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 God’s 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?

[Danmark]

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.

I have not demonstrated that Paul only made his statements AFTER he was in 3 days of delirium, without food and water? I suppose that is true if you believe the book of Acts is fallacious and that Paul is not reliable, for those are the texts upon which I rely for my assertion.

As for claims you cannot prove, how about your

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.

The clumsiness of this sentence robs it of clarity, but I'm guessing what you are trying to say is that you can't think of any error you have made. I can, starting with your reliance on anonymous sources and writers like Paul who admits, even brags about, the fact he was delirious and without food and water for 3 days before he reported what he claims he experienced.
Paul would be a cross examiner's delight.

Q: 'You say you had nothing to eat or drink for 3 days and were blind.'
A: 'Yes.'
Q: 'And after you came to, you reported seeing Jesus and bright lights and Jesus talked to you?'
A: 'Yes'
Q: 'And none of the people with you saw Jesus when when you did on the road to Damascus?'
A: 'That is correct.'
Q: 'And at this time, Jesus had already been killed and buried?'
A: 'Correct.'
Q: 'But you maintain you saw Jesus after he had died, tho' your friends did not see him?'
A: 'Correct.'
Q: 'Nothing further.'

[Danmark]

[to RWJ]

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

I have to defend my friend RWJ. I do not believe you can point to a single time when he has declared he likes clams.
He hasn't said he likes them fried,
Nor has he claimed he eats them when they died.
He hasn't said he has them oiled,
He hasn't claimed to eat them boiled.
He never said he likes them chopped,
Or that he'd eat them when they're dropped.
He never said he liked them breaded.
He didn't say their absence dreaded.
I suspect he'd eat one on the lam,
But he never said he liked a clam.

[bluegreenearth]

[to RWJ]

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

I have to defend my friend RWJ. I do not believe you can point to a single time when he has declared he likes clams.
He hasn't said he likes them fried,
Nor has he claimed he eats them when they died.
He hasn't said he has them oiled,
He hasn't claimed to eat them boiled.
He never said he likes them chopped,
Or that he'd eat them when they're dropped.
He never said he liked them breaded.
He didn't say their absence dreaded.
I suspect he'd eat one on the lam,
But he never said he liked a clam.

What is this clam stuff all about?
I won't eat clams, they give me gout.
I shall never masticate a clam,
or eat one from a tin like spam.
Their uric acid, I can't digest.
Avoiding clams is for the best.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 172 by bluegreenearth]
Reminds me, I had a couple Walla Walla sweet onions start to sprout so I buried them to see what would happen. They are thriving, great big sprouts and thick stalks. But yesterday it looked like they'd been stepped on.

I accused my wife of 'crushing my onions.' Ouch!

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 158 by benchwarmer]

I'm really quite puzzled how acknowledging the fact that we have claims is not dealing with this fact.

No, the question is, how is simply acknowledging the fact that we have the claim, dealing with the claim? Think about it like this, if you were to say that I need to deal with the claim that, one species has evolved into a completely different species, and I simply say, "I acknowledge the claim has been made", would this be considered "dealing with the claim"? Or, would you say, I need to deal with, why the claim has been made in the first place?

Just because I don't believe these claims does not mean I haven't dealt with them.

I am really unconcerned as to whether you believe, or not. However, the first reason there would be to believe any claim, would be because the claim was made, and we have the claims of a resurrection, and you seem to be under the impression that I should consider the claim unlikely, and if I am correct, I am asking for the reason I should consider the claim unlikely, and all you are giving me is, you have acknowledged the claim?

I could make the same assertion about you. You haven't dealt with the fact that all we have are the claims. How is this a helpful approach to debate?

I have dealt with this by demonstrating that it is not enough to simply say, "all they are is claims". However, the fact of the matter is, these claims could in fact be true. In other words, you seem to be under the impression that, what you say here would have an affect upon the reality, when it does not.

The point is, even if all we had were claims, this would have no affect whatsoever upon whether those claims would be true. Therefore, the next step would have to be to attempt to determine why we have the claims?

Now, you can claim that we have no way to determine this, however even this would have nothing to do with whether the claims would be true or not. The fact of the matter is, we have the claims, and we have those who tell us exactly why we have the claims, and you seem to be under the impression that I should consider these reports to be unlikely, and my question to you is, for what reason? If I have the claims, along with the reasons given for the claims, then please tell me, what would cause me to consider the reports, and reasons to be, unlikely? It is really not that hard.

Now you've lost me. How is someone writing something down NOT a claim about what is written down.

Tell you what! Read the letter Paul wrote to Philemon, and tell me how many things would be claims? What I am saying is, not everything written in the Bible would be a claim. The letter written to Philemon would be a good example, since most of the letter would be a plea to Philemon.

