth]

Your comments are not in response to my post because I specifically asked what criteria a reason must satisfy in order to be labeled as a good reason from your perspective. For instance, an example of one criterion someone might establish would be that the reason must have an implicit empirical basis to be a good reason. A criterion set by someone else might be that, for a reason to be a good reason, it must correspond or be consistent with Christian theology. So, according that person's criterion, the existence of claims about a resurrection would qualify as a good reason. If the first example criterion is being considered, then the fact that claims exist would be a reason but not a good reason because the claims themselves have no implicit empirical basis. Now, I'm not here to dictate what your criteria should be but am asking you to explain the criteria you've established for yourself.

Okay, instead of me going through these things one by one, allow me to attempt to explain my way of thinking in this case.

We all know it is a fact, we have the claims of a resurrection. We also know there is a reason why we have the claims, and this must, and has to be dealt with. In other words, we cannot simply say, "all we have are claims" as if this would be a reason to consider the claims to be, unlikely.

So then, I ask myself, what reasons do I have to consider these reports to be, unlikely? Well, of course there is the fact that the claims would be, extraordinary. However, then I go on to ask myself, why then would we have all these claims if they are false, and what all would have to be involved, in order for the claims to be false?

In other words, could all the authors have been lying? Could they have been deceived in some sort of way? Is it possible someone else may have been involved behind the scene, who orchestrated all these facts, and evidence which we have? Could Jesus have survived the crucifixion, and so, on, and so on.

When one sits down and actually examines all the facts we have, they may not come away with the conclusion that a resurrection indeed occurred, but I do believe they would have to come away with the understanding that something very extraordinary did indeed occur, and that there are very good reasons to believe the reports may very well be true.

There is no denying the fact that something extraordinary happened, because we have a man who was crucified some 2000 years ago, and this man who left nothing in writing himself, somehow becomes the most significant man in the history of the world, and that would that would be extraordinary in, and of itself, and I don't care who you are.

So then, we have a man who was crucified, dead, buried, and rose again. Or, we have a man who was crucified, who somehow becomes the most significant man in the history of the world, all based upon some sort of, deception.

The fact of the matter is, we are simply scratching the surface here, because it would be impossible to list all the reasons there would be to believe these accounts, because it would take a book volume, and there have been those who have done just that.

So then, it is unreal in my mind that there would be those who would attempt to argue, that there would be no good reasons to believe the accounts, unless they simply choose to ignore all the facts, and evidence we have. In other words, it is one thing to suggest we have reasons to doubt the claims, it is quite another to insist, there would be no good reasons to believe the claims.

I don't have enough information to claim knowledge of how and why these resurrection claims came to exist. Do you have any information for me to consider?

Sure! Because, we not only have the claims, we also are given the reason for the claims, which would be because they are said to be historical accounts. Now, of course this does not demonstrate the claims would be true, but it would be considered as evidence, and so do you have any reasons why I should consider these things to be, unlikely to be true?

Because you see, we can know beyond a reasonable doubt that the author of the two letters to Theophilus, gives us some very accurate information, and so I am wondering what sort of evidence we may have, which would cause me to consider some of the other things he says to be, unlikely?

Remember, I'm starting over from scratch here. I haven't indicated that the case was settled. Why do I have the burden of proof for claims I haven't made?

I have not insisted you have the "burden of proof". Rather, it is a fact that we have the claims, along with the fact, there is a reason for the claims. Therefore, if you insist that, "my default position must be doubt", then you need to supply some sort of reason why I should consider these reports to be, unlikely?

Other people have certainly made those claims and should defend them accordingly.

What you are failing to consider is, those who were giving these reports, were reporting to audiences at the time, and they owe nothing to us. What this means is, we are reading information which the author never intended for us, which means we are reading history, no matter how you look at it, and attempting to determine how, and why we have this historical information.

I don't know how or why these resurrection claims came to exist. Maybe you will offer an explanation in the comment below.

