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 224 by Realworldjack]

I'll take the blame for not providing a disclaimer before recommending that series of videos. It was not my intention to have you critique the guy's personal perspective on Christianity but to focus only on the factual components of the video with regards to epistemology. When you look passed the counter-apologetic content of the videos, I think his explanation of epistemology is quite informative and enlightening. If the videos contain too many distracting detours, then find another source of information on epistemology that is more appealing to you.

It was not my intention to have you critique the guy's personal perspective on Christianity

This would have been impossible to do, since he never gives his "personal perspective on Christianity" but rather focuses on the epistemology of some Christians, and then draws the conclusion from this, that all Christians must, and have to operate in the same way.

So then, the only thing to focus on would have to be in "regards to epistemology", but what he has to say would be far from what you call, "factual" as we were able to clearly see.

Again, all he does is to use the way in which some, and even many Christians operate, and then go on to assume from this, that this is the only way in which Christians could possibly come to their conclusions, which we have seen would be completely false. I gave a number of examples in my post, but here is one of them,

No one converts to Christianity from the pure force of evidence, and argumentation, but plenty of people do convert because of tradition, upbringing, and social pressure

Now, would you like to defend this statement as being a fact? All he is doing here is to acknowledge, "plenty of people do convert because of tradition, upbringing, and social pressure" and then going on to conclude form this, "No one converts to Christianity from the pure force of evidence, and argumentation". This is a false conclusion!

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 237 by Realworldjack]

But the question here is, why would it be cause to consider the information to be unlikely, simply because the author did not identify themselves? I mean, this is what you are saying, right? You are saying, the author did not identify himself, and this is a reason to consider the information he gives, to be unlikely?

You are overstating the case. Anonymity does not mean the information is "unlikely" to be true. Anonymous sources in general are considered less reliable. This is a long established principle in historical research, the law, and journalism.

Why?

Because when someone signs his real name, he is more careful of his facts.
Because we have no way to judge the credibility or reliability of a witness we do not know.
One cannot cross examine an anonymous witness.
Before I consider the accuracy of a witness statement I want to know if he is able to see, hear, or otherwise observe the event he reports.

I want to know if he saw the event directly or just heard of it from others. i want to know if she was in a position to observe. i want to know if he has made other false reports or is consistently honest.

Anonymous sources are inherently suspect, but that does not mean they are always lying or inaccurate; it just means we have less indicia of reliability.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 224 by Realworldjack]

My friend, I happen to know what epistemology is, and exactly how it operates.

That is a rather bold statement and inaccurate on it's face.
First, epistemology does not "operate." It is the "study of" the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief. Since epistemology is an ongoing discussion with many divisions and arguments, I find it difficult to believe ANYONE understands it "exactly."

The very fact you have several times insisted anonymous sources are just as good as known sources tells me you don't understand epistemology at all. Also, you appear equate faith and personal subjective 'revelation' or belief as valid or reliable compared to direct empirical observation.

The subject is a complex one.

"Much debate in epistemology centers on four areas:
(1) the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to such concepts as truth, belief, and justification,[1][2]
(2) various problems of skepticism,
(3) the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and
(4) the criteria for knowledge and justification. Epistemology addresses such questions as: "What makes justified beliefs justified?",[3] "What does it mean to say that we know something?",[4] and fundamentally "How do we know that we know?"[5]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

[Citations:
1. Matthias (2005). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). "Epistemology". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 ed.).
2. Borchert, Donald M., ed. (1967). "Epistemology". Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 3. Macmillan.
3. Matthias (8 September 2017). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University " via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
4. Carl J. Wenning. "Scientific epistemology: How scientists know what they know" (PDF).
5. "The Epistemology of Ethics". 1 September 2011.

[marco]

Anonymity does not mean the information is "unlikely" to be true. Anonymous sources in general are considered less reliable. This is a long established principle in historical research, the law, and journalism.

We can look around and ask whether there were agents or agencies who might benefit from the circulated stories. An institution building itself on the imprimatur of a young god would welcome tales that reinforced his apotheosis. Let others deduce the identities of the story tellers, and if they conclude they were Christ's companions, so much the better.

Of course we might think such Machiavellian tactics are not found in the Church. Perhaps not.

[Danmark]

Anonymity does not mean the information is "unlikely" to be true. Anonymous sources in general are considered less reliable. This is a long established principle in historical research, the law, and journalism.

We can look around and ask whether there were agents or agencies who might benefit from the circulated stories. An institution building itself on the imprimatur of a young god would welcome tales that reinforced his apotheosis. Let others deduce the identities of the story tellers, and if they conclude they were Christ's companions, so much the better.

Of course we might think such Machiavellian tactics are not found in the Church. Perhaps not.

