Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

[bluegreenearth]

For example:

Hebrews 11:3

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

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

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 183 by benchwarmer]


This is sort of strange? This article you supply is dated, 2016. However, when I take a look at this link I will supply you with, it says nothing whatsoever about this, but rather continues to use language as if these things have not been observed.

You will notice the article I supply is definitely authored by one who is convinced evolution has occurred, and the author even claims evolution has been observed, but you will clearly see, the evolution he is referring to, would be the small changes in particular organisms, and this will be demonstrated by the fact that he will go on to say something like, "it is reasonable to conclude from this", as opposed to, "it has been observed." Here is just one example.

Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur.

Again, this is from 2018, and he should be able to say, "these large changes have been observed", and yet it stops far short of this, by saying, "it is reasonable to think that it is possible".

In the very last paragraph of this article it says,

It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.

Well, why can't he say, it has been done? The fact of the matter is, I am not suggesting that it would not be reasonable to conclude these things, but rather these events, have not been demonstrated to have occurred, as this author seems to be admitting?

https://www.learnreligions.com/how-evol ... ved-249896

At any rate, I am not willing to divert this conversation into a debate about evolution, and this is not why I brought evolution into the conversation. Rather, I brought evolution into the conversation to demonstrate there would be reasons to believe an event may have in fact occurred, which has not, and maybe can never be demonstrated to have occurred, and these reasons could in fact be based upon the facts, and evidence we have.

With this being the case, instead of arguing over this matter, allow us to move on to see if there may be an example we can agree on?

There are folks who are convinced that we as humans have evolved from apes. This event has not been observed, and never will be observed, because it is in the past, and was said to take millions of years, making impossible to demonstrate, this event actually occurred, but there are folks who believe, some of who will insist, this event did indeed happen, and they base this belief upon the facts, and evidence we have.

Again, I am not interested in debating evolution. Rather, I am demonstrating there may indeed be reasons to believe certain things, which have not, and maybe will never be demonstrated to be true, because it would be impossible to do so, but this would not negate the facts, evidence, and reasons which would support such a belief.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 183 by benchwarmer]


This is sort of strange? This article you supply is dated, 2016. However, when I take a look at this link I will supply you with, it says nothing whatsoever about this, but rather continues to use language as if these things have not been observed.

It is strange, I pulled this quote from the link you supplied:

Since speciation has been observed,

Are we moving the goalposts now to require multiple successive speciation events? That's what would be involved to observe even higher level changes which is what the article is talking about in your quote.

I'm not trying to totally derail this thread, but the point is that you called someone out for having a belief not based on facts. I showed the facts for speciation do exist so your point was refuted.

You said (bolding added by me):

This is very simple. Has the idea that, one species evolving into another species, been demonstrated to be a fact? Has this idea, ever been observed? Can this event ever be observed? Will this event ever be observed?

The answer to all these question is, NO!

I proved the answer to that question is yes. Why not just retract your statement?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 185 by Danmark]


Okay, let's go through this slowly. Here is what the text actually says,

Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus.

Okay, I think we can agree, this was immediately after the event, and thus far there has not be a word about him, not eating, or drinking, and therefore not eating, or drinking, would not be the reason for what he had just experienced.

It then goes on to say, "Paul was lead by the hand" which is what we do with folks who have suddenly lost their ability to see, and to be able to lead someone by the hand, they must, and have to be conscious, and be able to communicate, and cooperate.

It is then, and only then, when the text goes on to say,

And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

Now, just for a moment, let us imagine this story is in fact true. This would mean, Paul would have just been confronted with the creator of the universe, and came to the realization that, what he thought he was doing was serving God, only to be confronted by God to be informed he was dead wrong, on top of losing his ability to see.

I would imagine this would have been a very traumatic, and it would be perfectly understandable for one to not be interested in eating, or drinking after such an event, because this has happen to me as well, and I have not experienced anything that would be this traumatic, even though it may have felt like it at the time to me. The point is, it is not uncommon for one to go days without eating or drinking, when they have experienced something traumatic.

The more logical approach is that he was out of it, delirious and either unconscious or semi conscious, thus unable to eat or drink. When he came to he started to eat, drink, and talk.

You may be under the impression that this would be the "more logical approach", but what we are debating is, what exactly was reported, and the report says nothing of being, "delirious, unconscious, of semi conscious." Therefore, you would have to assume this to be the case, without any facts, and evidence to support your idea.