Sure! We know for a fact, that Paul would have been alive during the life of Jesus. We also know for a fact, the author of the two letters to Theophilus, traveled along with Paul for decades on his missionary journeys, which means we can know this author would have been alive during the life of Jesus as well, would have known the apostles personally, spent a lot of time with them, and would have known the claims they were making first hand.

We can also know for a fact, that this author sits down to write, not one, but two long and detailed letters to someone by the name of Theophilus, and in this letter he tells Theophilus, exactly the reason for writing out this information to him, and he tells him that it is so, "Theophilus, can know the exact truth".

So then, we have just examined some facts we can know for certain. Can you give me any reason whatsoever, why there would be reason for me to consider this information to be, unlikely?

Notice, I am not suggesting we should simply believe the contents. Rather, I am asking you, "what reason would I have to consider this information to be unlikely"? What in the world would cause this man to go on all these painful journeys for decades, and then turn around, and go to all the trouble to sit down to write two long and detailed letters, concerning the events, as if it were the truth, and claim to his audience, that he is doing so in order for his audience to "know the exact truth", however, it is false information some sort of way?

If a resurrection occurred, then that would serve as one reason for the existence of claims about the event. Whether that is a good reason or not will depend on the criteria you've established.

I explained my criteria above.

For a reason to be good, does it have to be demonstrable according to your criteria?

One of the reasons thus far is, "we have the claims". We can verify, demonstrate, and prove, we have the claims. Another reason thus far would be, we can demonstrate the overwhelming majority of the NT would be authored, and or, attested to by, those who would have been alive at the time of the alleged claims, would have known those personally who made the claims, and therefore would have heard the claims, from the lips of those making the claims.

If so, has anyone been able to demonstrate that a resurrection can occur to know such an event can serve as an explanation for the existence of these claims about a resurrection?

Here, you would absolutely have to admit, that this would have nothing to do with whether there may be legitimate reasons to believe the claims. In other words, simply because an event has not been observed, nor verified, would have nothing, and I MEAN NOTHING, to do with, whether the event has occurred.

As an example, one of what we have identified as a spices, evolving into what we have identified as a completely different species, has never been tested, observed, demonstrated, verified, proven, which means we do not even know if it would be possible, and yet there are many folks who claim to believe this is exactly what has indeed occurred, and they do so based upon the facts, and evidence we have.

So then, if it is your argument that something has to be demonstrated to be possible, in order for there to be reasons to believe it, then you would have to agree then, that there would be no reasons to believe the claims of evolution, as far as one species, evolving into a completely different spices, and even though I do not believe that one species, has ever evolved into a completely different species, I understand enough to know that, even though this theory has never been demonstrated to even be possible, would have nothing, and I MEAN NOTHING, to do with whether one species, has ever evolved into a completely different species, and therefore, I would never make such a weak argument.

If that is not part of the criteria you've set for yourself, then please indicate what qualifications a reason must satisfy to be considered "good" in your perspective.

I have explained this above. If you have any further questions concerning this please let me know.

Any reason that doesn't meet your criteria for being labeled as a "good reason" will be your reason to doubt the claim. For instance, let's imagine Pat's criteria requires that a good reason be demonstrable. If the proposed explanation for the existence of these resurrection claims is that a resurrection occurred, then the inability to demonstrate the possibility of a resurrection will disqualify the proposed explanation as a "good reason" according to Pat's criterion.

So then, according to this criteria, it would not be legitimate to believe one species, has ever evolved into a completely different species, because it has not been demonstrated to be a possibility? This is not even an argument at all, because there may indeed be reasons to believe, one species, has evolved into another species, even though it has not been demonstrated to even be a possibility.

Therefore, Pat would be justified in doubting that a resurrection is a good explanation for the existence of these claims about a resurrection.

