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?

[Zzyzx]

.

Therefore, there is no need in us moving on to any of the other facts, and evidence we may have,....

I take that as being a strategy to avoid having to present any of the alleged facts and evidence supporting the resurrection when there actually aren't any. Got it. If you had any compelling facts and evidence there should be absolutely no rational reason for failing to present it and convince us of the truth of the alleged event.

That is a common and necessary tactic for apologist debaters. Their only 'evidence' to support a KEY item in their beliefs, the 'resurrection', consists of unverifiable TALES of an empty tomb and unverified TALES of supposed after-death sightings. From those spring pure conjecture such as 'many believe(d)' and Christianity grew (but seldom acknowledge growth attributed to Roman officials).

Therefore, fancy footwork is required -- some quite creative -- to avoid admitting that the 'evidence' for the claimed 'resurrection' is nothing more than folklore / unverified tales / wishful thinking. "They said it in two different places" seems to constitute a major apologetic effort.

I sometimes admire the valiant efforts -- but would not even attempt to defend a position for which there was no verifiable supporting evidence.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]

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?

Faith on this site in the mouths of skeptics typically means "Blind belief". That is not what it meant in ancient history. The authors of the bible never advocated "blind" or "ungrounded" belief. Paul points out to the GAlatians their experience of the spirit: it matters not for this discussion what their experience of the spirit was; the mere fact that he appealed to something other than his mere word shows that "blind faith" was not required.

In light of modern misreadings, we should translate faith as "trust". But trust in the Bible and nearly all ancient literature is always dependent on something else. And we all here have trust in things we cannot immediately prove. Are you following the kito diet? Why? Because you have read stuff that sounds convincing? You are placing trust (and not unreasonable trust, but still trust) in something of which you are not an expert.

The "trust" encouraged in the Bible is encouraged not as an alternative to "reason" but as the response to "reasonable evidence".

[Zzyzx]

.

Faith on this site in the mouths of skeptics typically means "Blind belief".

Why not respond to what is actually presented rather than making broad generalizations and straw-men?.

In light of modern misreadings, we should translate faith as "trust".

Does an anonymous internet poster know better what words should be used than do official Bible translators and editors?

But trust in the Bible and nearly all ancient literature is always dependent on something else.

What supports ancient tales of supernatural entities and events? Many religions present such tales as part of their belief system. Believe them all? Believe some and not others? Based on what?

And we all here have trust in things we cannot immediately prove.

The more astute trust what has been verified by multiple disconnected sources " not just taken from an ideology

Are you following the kito diet? Why?

No. Because I so not suffer from gluttony or sloth " and eat healthy, self-prepared food. Therefore, weight control is not a matter of concern.

Because you have read stuff that sounds convincing? You are placing trust (and not unreasonable trust, but still trust) in something of which you are not an expert.

I am an expert regarding what my body requires to function properly and maintain health. Ive been in charge of this for most of my eighty years (Mom saw to it for the first few).

The "trust" encouraged in the Bible is encouraged not as an alternative to "reason" but as the response to "reasonable evidence".

Reasonable evidence such as:

I heard that someone came back from the dead.
I heard that people saw the deceased alive
Take my word for it" (because I have no verifiable evidence)

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]

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?

Faith on this site in the mouths of skeptics typically means "Blind belief". That is not what it meant in ancient history. The authors of the bible never advocated "blind" or "ungrounded" belief. Paul points out to the GAlatians their experience of the spirit: it matters not for this discussion what their experience of the spirit was; the mere fact that he appealed to something other than his mere word shows that "blind faith" was not required.

In light of modern misreadings, we should translate faith as "trust". But trust in the Bible and nearly all ancient literature is always dependent on something else. And we all here have trust in things we cannot immediately prove. Are you following the kito diet? Why? Because you have read stuff that sounds convincing? You are placing trust (and not unreasonable trust, but still trust) in something of which you are not an expert.

The "trust" encouraged in the Bible is encouraged not as an alternative to "reason" but as the response to "reasonable evidence".

The Biblical text declares that "by faith" some identified claim is known to be true. It does not state that "by reasonable evidence" some identified claim is known to be true. If that is what the author intended to imply, then why does he fail to identify what the reasonable evidence is for each claim that was known to be true by faith? Where no reasonable evidence is identified for each claim from the Biblical text, why would it be reasonable to believe those claims are true or does belief in those unverified claims require blind faith? Even if some of the claims from the Biblical text were supported by reasonable evidence, would it justify the belief that all the remaining unverified claims contained within the Bible are true?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 89 by Realworldjack]

Moreover, not one of them could have possibly known anything at all, about any sort of NT, so they could not have possibly have written with the intention of their writings being included in the NT, which they could not have possibly known about.

