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?

[marco]

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.

Luckily Christ went to the authorities to prove his claim and he showed Pilate the wounds that were still visible on his "glorified" body. And Pilate, astonished, wrote to Rome to spread the news.


No - Christ crept behind two people, not sure who they were, and just chatted. When his friends were shaking with terror now Christ had left them to the mobs, they "saw" him walking through the wall, his wounds still visible on his physical body.


He gave a nice piece of advice: Blessed are those who believe without having any proof at all. It is used today when people are attempting a scam.

[Realworldjack]

....it is a fact that there would be many weak minded Christians, and we know this to be a fact, because we have many folks who were once Christians, who freely, and openly admit, they made the decision to become a Christian, without the use of the mind.

[3-4 pages redacted]
Name one. Also name one Christian who became one solely because of empirical evidence.

Of course, when it is said, "they did not use the mind" it is not like they claim to have some sort of switch to turn the mind off. Rather, they are saying they, "simply took the word of others, without really thinking for themselves".

Not only this, some of these folks will go on to tell you that, they went on to be believers, well into their adult life, and they blame all this on, the things they were taught as a child.

Moreover, "BGE", has supplied us with a video, and in this video, after this person tells us exactly how we should all determine what it is we believe, he then goes on to say, "When it comes to religion, you don't have to bother with any of this stuff at all, your beliefs are decided for you at birth". So here it is, from and unbeliever himself who claims that to be a Christian, you do not even have to bother with the mind, because what you believe, is already decided for you.

At any rate, here is a quote from a former Christian from the web, and here is what he has to say,

I think religions are prisons. Mental prisons. They close your mind

https://lifelessons.co/spirituality/why ... christian/

I really do not know how much planner it can be? It certainly seems to me they are all saying they made such decisions, and the mind was not engaged? How could it be, if the mind is closed?

Are you not under the impression that there are many Christians who are simply Christians because of the way in which they were raised, which means they have not really used the mind, in order to think about, what it is they claim to believe? If not, then this would seem to be admitting, one can really use the mind to think about what it is they believe as Christians, to come to the conclusion that there are reasons to believe the claims?

Also name one Christian who became one solely because of empirical evidence.

This is not a science project, and there are any number of things we believe to be true, which would not be based upon "empirical evidence" but rather upon historical evidence. In other words, these would be things we have not, and cannot observe, and experience ourselves, and yet we are convinced these things did in fact occur, based upon the historical, facts, and evidence we have in hand, which would be the reason, history, and science, would be different fields of study.

Next, this question you raise, would not have a thing in the world to do with whether the Christian claims would be true, or false. In other words, there would be things we may have very little evidence for at all at the time, and yet they would be true.

However, the fact of the matter is, even though it seems to be a fact that there are those here, who are absolutely opposed to the claims of the resurrection, no one here, at least thus far, seems to be insisting the claims of the resurrection must, and have to be false. Rather, they simply seem to be insisting there would be reasons to doubt the claims, and I have never insisted there would not be reasons to doubt. However, simply because there may be reasons for doubt, would not negate the fact that there very well could be reasons to believe.

Therefore, another member has supplied us with some of these reasons for doubt, and we are at this time, working our way through this list.

[Realworldjack]

So, what would be the facts, and evidence which would support such things as it being a, stroke, seizure, or fit?

How would if be a "huge and totally unjustified step", when this is exactly what is reported, by two authors?

Admittedly it is a tough choice.

(a) A light came from heaven which everybody knows is in the sky and a voice asked a question. Startled Saul asks who is speaking and Jesus says: "It's me, Jesus of Nazareth! Go to the following address in Damasscus and do what the nice man tells you."


(b) Paul is blinded and falls down. He imagines a god is speaking.

Explanation:

(a) Dead Jesus prearranged that somebody in Damascus would meet Saul and call him Paul, since they sound the same. Important detail.

(b) Sick of being persecuted, a few Christians with a light and a loud speaker, frighten Paul. The rest is human arrangement.

We MUST believe (a) because Paul tells us this is true and we must not accept explanations that are just hypothetical, for we don't know of any plans but we do know that God was around at the time. Because we don't know if Paul had a seizure or if he was duped it is impossible to accept this explanation. God is a better and more exciting explanation.

Ergo - rational persuasion leads to dead Jesus shouting from the sky. It would make a fine opera with an angel chorus. I think it was Caravaggio who captured the scene imaginatively. At least some good art came of the nonsense.

It is also possible it was that ubiquitous angel Gabriel who shone the light and pretended to be the dead Christ but we cannot accept this since nobody thought to claim it.

No, because you see, all you seem to be doing, is leaning toward what you would rather believe, while you seem to be accusing me of this very thing, when I am simply dealing with the facts we can know, while you are bringing your assumptions into the equation, on top of putting words, and ideas into my mouth, and head, which I have not brought forth.

Because you see, I am dealing with exactly what was reported. Paul was out to put a stop to this movement, because he was convinced it was false. Moreover, Paul was well educated in the Jewish law, which would mean that although he would have been a very unlikely candidate to make such a change, he would have been, and actually turned out to be, the absolutely perfect candidate.