Would this mean that I would be justified in simply doubting one species, has ever evolved into another spices? No, I would not. However, since you are taking this stand, then it would seem as if you would be suggesting that those who believe, one species has evolved into a different species would not be justified in such a belief, since it has not been demonstrated to be possible.

[Realworldjack]

I happen to believe the reason we have the claims, is because the claims would be true, and I have gone through every scenario I can think of, in order for the claims to be false, and everyone of them would end up being just as incredible, as the claims themselves.

Here's a 'scenario' for you:

Your claims rest on the New Testament wherein Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans who were murdering Christians:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.

I'm sure victims of the holocaust had this passage in mind as they marched to the gas chamber.
Your claims have a poor foundation.

None of what is said here, would have a thing in the world to do with the evidence we have in support of the resurrection. Paul was arrested himself, and it is believed he died as a martyr, being beheaded.

This is all I have to say here, because I do not intend on allowing the topic to be derailed.

You err here in several ways. Paul is the cornerstone of Christianity and the resurrection. Paul is at best a very problematic witness. Not just because he uttered that absurd claim about leaders being appointed by God, not just because he denigrated women, but because from the beginning of his turn around from persecutor of Christians, his testimony comes only after he has been delirious for 3 days with nothing to eat or drink. He is the earliest of NT writers. Paul falls, along with your claims for supernatural 'evidence' for extraordinary claims that defy everything we know about reality.

his testimony comes only after he has been delirious for 3 days with nothing to eat or drink.

This is really comical! In other words, this is coming from one who believes we should question the contents of the writings contained in the Bible. However, when this very same content seems to benefit your argument, then we can believe exactly what is said? Nice!

However, if we are going to do this, we really need to get it correct. Because you see, what is actually said is, Paul had the experience, and then, after the experience, he went 3 days without food, or drink. In other words, it does not say he went without food, or drink, and then had the experience, making it possible that this may have caused the experience.

Rather, it is reported in such a way as, the experience, is what would have caused Paul not to eat, or drink.

So then, your explanation seems to be, the going without food, or drink, is what caused Paul to make this conversion, along with this affecting the way in which he lived out the rest of his life.

This is certainly a fine opinion, but is not one which can be demonstrated to be a fact, and it is certainly not the way in which it is reported.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 146 by brunumb]

No, that is not the case at all. Doubt is the default position and you have the burden of proof for your claims.

You are very incorrect, I'm afraid. Because I have not made a claim which I cannot demonstrate to be true.

What a crock! Absolute baloney. You've demonstrated nothing, you simply make absurd claims to support your belief in the supernatural and your own religious bias. If you take personal revelation over science, you can believe anything. Totem worship in the South seas is every bit as valid as any of the hocus pocus of Abrahamic religions.
Your 'eyewitnesses' are either anonymous or delirious and generally rely on multiple hearsay.

All you are doing here is to make statements, as if they were fact, but you have not in any way whatsoever demonstrated how what you say would be a fact. Anyone can do this.

No matter though, because you now are under obligation to demonstrate where I have made a claim, I cannot demonstrate.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 164 by Realworldjack]

In other words, could all the authors have been lying? Could they have been deceived in some sort of way? Is it possible someone else may have been involved behind the scene, who orchestrated all these facts, and evidence which we have? Could Jesus have survived the crucifixion, and so, on, and so on.

Could all the authors have been lying? Yes. Or at least some of them.
Could they have been deceived in some sort of way? Yes. It happens all the time.
Is it possible someone else may have been involved behind the scene, who orchestrated all these facts, and evidence which we have? Of course.
Could Jesus have survived the crucifixion? Yes.
Could people have been mistaken?
Could people have been deluded?
Could people have deliberately set about starting a new sect?
Could the notion have been borrowed from older precedents?
And so on.
YES to all of the above.