We can certainly deduce things based on the claims made. Does your "beyond doubt" mean 100% certainty?

My friend, any doubt would be an unreasonable doubt!

You seem to be saying that just because something is relatively certain it doesn't involve claims. This is odd and confusing to me.

How in the world can this be "odd and confusing? Not everything written down is a claim. In Paul's letter to Timothy Paul says, "get Mark, and bring him with you". Now, is that a claim? It's really not that hard?

Correction, we MAY deduce these things with some certainty assuming we are confident about the various claims and physical evidence that can be examined.

My friend, these are things we can know, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Then I suggest you submit some papers for peer review on your Biblical research. The majority of scholars seem to disagree with your assessment. Perhaps you know something they don't? There is a clear progression of the gospel writings and they appear to have been written decades after the fact by unknown authors. How you can arrive at certainty of what you are claiming is beyond me.

Okay, allow me to demonstrate. I am talking about Paul, and the author of the two letters to Theophilus. So then, if you take all the letters of Paul, and combine it with the two letters to Theophilus, this would be over half of the NT. This would demonstrate that the majority of the NT would have been penned by those who were alive at the time of Jesus.

Now, as we think about the fact that, these same "scholars" you refer to, are under the impression that 3 of the Gospel writers must, and had to copy each other, because the content is so similar, then we can now say that, the overwhelming majority of the NT was written, and, or attested by those, who we know beyond a reasonable doubt, would have been alive at the time of the alleged events.

Then, as we think about your complaint concerning the idea these things would have been written decades later, how would this have a thing to do with the authors, not being alive at the time of Jesus?

In fact, we would have to expect, and even know, that the second letter to Theophilus, would have had to be written decades later, because the author ends his second letter with Paul being under arrest, and we know this would have been decades later. So then, what is the point?

You are building a stawman again. We do NOT have to determine the claims to be false. We can simply question the truthfulness of them based on the actual evidence or lack thereof.

Absolutely! You can certainly do this, if you are not really interested in getting to the truth of the matter. In other words, I do this to extent many times myself, and we will use your example below.

If I write down a claim that my rabbit has a purple stripe does this mean that you must now falsify this claim? Are you now forced to determine what makes this false? Or can you simply question this claim and ask for more evidence?

What I would do here is to say, "I do not care enough about your claim to actually investigate the claim".

Please falsify that my rabbit has a purple stripe.

Sorry, but I do not care enough about your claim.

If you can't, I guess you are not dealing with the fact that I have made the claim?

I am not dealing with the fact that you made the claim, because I do not care to know. So then, if you do not care enough about the claim of the resurrection to examine all the facts involved, then I have no problem with that in the least.

However, you certainly seem to care enough about the claim, to spend a good deal of time on a web site debating the claim, but all you seem to have to offer is your doubt, without dealing with the facts.

This is the type of argument you are putting forth.

Well no! What I am saying is, I do not care about your claim enough to go to the trouble to deal with the claim. However, if I did care enough about your claim, to spend day, after day, debating the claim on a web site, I would at least investigate the claim, and deal with the facts, and I would have way more to offer, than my doubt, which seems to be, all you have to offer?

So then, if I simply choose to doubt your claim, then I am not obligated to deal with the facts. However, if I were to insist you had no reason to believe the claim, I would then be obligated to demonstrate my case, and I would have to offer more than my doubt.

Then I guess you have no problems with me. No where have I said the claims are false. This is the strawman you seem to be building all on your own.

Again, I have never suggested that you, or anyone else has said the claims were false. I have simply said, "if you are going to" which is not the same as saying, "you are making that argument".

It's quite easy to come up with numerous reasons how the claims could be false.

Oh really? Well, why don't you share a few with us? It may indeed be "easy" to throw out some possibilities? However, I do not think you will find it so "easy" when you find that any scenario you come up with, will have to be extraordinary.

So then, in the end you will only be exchanging, one extraordinary event, for another extraordinary event, which is exactly my point. Either way you slice it, something extraordinary happened some 2000 years ago. So then do please go ahead, and give us these, "easy" answers. This is what I have been waiting on!

You are making the positive assertion you have good reasons to believe these claims.

Right, and thus far I have pointed out the fact that the claims were made, there is a reason for the claims, and we have those giving us this reason. I have also went on to demonstrate that the majority of the NT would have been written, and, or attested to by those who would have been alive at the time of Jesus, would have known the Apostles, along with the claims they were making first hand, and all you have offered is your doubt, without even attempting to deal with any of the facts.

At one point you even asserted there were numerous, disconnected sources and this was one of the good reasons to believe.

I have also went on to explain to you that I am conceding to the scholars you refer to, that I cannot demonstrate who some of the authors were, and therefore, since we cannot know who the authors were, we cannot know they were connected in any way.