So what we have is these folks who are going around preaching a message that must, and has to be false, which is causing nothing but heartache, and trouble for them, and then all of the sudden, it just so happens, one of their biggest problems, just so happens to make a change, and it is not simply that he makes this change, and simply ceases his persecution of this movement, but rather that he actually becomes it's biggest champion, and the reason for the spread of this movement, all over the known world at the time.

Now, who is it that is dealing with the facts we can know, as opposed to the one who is giving us all these assumptions? Who is it that is dealing with the facts, as we know them, and who is it, that brings God, and the miraculous into the conversation?

[marco]

However, simply because there may be reasons for doubt, would not negate the fact that there very well could be reasons to believe.

We have been here a few times before. Some folk report an empty tomb and they make conclusions. One can believe they saw an empty tomb but one need not accept their answers, especially if their answers defy sense.

The vehicle for accepting their claims is called faith, much hailed by Jesus himself. If faith means believing on trust what various characters tell us, then faith is not a reliable way of assessing the truth. I cannot see how it is possible to believe in the resurrection by rational means.

[marco]

and it is not simply that he makes this change, and simply ceases his persecution of this movement, but rather that he actually becomes it's biggest champion, and the reason for the spread of this movement, all over the known world at the time.

Yes, isn't human nature strange. People can be rabid communists and then fight for the other side. Augustine was steeped in sin, and wrote a book against it. Brutus loved Caesar, then killed him.


I suppose there is something dramatic, even romantic, in Paul crossing over to the other side and using his gift for writing on their behalf, especially since it seemed to offer him authority, and present him as God's chosen one. I can see why you would find this attractive, but it has nothing to do with the Resurrection, nor is it the basis for making rational decisions about events 2000 years ago.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 235 by benchwarmer]


I really do not know what you fail to understand, but this is not a debate about evolution, and IF I were to concede the point, it would be completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

However, you may want to read the article a little more carefully? Because you see, it begins by saying,

The evolution of a new species "CAN" occur rapidly enough for them to observe the process in a simple laboratory flask, biologists have discovered.

My emphasis on the word, "CAN" because I wonder why they did not say, "HAS", or "DOES"? Notice that it also says, "for them to observe the PROCESS", which would not be the same thing as observing what they believe would be the end result. Well, maybe the next sentence will clear things up a bit?

In a month-long experiment using a virus harmless to humans, biologists documented the evolution of a virus into two "INCIPIENT SPECIES"

Again, my emphasis on, "INCIPIENT SPECIES". Now, do you happen to know what this would mean?

Incipient species- a subspecies, or variety, which is in process of becoming permanent, and thus changing to a true species

UM???????? Exactly what does that mean? Well, in case you are wondering? Here is the definition of, "incipient,

in-cip-i-ent
/insip"nt/

adjective
in an initial stage; beginning to happen or develop.

If this is not enough, try this on for size,

Incipient species are when two groups are beginning to diverge, but there is not yet complete reproductive isolation between them. Incipient speciation is the very beginning stage of the speciation process

OH???? So then, it has not happened, but is beginning to happen? Not quite what you were banking on, now was it?

You see, this does not seem to much different at all, from some of the other articles folks here on this site have supplied me with, which will all but say, "evolution is a fact", but somewhere in the article, you will find some sort of, "bait and switch".

But the fact of the matter is, I have no desire to debate this, and will not say another word about it, after this post, on this thread. However, you are sort of making my original point. You say,

You said no one has observed A speciation event. They have.

Well, not exactly. What I actually said was, "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"?

As you can see, I said nothing about what you refer to as a, "speciation event".

So then, "THEY" claim to have observed, what "THEY" claim is the beginning stages, but the rest, would be yet to be determined. At any rate, I have not observed, even what "THEY" claim to have observed, and unless you have observed it yourself, then we both are dependent upon the claim "THEY" are making, and have no way to verify the claim for ourselves, which would mean we would simply be taking the word of others.

Now, would this claim, that there have been observations of these events in the beginning stages, with the conclusion that these beginning stages would be evidence for full blown evolution, be a reason to believe the claim of full blown evolution to be true? Well, it certainly does not demonstrate this to be the case, but I would not argue that this would not be a reason for one to believe that it has, and or does occur.

The whole point is, I am not attempting here, to argue against evolution, but am rather arguing, there may be reasons to believe evolution may have occurred, based on the facts, and evidence we have. However, you turn this around, and attempt to make it an argument over evolution, and derailing the whole point which is, "there may indeed be reasons to believe something is true, which has not been absolutely demonstrated to be a fact, based upon the facts, and evidence we have available".

My whole point here is, your point is moot, because even if evolution would be demonstrated to be a fact, we could still go back to the point when it was not demonstrated to be a fact, and see that there would be reasons to believe it, even when it had not been demonstrated.