As for me? I tend to stick to the facts, and it is a fact, that none of these things were reported, and so I do not assume anything at all. In fact, I do not assume this author would have been reporting the truth, because I am looking for some sort of reason to believe the reports would be, unlikely. So then, I will leave the assuming to you.

Do you have some source that suggests he reported or even talked at all while he neither ate nor drank those three days?

What is reported is, Paul was, "lead by the hand" which usually cannot happen with one who is, "unconscious, or semiconscious."

your other speculative points, it should be conceded by even the staunchest of apologists that the account in Acts is written from the point of view of the apologist/Christian, not the skeptic.

Okay??????? So, what would this have to do with this author reporting something that would be false, in a private letter to another individual, some 2000 years ago?

Next, what sort of evidence do you have, which would demonstrate this author would not have been a skeptic? What is it, that causes you to believe he was a believer? Does this author ever make this known? I mean heck, most of those opposed attempt to argue that we can know very little about the authors, and here you are telling us we can be certain, he was a believer. If one simply reports the facts, as they know them, would this mean they are not skeptical?

That the report did not specifically use the word 'delirium' is hardly telling.

Well, I can tell you this with certainty, the fact that it does not, certainly would not mean that we can simply assume this would indeed be the case.

It is sufficient that no one else saw what Saul saw and that Saul went blind and was without food and water for 3 days.

Exactly! Which means to be intellectually honest, one would have to leave it at that, and admit that anything else would have to be an assumption.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 186 by Realworldjack]

But to your question, although Paul does not bring up the resurrection in this letter,...

That's enough to conclude that the letter is not evidence for the resurrection. Thank you.

I never once said that it was, so I am not seeing your point? However, as pointed out, there is a lot we can learn from reading this letter, and one of the things we already know before reading this letter is the fact that Paul was proclaiming the resurrection to others, and it is certainly a fact that Paul speaks to Philemon, as if he is a believer, and even points out the fact that he, (Paul) was responsible for the fact that Philemon was a believer, and so this letter is certainly evidence, that Paul was going around preaching the resurrection, and was imprisoned at the time of this writing, for preaching exactly that.

So again, you do not have much of a point here.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 192 by Realworldjack]

It is then, and only then, when the text goes on to say,
And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.
Now, just for a moment, let us imagine this story is in fact true. This would mean, Paul would have just been confronted with the creator of the universe, and came to the realization that, what he thought he was doing was serving God, only to be confronted by God to be informed he was dead wrong, on top of losing his ability to see.

Or, this would mean Paul had a stroke, or a seizure, or a fit, or.... Concluding that he had been confronted by God is a huge and totally unjustified step.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 186 by Realworldjack]

But to your question, although Paul does not bring up the resurrection in this letter,...

That's enough to conclude that the letter is not evidence for the resurrection. Thank you.

I never once said that it was, so I am not seeing your point? However, as pointed out, there is a lot we can learn from reading this letter, and one of the things we already know before reading this letter is the fact that Paul was proclaiming the resurrection to others, and it is certainly a fact that Paul speaks to Philemon, as if he is a believer, and even points out the fact that he, (Paul) was responsible for the fact that Philemon was a believer, and so this letter is certainly evidence, that Paul was going around preaching the resurrection, and was imprisoned at the time of this writing, for preaching exactly that.

So again, you do not have much of a point here.

It doesn't matter what Paul believed or preached or who he convinced. His letter is simply not evidence of the resurrection. So, you have still provided none nor justified any belief in the resurrection as fact.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 182 by Realworldjack]
My intentions for the following information is to have it serve in facilitating additional critical thinking on this topic and is not being provided in capitulation to a burden of proof fallacy:

Good Reasons to Doubt the Reliability of the Two Letters Written for Theophilus

Fact = The earliest manuscripts of the two letters written for Theophilus are anonymous.

Fact = Despite their commonalities, there are significant incongruities between the two letter written for Theophilus and the authentic Pauline letters. Pauls character, his theology, and various events from his life are described differently in the letters to Theophilus than they are from his own autobiographical accounts. They also depart from each other on important issues such as the Law, Pauls own apostleship, and his association with the Jerusalem church.

Fact = Paul warned his followers to beware of false doctrines being spread by men masquerading as apostles of Christ.