No, never. Don't you know that the Church in the First and Second Centuries was absolutely different than the the Church in succeeding Centuries? Just because the Church has used "such Machiavellian tactics" [and worse] in every Century since, does not mean they could possibly have done so while the New Testament books were written and the canon selected. No indeed. And we know this because humans magically changed their character completely around the middle of the 2d Century.

Thank Dog no Pope ever erred and Martin Luther never had to write his Ninety-five Theses in 1517.

[marco]

Don't you know that the Church in the First and Second Centuries was absolutely different than the the Church in succeeding Centuries?

History, and particularly Church history, is written by the victors. First the sword and then decree proved wonderful evangelists. Faith was originally the decision to stay alive. I recall my boyish lips moving to the words: "How sweet would be their children's faith, if they like them, could die for Thee" and my mind feeling some reluctance to be so zealous. Now, in the open air, with larksong rather than angelic symphonies, I think what a colossal waste of human flesh it has all been. And compared to Christianity, Islam is in its wild adolescence and must experience the same lethal devotion towards its mythology. At whose cost?

If one wants truth then one must put faith aside.

[Danmark]

Don't you know that the Church in the First and Second Centuries was absolutely different than the the Church in succeeding Centuries?

History, and particularly Church history, is written by the victors. First the sword and then decree proved wonderful evangelists. Faith was originally the decision to stay alive. I recall my boyish lips moving to the words: "How sweet would be their children's faith, if they like them, could die for Thee" and my mind feeling some reluctance to be so zealous. Now, in the open air, with larksong rather than angelic symphonies, I think what a colossal waste of human flesh it has all been. And compared to Christianity, Islam is in its wild adolescence and must experience the same lethal devotion towards its mythology. At whose cost?

If one wants truth then one must put faith aside.

Amen. I've had exactly this thought, about Islam being the same as Christianity, 13th Century version. I suppose the reason the Abrahamic religions are all so blood thirsty (in stages) is they were conceived in nomadic cultures where travel and war were constant, where tribalism was the predominant ethos.

Your comment also reminds me that one of the arguments made for Christianity is that it became so popular. Such an argument ignores the role of the sword, the influence of politics, and the power of cultural inertia. It also ignores the fact that Islam is the fastest growing.
Selah

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 237 by Realworldjack]

Please be reminded that the very first sentence of my response indicated it wasn't in capitulation to a burden of proof fallacy. So, the information I provided does not intend to disprove the resurrection claim but to encourage further critical thinking regarding the reliability of the supporting evidence. Secondly, the observation that the resurrection claim is unfalsifiable does not fail in the context I provided. It only fails in terms of your personal opinion and your arbitrary epistemology. Thirdly, my discussion about epistemology was not an argument but an inquiry regarding the criteria you use to qualify a reason as "good" in order that I may attempt to operate within it rather than continuing to talk past you.

Now, the reason for pointing out the fact that the author of the two letters is unknown was nothing more than an acknowledgement of where our ability to investigate the credibility of this individual is severely limited because we don't even know his name. If the author happened to mention his name, then we could have researched if he had written other documents for which to compare with these two letters. Knowing who the author was would also have enabled us to investigate what his contemporaries might have said about the quality of his character and his reliability as a messenger.

You asked for "good reasons" to doubt the resurrection. This is just one of many such reasons that appear to qualify as "good" according to your own epistemology as best as I can assess.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 247 by bluegreenearth]

Point of order:
A resurrection is not 'unfalsifiable,' it is impossible, until proven otherwise.
Until proven otherwise, every possible alternative should be held real, in lieu of a resurrection.

One cannot say, resurrection is possible, because God is omnipotent - for example,
1. Because God is only all powerful so he can do things like resurrect, so that is no good.
2. Being all-powerful does not necessarily mean resurrection is possible. Many say that God cannot do anything like create a rock too heavy to lift, resurrection is harder.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 247 by bluegreenearth]

Point of order:
A resurrection is not 'unfalsifiable,' it is impossible, until proven otherwise.
Until proven otherwise, every possible alternative should be held real, in lieu of a resurrection.

One cannot say, resurrection is possible, because God is omnipotent - for example,
1. Because God is only all powerful so he can do things like resurrect, so that is no good.
2. Being all-powerful does not necessarily mean resurrection is possible. Many say that God cannot do anything like create a rock too heavy to lift, resurrection is harder.

I'd say the resurrection is falsifiable in the sense that it cannot, has not been duplicated and no one can demonstrate a rational method for it happening, outside of horror movies.
The resurrection is not falsifiable in the sense that we cannot go back in time and observe. The resurrection is in the same category as ogres, trolls, fairies and unicorns.