In fact, there are scholars who argue that the Gospels, may have been written by those who would have been separated, by time, and geological location. Here is a quote from the web,

The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus, in distant lands, after a substantial gap of time, by unknown persons, compiling, redacting, and inventing various traditions, in order to provide a narrative of Christianity's central figure—Jesus Christ—to confirm the faith of their communities.

https://infidels.org/library/modern/mat ... thors.html

Read carefully what is said here. First, it is said to be the, "mainstream scholarly view". And what is that view? Well, according to this author it would be that, "the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus, in distant lands, after a substantial gap of time, by unknown persons, compiling, redacting, and inventing various traditions, in order to provide a narrative of Christianity's central figure—Jesus Christ—to confirm the faith of their communities".

The point is, if this is true, then how can we possibly say these authors would have been connected? If you insist they were, then you have no argument from me, but rather these scholars you have referred to yourself. This means, if you are suggesting the scholars are incorrect here, then we would have to admit, they could also be wrong, concerning the things you cite these scholars for in support of your argument. In the end, all you are really doing, is to take the word of others, without even truly understanding the position they hold.

However, I happen to agree with you in that I believe the authors were very connected, in that they knew each other very well, spent a lot of time together, and overheard these things, and told these things over, and over to each other, and others.

What I cannot understand, is how this would have a thing to do with, causing me to believe the reports would be, unlikely? This seems to be your argument? The authors were connected, so this should cause us to have, doubts?

But, the thing is, if we concede to the scholarly opinion, that we cannot know who the authors were, nor when, or where they may have wrote, and that they were separated, not only by time, but also by, "distant lands", then I do not know how we can connect them in any way?

So then, when I say, "we have numerous disconnected sources" I am simply taking the word of the scholars as you seem to do when it is convenient, but now it seems you may want to separate yourself from these scholars for some reason?

But, I will tell you what? You stick to the scholars, I will stick to the facts.

We have already provided some reasons to be cautious in believing based on a few, connected, mostly anonymous sources. This doesn't seem to faze you though. Fair enough.

The thing is, I have not suggested there may not be reasons to be cautious. In fact, I believe that to be wise. However, simply because there may be reasons for caution, would not mean that there would not be good reasons to believe the claims.

We have already established, the overwhelming majority of the NT would have been written, and, or attested to by, those who would have been alive at the time, would have known, and spent a lot of time with the Apostles, and known the claims they were making first hand.

Moreover, when you sit down to actually analyze all the facts involved, in order for these claims to be false, you will see, that no matter what scenario you come up with, it remains to be, an extraordinary event. So then, in the end, all you will be doing is to exchange one extraordinary event, for another extraordinary event.

Scholarly textual analysis can be used to show commonality among the texts we have. It's one way to determine they are connected.

And here we go again, relying upon the "scholars", taking the word of others. Simply because people report on the same event, does not in any way "determine they were connected".

If one text is written well after another and appears to have verbatim content to the first one, then I think we can at least consider that copying has happened. Connection.

Sure! You can certainly "consider that copying has happened" but when you sit down to honestly consider this, it does not add up.

The first thing that I will point out to you is, your "scholars" are simply sharing their opinion, and if you will notice very carefully, when they tell you when they believe these thing were written, they always use words like, "probably", meaning they cannot know.

Next, we know beyond a reasonable doubt that the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have traveled around with Paul on his journeys. However, your "scholars" date his letters somewhere between 80-90, and if we are very conservative, this would mean that the author would have been 60 years old at the very least, and as "BGE" has pointed out, most folks would not have lived this long.

However, there are some "scholars" who argue his letters would have been written in the late 50's, to early 60's which makes more sense, and it is very reasonable to believe that this author used the 2 years he had, while Paul was under arrest, to write these letters.

Now we can move on to the idea that the "scholars" believe copying occurred. The most common idea is that Mark wrote first, and the others copied from his material. Well, the question is, where did they get these copies?

Let's think about this? If Mark did indeed write first, then he would have sent this letter to his intended audience, which means his audience, would have had the original writing, which would be the only one of it's kind. If they decided to make a copy of this letter, this would have been a very pains taking process, which would have taken a long time, because it is not like they would have a "Kinko's" on every corner, in order to make quick copies.

We also need to consider the type of writing utensils these folks were forced to use, which would mean they did not have pin, pencil, and paper, as we do. With all this being the case, if there were to be more than one copy, there could not have been very many at this time, which means, these folks would not have the luxury to have their very own copy.

Moreover, if the intended audience decided to have copies made, one of the reasons would be, in order to preserve the writing, and not to pass out in order for everyone to have their very own copy.