So, it is a fact that there were versions of Christianity being taught that Paul claimed were false doctrines. It is also a fact that critical inconsistencies exist between the content of Pauls letters and the content of the anonymous letters to Theophilus. The existence of these facts requires an explanation. Is the existence of these facts best explained by the claim that the anonymous author of the letters to Theophilus traveled with Paul for decades on his missionary journeys? No. If the anonymous author of the letters to Theophilus spent decades working closely with Paul who was extremely annoyed by the propagation of false doctrines, we would expect his description of Pauls character, theology, and travels to be reasonably harmonious with Pauls own autobiographical content. Does this fact disprove the claim that the anonymous author of the two letters to Theophilus was Pauls companion? No, but it provides a good reason to doubt the claim is true and to question the reliability of the information contained within these two letters to Theopilus.

Good Reasons to Doubt the Bodily (Flesh and Bone) Resurrection and Empty Tomb Claims

Fact = The authentic Pauline letters are the earliest sources for the resurrection claim and predate all subsequent New Testament accounts by several decades.

Fact = The authentic Pauline letters do not describe what happened to the body of Jesus after he was killed except to indicate it was buried.

Fact = Rabbinic law specifies that criminals were to be buried in a common grave, not a tomb.

Fact = If the body of a criminal was initially placed in a tomb to comply with the Jewish preparations for Passover, it would have only been a temporary arrangement until the body could be reburied in a common grave as required by Rabbinic Law.

Fact = Paul uses the Greek word, -, to describe Jesus as appearing to him and the other apostles. According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, when "-" is used in this type of context, it refers to a divine revelation where someone experiences a spiritual presence of Jesus without actually observing his natural body made of flesh and bone.

Fact = The 1st century Jewish concept of a spiritual body was that it was a physical body but more refined than the bulky flesh and bone natural body.

Fact = Paul asserts that a buried natural body made from bulky flesh and bones is perishable, and it is only the refined spiritual body which is resurrected.

This collection of facts demonstrates that the earliest account of the burial and resurrection of Jesus as describe by Paul does not indicate anything about a missing body, an empty tomb, or post-resurrection appearances by Jesus in the form of a body made of flesh and bone. The existence of these facts requires an explanation. Does the claim that Paul believed the flesh and blood body of Jesus went missing from a tomb as a consequence of being resurrected best explain these facts? No. If it is assumed that Paul believed the body of Jesus was buried, his statement that Jesus was buried is neutral with respect to whether it was buried in a common grave or a tomb. If the body of Jesus was placed in a tomb to comply with the preparatory requirements for Passover, the given facts suggest it is reasonable to assume the body would have been quickly reburied in a common grave immediately following the observance of Passover. In any case, since Paul makes no mention of Jesus dying on or around Passover or anyone subsequently discovering an empty tomb, it would be presumptuous to infer that he believed the body of Jesus was placed in a tomb rather than buried in a common grave. This doesn't disprove the claim that the body of Jesus was placed in a tomb but gives good reason to doubt it.

Furthermore, these facts demonstrate that Pauls concept of a bodily resurrection only involved the raising-up of the refined spiritual body to heaven, not the bulky natural body made of flesh and bones. Therefore, given these facts, Paul most likely believed it was the resurrected spiritual body of Jesus that appeared to him and the other apostles rather than the natural body of Jesus which had been buried. This best explains the existence of the false apostles mentioned by Paul who were able to successfully convince many early Christians to believe their false doctrines. It is unlikely these false apostles were being deliberately deceptive and probably had what they perceived to be their own revelatory experiences with the resurrected spiritual body of Christ who guided them towards doctrines which conflicted with those endorsed by Paul.

These facts also best explain why there is no mention of Paul or anyone else going to the site where Jesus was buried (if the location was even known) to verify the remains of the body were missing or still there. Obviously, Paul and the other apostles would have no motivation to dig up the natural flesh and bone remains of Jesus if they believed it was his refined spiritual body that was resurrected. Does this disprove the claim that the natural flesh and bone body of Jesus went missing from a tomb? No. However, it does provide a good reason to doubt the claim is true.

Good Reasons to Doubt the Spiritual Resurrection Claim

Fact = Dehydration, heat exhaustion, heat stroke, physical exhaustion, led poisoning, malnutrition, sleep deprivation, and other medical conditions are known to trigger auditory and visual hallucinations in otherwise psychologically healthy people.

Fact = There are altered psychological states which can be brought about through intense and lengthy meditation or prayer sessions where practitioners, who are otherwise psychologically healthy people, regularly experience auditory and visual hallucinations.

Fact = Descriptions of personal experiences often becomes more and more embellished the more they are recounted from memory.

Fact = People often misremember personal experiences when they haven't thought about them in a while.