But we actually know nothing about these authors or their motives and intentions. Trying to read between the lines or indulging in speculation does nothing to support your case. That aside, you still have avoided presenting any compelling facts or evidence in support of your claims.

But we actually know nothing about these authors or their motives and intentions.

This is not accurate. The author of the two letters to Theophilus, tells Theophilus, exactly where he obtained his information, much of which he would have witnessed himself, and also tells him exactly why he is writing this information to him. We can also know this author would have traveled around with Paul on his journeys, which means we can know this author would have been alive during the lifetime of Jesus, would have known the original Apostles first hand, and would also know the claims they were making first hand.

Trying to read between the lines or indulging in speculation does nothing to support your case.

What I have just stated above, would not be "reading between the lines" but is rather exactly what was reported, and the evidence we have for the truth of what was recorded would be very difficult, if not impossible to fabricate.

That aside, you still have avoided presenting any compelling facts or evidence in support of your claims.

Whether the facts would be "compelling" to one would be a subjective matter. However, we have the fact that we do indeed have the reports, and you seem to be avoiding giving a reason along with the facts, and evidence which would give us any reason to doubt these reports would be true.

In other words, we need way more than simply the assumption, they may be false. Rather, what we would need is, a reason to believe, which is backed up by facts, and evidence, the reason these reports would be false, and until you address this first fact we have, there is no reason to move on. If you will address this first fact, then we can indeed move on.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 105 by Realworldjack]

The author of the two letters to Theophilus, tells Theophilus, exactly where he obtained his information, much of which he would have witnessed himself, and also tells him exactly why he is writing this information to him. We can also know this author would have traveled around with Paul on his journeys, which means we can know this author would have been alive during the lifetime of Jesus, would have known the original Apostles first hand, and would also know the claims they were making first hand.

(My bolding). Your post emphasises that we don't know the author and that we are speculating about what he would have knownrather than specifying what he actually did know. No evidence to support those speculations or to establish the identity of the author amd his motives, or even his existence and participation in any of the activities mentioned. Not much of a hook to hang your hat on.

[Realworldjack]

You got it all wrong my friend. You see, if we had such evidence that the "Elvis sightings" would be something besides the "Elvis sightings" the we could use this evidence to demonstrate that it was not an, "Elvis sighting".

Elvis sightings are a perfect example. We all know Elvis is dead and those who claim to have seen him after death are mistaken. How is this different from the claim of Jesus' supporters, that THEY saw a dead man living?

In both cases we say, no, he's dead. The sightings are bogus. The difference is that the Jesus sighters are anonymous.

We all know Elvis is dead and those who claim to have seen him after death are mistaken.

What we know is, Elvis is reported to have died. We also know there have been folks who have faked their death. We also know there are those who claim to have spotted Elvis after his reported death.

Personally, I could not care less one way, or the other about whether Elvis may be dead, or not. With this being the case, I simply choose to doubt he would have faked his death. But choosing to doubt a claim, would be a far cry from insisting the claim must, and has to be false.

However, if I were going to spend my time on a web site debating the "Elvis sightings", I would have a lot more to offer than my doubt. Rather, what I would do is to examine all the facts, and evidence involved, and I would give folks reasons to believe these "Elvis sightings" would indeed be false.

All you are doing here is to assume you must, and have to be correct concerning the "Elvis sightings" and then going on to compare this claim, against another claim, which you cannot demonstrate one way or the other, but rather simply choose to doubt, and insisting they must be the same, when the fact of the matter would be, even if you were able to demonstrated beyond any doubt at all that every "Elvis sighting" would be false, this would have absolutely no bearing whatsoever upon whether the claim of the resurrection would be true, or false.

[bluegreenearth]

You got it all wrong my friend. You see, if we had such evidence that the "Elvis sightings" would be something besides the "Elvis sightings" the we could use this evidence to demonstrate that it was not an, "Elvis sighting".

Elvis sightings are a perfect example. We all know Elvis is dead and those who claim to have seen him after death are mistaken. How is this different from the claim of Jesus' supporters, that THEY saw a dead man living?

In both cases we say, no, he's dead. The sightings are bogus. The difference is that the Jesus sighters are anonymous.

We all know Elvis is dead and those who claim to have seen him after death are mistaken.