There are countless mundane reasons for the origin of the story. There are undoubtedly more reasons to believe that the resurrection never happened than that it did. The account of a resurrected god is not unique to Christianity. People apparently have the capacity to invent incredible events and manage to convince others of their truth and garner followers. We know so little about the people involved or their motives. We know that there has been a lot of deliberate interpolation and faking of documents and relics over the centuries in order to prop up the new religion. People are gullible and superstitious and once a meme takes hold it can be difficult to eradicate.

In the absence of credible empirical evidence for the event itself and with only a handful of spurious stories and unsupported claims, it makes no sense to accept the resurrection as fact. The only acceptable reason for believing that it occurred is that it is foundational to a deep-seated religious belief that was inculcated rather than established through informed reason.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 146 by brunumb]

No, that is not the case at all. Doubt is the default position and you have the burden of proof for your claims.

You are very incorrect, I'm afraid. Because I have not made a claim which I cannot demonstrate to be true.

It is not up to the one doubting your claims to demonstrate that they are false.

At this point, you need to give us a claim I have made which I cannot demonstrate?

It is not up to the one doubting your claims to demonstrate that they are false.

The thing here is, I am not insisting there would be no reasons to doubt the claims. However, there seem to be those here who are insisting, there would be no good reasons to believe the claims. So then, who owns the burden?

Moreover, I have supplied the fact that we do indeed have the claims. Of course, I am not suggesting this would be enough evidence to believe the claim, but my question is, what reason at this point, do I have to doubt the claim?

The point is, there is indeed a reason we have the claims, and having the claims, is in the very least a piece in the chain of evidence which must be dealt with. So then, the question is, why, and how did we get the claims?

You see, until, or unless you deal with this fact, we cannot possibly move on. Because you see, not only do we have the claim of a resurrection, we also have the reason given for the claim, and all I am hearing is, "we should doubt the claim", but I am not hearing any reasons given to doubt the claim, other than the opinion that my, "default position should be doubt".

But you see, my default position is not doubt, but rather skepticism, meaning I do not easily believe something which is reported, but I do not require absolute proof, in order to understand there very well may be good reasons to believe a report.

So again, we have the reports, and what I need is a reason why we have the reports, so that we can move on, in order to determine what all would have to be involved, in order for that scenario to even be a possibility?

I will also point out the fact, saying "we cannot know why we have the reports" is no reason to doubt the reports, because not knowing why we have the reports, does not cause the reports to be false, which means this would not be a cause for doubting the reports.

Since you like clams so much, let's look at one from the time that you are speaking about shall we?

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca - Died: April 12, 65 AD, Rome, Italy

Should we not strive to be wise?

[bluegreenearth]

We all know it is a fact, we have the claims of a resurrection. We also know there is a reason why we have the claims, and this must, and has to be dealt with. In other words, we cannot simply say, "all we have are claims" as if this would be a reason to consider the claims to be, unlikely.

So then, I ask myself, what reasons do I have to consider these reports to be, unlikely? Well, of course there is the fact that the claims would be, extraordinary. However, then I go on to ask myself, why then would we have all these claims if they are false, and what all would have to be involved, in order for the claims to be false?

In other words, could all the authors have been lying? Could they have been deceived in some sort of way? Is it possible someone else may have been involved behind the scene, who orchestrated all these facts, and evidence which we have? Could Jesus have survived the crucifixion, and so, on, and so on.

When one sits down and actually examines all the facts we have, they may not come away with the conclusion that a resurrection indeed occurred, but I do believe they would have to come away with the understanding that something very extraordinary did indeed occur, and that there are very good reasons to believe the reports may very well be true.