At this point, you need to attempt to wrap your mind around what I am about to say. You do understand that, even all the way into the 1400's, no one had the luxury of carrying around what we now call the Bible, right? And even if one were to have a Bible, they could not have possibly understood the Bible, because it was in a language that few, and I mean few, could understand. The fact of the matter was at that time, the church was in possession of the Bible, and because there was no way to automate copying, it would have been impossible for very many folks to have a copy, even it they could understand it.

So then, it was not until the invention of the printing press, along with Luther working to translate the Bible into the common languages of the day, was there even a way for one to even have a copy to share.

However, your scholars would have us believe, these authors somehow had their very own copy of another"s writing, and even then the scholars understand this is not enough to explain the whole thing, and so then, your scholars are forced to come up with some unknown source, and call it "Q".

The question then becomes, why did the authors not simply send the copies they had, or at the very least not copy these other writings word, for word, instead of attempting to piece these things together from the two?

I can tell you this! Any answer you, or your scholars attempt to give in an attempt to answer this question, would have to be purely, speculation.

Now the question to you is, do I have any reason to doubt the opinion of these scholars you seem to have so much faith in? Do I have every reason to trust these scholars of yours, because they are truly honest, and looking out for our best interest, while all these authors who make the claim of the resurrection, must be evil, or somehow deceived, and deceiving us as well, while your scholars could not possibly be deceived, and, or be deceiving?

On the other hand, when we consider, as you, and I seem to agree, that these folks would have been very connected, in that they knew each other very well, spent a good deal of time together, telling each other, and over hearing others being told these same things over, and over again, we can see how, and why they could indeed write the same things, and be very closely aligned, and would have no need to copy anyone at all.

Allow me to explain to you how common this would be. When I was a child, I spent a lot of time with my Grandpa, and he would tell me stories, and I was so intrigued with these stories he told, I would ask that he tell them to me, over, and over again, to the point, I could tell you these stories still today, almost verbatim.

My friend, this could very well explain why, and how they report much the same thing. But, you go ahead, and take the word of the "scholars". They must, and have to be correct, and I see no need in you attempting to determine if what they say could even be possible. I guess some folks simply rely on faith?

Are you claiming that there's no need to promote the ideas of the religion to people who already believe it? What's the point of the letters then? Is it not to codify the stories, provide something to point at when explaining to nonbelievers, and give instruction and/or clarifications? Sounds like promotional material to me. Not necessarily aimed at those who don't believe, but aimed at shoring up the beliefs of those that do.

You are missing the point. These things were not intended for us. In other words, these things were written to believers, and was never intended to convince others to believe, in order to obtain new converts, (promote a religion).

Well if they are just copying what the other one wrote down, we don't really even have multiple claims do we? Just one claim that others copied. Note I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, but it sure seems that way. Thus the doubt.

Well, as I have demonstrated, there is a whole lot of room to doubt the "scholars" you seem to put so much faith in, and I am wondering how much doubt you have in what they have to say? The fact of the matter is, copying has been far from demonstrated, on top of the fact, it really does not add up.

I'm going to stop here. Clearly we are going in circles.

We are going in circles, and the reason for this is that you continue to refuse to deal with the facts.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 174 by Realworldjack]

Read the letter Paul wrote to Philemon, and tell me how many things would be claims? What I am saying is, not everything written in the Bible would be a claim. The letter written to Philemon would be a good example, since most of the letter would be a plea to Philemon.

Exactly what in that letter directly testifies to the resurrection?

[ttruscott]

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Faith is an unproven hope, not proof of any truth. Your secularist pov misses the mark. Christians live by faith, not proof in that we hold our skepticism in abeyance for this time being because our personal experience moves us to put our trust in the hope spoken of in the bible.

[William]

ttruscott: Christians live by faith, not proof in that we hold our skepticism in abeyance for this time being...

William: Is there some reason why Christians might think that they may possibly have need for their skepticism later on?

[bluegreenearth]

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Faith is an unproven hope, not proof of any truth. Your secularist pov misses the mark. Christians live by faith, not proof in that we hold our skepticism in abeyance for this time being because our personal experience moves us to put our trust in the hope spoken of in the bible.

What is your response to people from non-Christian religious traditions who give the exact same explanation in defense of their particular application of faith? Obviously, you find that defense compelling or you wouldn't have offered it. So, if it is acceptable to apply faith in the way you've described for your belief in Christianity, it must also be acceptable to apply faith in the same way for other beliefs.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 176 by ttruscott]

Faith is an unproven hope, not proof of any truth. Your secularist pov misses the mark. Christians live by faith, not proof in that we hold our skepticism in abeyance for this time being because our personal experience moves us to put our trust in the hope spoken of in the bible.

I am in agreement with that. My only elaboration would be to suggest that the experience you speak of is, for the majority, the process of indoctrination and the pressures of conformity.