What we know is, Elvis is reported to have died. We also know there have been folks who have faked their death. We also know there are those who claim to have spotted Elvis after his reported death.

Personally, I could not care less one way, or the other about whether Elvis may be dead, or not. With this being the case, I simply choose to doubt he would have faked his death. But choosing to doubt a claim, would be a far cry from insisting the claim must, and has to be false.

However, if I were going to spend my time on a web site debating the "Elvis sightings", I would have a lot more to offer than my doubt. Rather, what I would do is to examine all the facts, and evidence involved, and I would give folks reasons to believe these "Elvis sightings" would indeed be false.

All you are doing here is to assume you must, and have to be correct concerning the "Elvis sightings" and then going on to compare this claim, against another claim, which you cannot demonstrate one way or the other, but rather simply choose to doubt, and insisting they must be the same, when the fact of the matter would be, even if you were able to demonstrated beyond any doubt at all that every "Elvis sighting" would be false, this would have absolutely no bearing whatsoever upon whether the claim of the resurrection would be true, or false.

Someone claimed Elvis faked his death. You don't care enough about Elvis to bother trying to figure out if it is true or false, but the improbability of him faking his death justifies your doubt that it is true. Even though you have a justification for doubting the conspiracy theory, you acknowledge that asserting the claim is false would place a burden of proof on you. Therefore, you stop short of claiming to know Elvis is dead.

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

[Realworldjack]

Okay, you have the author of Matthew, the author of Mark, the author Luke, the author of John, along with the author of the letters of Paul.
.....
Okay? I just listed 5 authors, so how many does it take to make it numerous?

And all, save Paul are anonymous. We don't know who they were or what the basis of their claims were. We are left with Paul, who never saw Jesus tho' he lived at the same time. We have Paul who contradicts the first half of his life. We have Paul who had some kind of medical event that left him blind and delirious and apparently guilt ridden, who, after 3 days without food or drink, told the world of the thoughts or dreams he had when he was delirious.

THAT is your basis for belief based on faith? Only 'faith' would presume to be a foundation for such utter nonsense. One can have 'faith' in anything. Faith is the most unreliable method of knowing ever invented.

"Faith" = confirmation bias.

And all, save Paul are anonymous.

Okay? So could you please explain to us, how the authors not identifying themselves would have anything at all to do with the reports being true, or false? I really don't get the connection here?

Sure, anonymous reports are inherently less reliable because we know nothing about who is reporting. Both the law and journalism and basic common sense have long held this to be so. One problem is that there is no way to cross examine or otherwise critically investigate how and why the person may have said what they did.

What we have in the 'Gospels' is anonymous reporting followed by multiple hearsay; in other words, gossip.

This is really comical! I mean you joined in on a victory dance, because I had gone several days without responding, and when I do get around to responding to your complaints, you only respond to one of my points, while ignoring any of the other points which were made?

How exactly does that work? In other words, it may take me sometime to respond because of the time I have, but when I do, I attempt to answer all the objections. You however, ignore most of my points, while complaining that I have not responded in a few days, as if this is some sort of evidence, I have conceded?

The question is, can I take it you have conceded the points you ignore? At any rate, let's look at what you have to say,

Sure, anonymous reports are inherently less reliable because we know nothing about who is reporting.

How in the world, can this cause the report to be "less reliable"? The report is either "reliable" or unreliable, and not knowing who the author may have been would have no affect on the reliability of the report. What this may affect, (but not necessarily) is our understanding of whether the report would be reliable, or not.

Both the law and journalism and basic common sense have long held this to be so. One problem is that there is no way to cross examine or otherwise critically investigate how and why the person may have said what they did.

So, does this mean we should ignore those who identified themselves, but are now dead? Because, I do not know how we could "cross examine" an author who is now dead? However, we may be able to, "investigate how and why the person may have said what they did"?

As an example, the author of the two letters to Theophilus, tells Theophilus, exactly the reason for his writing out this information to him, and he goes on to tell him exactly how he obtained this information, and in his second letter to Theophilus, this author begins to use the words "we" and "us" when describing the events, as if he is actually there to witness the events, and he uses these words, all the way, and up until Paul finds himself under arrest, and this second letter to Theophlius ends, with Paul being under arrest, awaiting trial, and this was said to be at least, two years.

Then, we have letters written by Paul, who mentions the name of Luke several times in his letters, and in one of these letters, which was addressed to Timothy, which would have clearly been written while Paul would have been under arrest, we have Paul telling Timothy, "only Luke is with me".

So here, we have very good evidence that Luke was indeed the author of the two letters to Theoohilus, along with the fact that this author 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.