I'll attempt to summarize your method for justifying belief, and you can respond to indicate where my understanding may be in error:

An extraordinary claim exists which has no implicit empirical basis. There are a potentially infinite number of unknown reasons why this claim exists and a collection of proposed reasons, but you can at least consider the proposed reasons. One of the proposed reasons this claim exists asserts the event actually took place as described despite it having no implicit empirical basis. The other proposed reasons describe a variety of natural explanations which are grounded in an implicit empirical basis suggesting how the claim could be false. However, it is unknown if the facts and evidence the natural explanations indicate are needed to falsify the claim are discoverable. Your research into the proposed natural explanations for the existence of the claim failed to locate the necessary facts and evidence that would have provided you with a convincing reason to reject the extraordinary claim. While acknowledging this doesn't objectively validate the claim because the disconfirming facts and evidence could still potentially exist or have existed at one time, you suggest the inability to falsify it at this time is a justification for establishing belief in the extraordinary claim as the default position.

Please confirm if my summary of your perspective is more or less accurate.

Sure! Because, we not only have the claims, we also are given the reason for the claims, which would be because they are said to be historical accounts. Now, of course this does not demonstrate the claims would be true, but it would be considered as evidence, and so do you have any reasons why I should consider these things to be, unlikely to be true?

Given my understanding of your perspective, the only reason you will depart from your default position (belief that the extraordinary claim is true) is if facts and evidence were presented to falsify the extraordinary claim. Does this accurately represent your position?

In a situation where the facts and evidence supporting a natural explanation could potentially exist but are not discoverable, would you accept the possibility that the natural explanation could be a justification to doubt the validity of the claim if the proposed reason has an implicit empirical basis?

Because you see, we can know beyond a reasonable doubt that the author of the two letters to Theophilus, gives us some very accurate information, and so I am wondering what sort of evidence we may have, which would cause me to consider some of the other things he says to be, unlikely?

Do the two letters to Theophilus demonstrate that a resurrection occurred, or do they demonstrate that the author of the letters believed a resurrection occurred?

I have not insisted you have the "burden of proof". Rather, it is a fact that we have the claims, along with the fact, there is a reason for the claims. Therefore, if you insist that, "my default position must be doubt", then you need to supply some sort of reason why I should consider these reports to be, unlikely?

You're welcome to operate within whatever arbitrary epistemology you want. However, if a reason for doubting the claim is developed through a different epistemological framework, would you have a way to demonstrate that the proposed reason was inferior to your reason for believing the claim?

Other people have certainly made those claims and should defend them accordingly.

What you are failing to consider is, those who were giving these reports, were reporting to audiences at the time, and they owe nothing to us. What this means is, we are reading information which the author never intended for us, which means we are reading history, no matter how you look at it, and attempting to determine how, and why we have this historical information.

My comment was in reference to claims about the resurrection being false. People claiming the resurrection did not occur would have the burden of proof as much as the people claiming it did occur.

Sure! We know for a fact, that Paul would have been alive during the life of Jesus. We also know for a fact, the author of the two letters to Theophilus, traveled along with Paul for decades on his missionary journeys, which means we can know this author would have been alive during the life of Jesus as well, would have known the apostles personally, spent a lot of time with them, and would have known the claims they were making first hand.

We can also know for a fact, that this author sits down to write, not one, but two long and detailed letters to someone by the name of Theophilus, and in this letter he tells Theophilus, exactly the reason for writing out this information to him, and he tells him that it is so, "Theophilus, can know the exact truth".

So then, we have just examined some facts we can know for certain. Can you give me any reason whatsoever, why there would be reason for me to consider this information to be, unlikely?

Given my understanding of your perspective, the only reason you will depart from your default position (belief that the information is credible) is if facts and evidence were presented to falsify the extraordinary claim. In a situation where the facts and evidence supporting a competing explanation could potentially exist but are not discoverable, would you accept the possibility that the competing explanation could be a justification to doubt the validity of the claim if the proposed reason has an implicit empirical basis?

Notice, I am not suggesting we should simply believe the contents. Rather, I am asking you, "what reason would I have to consider this information to be unlikely"? What in the world would cause this man to go on all these painful journeys for decades, and then turn around, and go to all the trouble to sit down to write two long and detailed letters, concerning the events, as if it were the truth, and claim to his audience, that he is doing so in order for his audience to "know the exact truth", however, it is false information some sort of way?