Fact = When appropriately primed and motivated by a prescribed religious expectation, subliminal message, or an emotional crisis brought about through a shared traumatic event, it is common for a group of like-minded and psychologically healthy people to experience a kind of hypnotic and highly suggestive trance state while engaged in lengthy and intense meditation or prayer sessions.

Fact = There exists a form of psychological manipulation where group pressure to achieve a desired personal experience commonly influences participants to exaggerate or fabricate their individual experiences in order to conform with the group's expectations.

These facts provide reasonable and natural explanations for how Paul, the other apostles, the "five hundred", and the false apostles could have individually and collectively come to believe that they had experienced the presence of Christ's resurrected spiritual body. Since Paul describes the appearance of the resurrected Jesus to him in nebulous revelatory terms, it is reasonable to presume that the other appearances by Jesus would not necessarily have to be identical experiences. Therefore, a group of grieving people engaged in an intense and lengthy prayer session could come to believe they all experienced the spiritual presence of the resurrected Jesus at the same time without the need for each revelatory experience to be identical. Do these facts disprove the claim these people actually experienced the presence of Christ's resurrected spiritual body? No. However, they do give good reasons to doubt the claim is true.

[Tart]

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?

Well this is a good question, what is the role of Faith in Christianity? (I'm probably not going to go through the thread and read all the replies, so if there is responses that should be noted for my attention please direct me to those responses).

Faith is so important in Christianity. For example, righteousness has been summed up by living faithfully "Just as it is written, "the righteous shall live by faith"", and id say that is a good summation of righteousness (which we could discuss if you wish). And I really believe it is by Faith that we shall be saved by Christ, even though after I read the Bible I was convinced of its claims to be true through my reasoning, it was by Faith that I put my trust into Christ as a personal savior. As Jesus said that through a seed of faith, God can change your life and "move mountains"...

The passage you are talking about deals with a bunch of the stories that may be hard to believe, and certainly God has made foolish the wisdom of the world (1 Corinthians 1)... But id like to suggest to you one thing, that Christianity is not trying to convince people of false claims by using faith, faith is a much different thing then that. It is a way to trust in God through your day to day life, and not a way to believe in false claims. For example, Paul wrote;

"14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead." (1 Corinthians 15)

So notice what Paul said. He says if this didn't actually happen, then Faith is useless and even more so they are false witnesses, or liars.

[bluegreenearth]

Faith is so important in Christianity. For example, righteousness has been summed up by living faithfully "Just as it is written, "the righteous shall live by faith"", and id say that is a good summation of righteousness (which we could discuss if you wish). And I really believe it is by Faith that we shall be saved by Christ, even though after I read the Bible I was convinced of its claims to be true through my reasoning, it was by Faith that I put my trust into Christ as a personal savior. As Jesus said that through a seed of faith, God can change your life and "move mountains"...

The passage you are talking about deals with a bunch of the stories that may be hard to believe, and certainly God has made foolish the wisdom of the world (1 Corinthians 1)... But id like to suggest to you one thing, that Christianity is not trying to convince people of false claims by using faith, faith is a much different thing then that. It is a way to trust in God through your day to day life, and not a way to believe in false claims. For example, Paul wrote;

"14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead." (1 Corinthians 15)

So notice what Paul said. He says if this didn't actually happen, then Faith is useless and even more so they are false witnesses, or liars.

Alright. So, was Christ actually resurrected from the dead? What method did you use to determine if your answer to that question is true? Has that method been demonstrated to be reliable?

[Tart]

Good Reasons to Doubt the Reliability of the Two Letters Written for Theophilus

Fact = The earliest manuscripts of the two letters written for Theophilus are anonymous.

Fact = Despite their commonalities, there are significant incongruities between the two letter written for Theophilus and the authentic Pauline letters. Pauls character, his theology, and various events from his life are described differently in the letters to Theophilus than they are from his own autobiographical accounts. They also depart from each other on important issues such as the Law, Pauls own apostleship, and his association with the Jerusalem church.

Fact = Paul warned his followers to beware of false doctrines being spread by men masquerading as apostles of Christ.

I'm really interested in this, can you be more specific and give us the verses and passages used to determine these "facts"?

For example, can you support this assertion with the evidence?
"Pauls character, his theology, and various events from his life are described differently in the letters to Theophilus than they are from his own autobiographical accounts. They also depart from each other on important issues such as the Law, Pauls own apostleship, and his association with the Jerusalem church."