So then, I think we do have a way to, "critically investigate how and why this person may have said what they did", along with understanding that, it would be ridiculous to come to the conclusion that all this evidence could have been fabricated in some sort of way, unless of course you have some other explanation, that would be backed by equal facts, and evidence, which I have supplied?

What we have in the 'Gospels' is anonymous reporting followed by multiple hearsay; in other words, gossip.

Yeah! We will wait on you to supply the facts, and evidence to support this to be the case, which would equal the facts, and evidence which is supplied above.

The fact of the matter is, what everyone here needs to understand is, the authors contained in the NT owe nothing to us whatsoever, since they were not at all concerned about us, since they could have had no idea what they were writing would ever be read by anyone other than their original intended audience.

Therefore, when we read the letters contained in the NT, we are reading letters which were written by authors at the time, to different audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea, that anyone else would read these letters, other than the original intended audience.

As an example, I bought my first house from an aunt, and uncle, and since we were family, they asked if they could leave a few things in the attic, and come back at a later date to get these things. Of course, I obliged, and of course they never came to get them.

One day I had some chores to do, which involved going into the attic, and when I was up there, I looked around at some of the things they had left for so long now. One of those things was what look like a very small file cabinet. When I opened this cabinet, what I saw was, hand written letters dated in the 1940's, and this was in the mid 1980's.

Of course these letters were none of my business, but because of the dates on these letters, curiosity got the best of me, and so I set out to simply read a line of two, just to see what they were about. What I discovered was, these letters were addressed to my aunt, from a sister which lived a good distance away, and this was the only way they had of keeping up with each other.

Well, before I knew it, I had spent several hours right there in my attic, devouring these letters, and when I came to my senses, I realized I had just read real live history, and if I had the ability, I could write a book, or make a movie, based on real facts, by reading letters which were never intended for my eyes to see.

In the same way, when we read the letters contained in the NT, we are reading letters which would have never been intended for our eyes to see, so these authors had no concern about us in any way, and the only reason I have heard thus far as to why we should doubt these claims, is because of the extraordinary claims, otherwise there would be no reason to doubt what would have been reported, just like there would be no reason to doubt what was being reported in the letters addressed to my aunt.

So then while there may be those who doubt the claims, and may have reasons to doubt the claims, this would not necessitate that there would not be good reasons to believe the claims, because it is a fact that, we can all look at the very same facts, and evidence, and come to different conclusions, and all have good reasons to hold the position we all have.

Therefore, at this point in time, I am not insisting there would be no reason for doubt. However, those who hold the position there would be no reason to believe, own the burden to demonstrate this to be the case, and thus far those here who are doing the insisting have failed to carry this burden.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 98 by Realworldjack]

Therefore, there is no need in us moving on to any of the other facts, and evidence we may have,....

I take that as being a strategy to avoid having to present any of the alleged facts and evidence supporting the resurrection when there actually aren't any. Got it. If you had any compelling facts and evidence there should be absolutely no rational reason for failing to present it and convince us of the truth of the alleged event.

I take that as being a strategy to avoid having to present any of the alleged facts and evidence supporting the resurrection when there actually aren't any.

I will assure you that you have taken this the wrong way. I have given you the fact that we have the letters contained in the NT, and have given you the challenge to explain to us, how, and why we have these letters, with the facts, and evidence to back your position, and you continue to ignore this challenge. Therefore, should I take this to mean, you have nothing?

Because you see, there is indeed a reason we have these letters, and we also have reasons given by the authors as to why they wrote these letters, and if you are going to insist that I must doubt the content of these letters, then you are under obligation to demonstrate why they must be doubted, and thus far you are ignoring this obligation, and therefore I have every reason to believe these letters, with no reasonable doubt.

If you had any compelling facts and evidence there should be absolutely no rational reason for failing to present it and convince us of the truth of the alleged event.

When you meet your obligation, then we will indeed move on. However, I see no need in moving on, if you are going to ignore the first fact, that I bring to the table. My position is, we have facts, and evidence to support the claims, and the first fact, is the fact, we have the letters contained in the NT. Either deal with this fact, or we are stuck.

If you had any compelling facts and evidence there should be absolutely no rational reason for failing to present it and convince us of the truth of the alleged event.

What you are failing to realize is the fact, I have no desire in the least to convince you, or anyone else, "of the truth of the alleged event". Rather, what I am doing is to demonstrate there would be good reasons to believe the claims, but I am not insisting that you should, or must believe them.