Does the information support the claim that a resurrection occurred or that the author of the letters believed a resurrection occurred?

One of the reasons thus far is, "we have the claims". We can verify, demonstrate, and prove, we have the claims. Another reason thus far would be, we can demonstrate the overwhelming majority of the NT would be authored, and or, attested to by, those who would have been alive at the time of the alleged claims, would have known those personally who made the claims, and therefore would have heard the claims, from the lips of those making the claims.

According to your described method for justifying a belief, the only reason you will depart from your default position (belief that the majority of NT was written by people who were alive at the time of the alleged claims) would be if disconfirmatory facts and evidence could be provided. In a situation where the facts and evidence supporting a competing explanation could potentially exist but are not discoverable, would you accept the possibility that a competing explanation could serve as a justification for doubting the validity of the claim if the proposed reason has an implicit empirical basis?

Here, you would absolutely have to admit, that this would have nothing to do with whether there may be legitimate reasons to believe the claims. In other words, simply because an event has not been observed, nor verified, would have nothing, and I MEAN NOTHING, to do with, whether the event has occurred.

That particular criterion was just an example I chose because you hadn't yet provided me with your set of criteria. I'm not suggesting you must use that criterion.

As an example, one of what we have identified as a spices, evolving into what we have identified as a completely different species, has never been tested, observed, demonstrated, verified, proven, which means we do not even know if it would be possible, and yet there are many folks who claim to believe this is exactly what has indeed occurred, and they do so based upon the facts, and evidence we have.

So then, if it is your argument that something has to be demonstrated to be possible, in order for there to be reasons to believe it, then you would have to agree then, that there would be no reasons to believe the claims of evolution, as far as one species, evolving into a completely different spices, and even though I do not believe that one species, has ever evolved into a completely different species, I understand enough to know that, even though this theory has never been demonstrated to even be possible, would have nothing, and I MEAN NOTHING, to do with whether one species, has ever evolved into a completely different species, and therefore, I would never make such a weak argument.

Actually, the claim that a single species can gradually evolve into a new species has an implicit empirical basis unlike the resurrection claim which does not. The implicit empirical basis has been demonstrated through observations of "micro-evolutionary" changes within species (which is really the same thing as evolutionary changes). Given a sufficient amount of time, there is no reason a multitude of successive "micro-evolutionary" changes within a species couldn't gradually alter the physical features of the organism to the point where a subsequent generation would no longer be able to sexually reproduce offspring with its ancient ancestor species if a separate population of that species still existed somewhere. We don't need a time machine or an extremely long lifespan to directly observe one species gradually evolve into a new species for us to reasonably infer this to be the best explanation given the empirical fact that "micro-evolution" occurs. There is no such implicit empirical basis on which we could construct a plausible explanation for how a single supernatural resurrection could occur. However, it is a moot point because this criterion is apparently not part of the method you use to justify belief in an extraordinary claim.

Therefore, Pat would be justified in doubting that a resurrection is a good explanation for the existence of these claims about a resurrection.

Would this mean that I would be justified in simply doubting one species, has ever evolved into another spices? No, I would not. However, since you are taking this stand, then it would seem as if you would be suggesting that those who believe, one species has evolved into a different species would not be justified in such a belief, since it has not been demonstrated to be possible.

Your internal justification for doubting the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is derived from your epistemology. However, for the record, healthy skepticism of the Theory of Evolution is not only internally justified but encouraged by a scientific epistemology. If the Theory of Evolution could be mistaken, a scientific epistemology provides a mechanism for discovering that possibility and self-correcting for it. In the mean time, the internal justification for believing the Theory of Evolution is based on the fact that it has an implicit empirical basis, makes future testable predictions which are testable, and its consistent ability to pass every test designed to falsify it.