This is why I went on to throw in another example, to keep us from going down this road, which was, even if speciation would be demonstrated to be a fact, this would not demonstrate that the human, must, and had to evolve from another species. Rather, it may indeed be facts, and evidence to support the idea.

I submit that what you are calling 'good reasons' are in my book 'bad reasons'.

I completely understand this, which is why I have asked for the reasons I should consider the claims made by the Biblical authors to be, unlikely, and I am attempting to work with another member on this very subject, but I have a number of other post to respond to, besides this one of yours, which really has nothing to do with the topic.

[Realworldjack]

[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.

You are overstating the case. Anonymity does not mean the information is "unlikely" to be true.

Well then, it is not me who is "overstating the case", rather that would be "BGE". He gave what he claims to be a list of facts, which would be cause for doubt, (consider to be unlikely) concerning the two letters addressed to Theophilus.

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.

So then, are you suggesting that "BGE" is overstating the case?

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.

I understand exactly what you are saying, but this fails to consider all the facts involved here. First, there are those who intend to write anonymously, because they have a reason to keep their identity unknown. However, others may not sign their name but it would be not because they do not want their identity known, but rather they understand the audience they are addressing at the time, knows full well who the author would be, and they have no concern, nor any idea that anyone else will ever read what they are recording to this one particular audience. The point is, since the original audience would have known full well the identity of the author, then this author would understand this, and this would be a reason to be careful with the facts he records, because he understands his audience knows full well who is doing the recording.

As an example, I may write a letter to my wife, and not sign my name, because I fully understand that she is going to know my identity. So then, am I going to be careful with the information, knowing my identity will be known, even if I do not sign my name?

So then, if Theophilus knew exactly who the author was, then the author would not have been anonymous to the original intended audience.

Because we have no way to judge the credibility or reliability of a witness we do not know.

Okay? Well, in this case, even if this author would have signed these letters, you still would not be able to know him. However, I do agree there may be other letters by this same author you may want to compare, but the fact of the matter is, we can know beyond a reasonable doubt that this same person authored both of these letters.

But in any case, I do happen to agree with you in that, thus far, I believe it is "overstating the case", to suggest that any of this would be cause to come to the conclusion that the information in these letters would be, unlikely, which is what doubt would be, and that is what "BGE" has suggested in that, the letters being anonymous, would be a cause for doubting the reliability of the information in these letters.

One cannot cross examine an anonymous witness.

Well, I will assure you there are many authors who identify themselves, who you will not be able to, "cross examine" because they are in the same condition as the author of the two letters to Theophilus, which would be, DEAD!

Again, I truly understand what you are saying. However, I do not understand how the fact that I cannot cross examine the author, would be cause to consider the information he gives, to be less reliable? That really makes no sense to me?

In other words, I could understand that if I were able to talk to this author, the information I receive in this interview may give me an understanding of whether this author may be reliable, or not? What I do not understand, is how not having the ability to do this interview, would cause us to come to the conclusion that the information would be, less reliable?

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.

Again, since this author is dead, we cannot ask him these things. However, there is the fact that this author does indeed begin to use the words, "we", and "us", in the second letter, as if he is there to witness the events of the travels of Paul. With this being the case, we have a really good clue, that this author did indeed traveled with Paul, which would mean this author would have at the very least been alive during the life of Jesus, would have known, and spent a lot of time with the apostles, and would have known the claims they were making, first hand.

I want to know if he saw the event directly or just heard of it from others.

As already stated, this author certainly claims to have witnessed much of what he records in the second letter, and as far as what he records in the first, he assures Theophilus, that he had, "carefully investigated everything from the beginning", and we have just analyzed certain evidence that would suggest that he would have had the ability to do just that. So then, what would be the reason I should consider this to be, unlikely?

Anonymous sources are inherently suspect

I really do not understand why this would be the case? In other words, there could be very good reasons for an author to conceal his identity, and the information would be very reliable. In fact, I could see in some cases, where one not identifying oneself, would be completely understandable, and even give the information, more validity.

In any case, we are not dealing with that here at all. In other words, this author was addressing one particular individual, and it would be very easy to understand that this author was not anonymous at all to the individual being addressed.

but that does not mean they are always lying or inaccurate

That would be a fact!

it just means we have less indicia of reliability.

Now you see, this is far better said, and something I can agree with. In other words, it is not that the information WOULD BE, less reliable, but rather we would have less indication of the reliability.

At any rate, I tend to agree with you in that, it is "overstating the case" to suggest that since we cannot be sure who the author may have been, that this would be a reason to consider the information to be, unlikely. With this being the case, then I think we can agree that we can eliminate "bluegreenearth's" first cause for doubt, since we seem to agree that there would be no reason to consider the information the author gives to be unlikely, simply because we cannot be sure who he may have been.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 256 by Realworldjack]

Point of Clarification:

My use of the word "doubt" was not intended to mean "considered to be unlikely" but equivalent to the word "skeptical" in that the anonymity of the author is a good reason to require additional evidence before concluding the contents of his letters are sufficiently reliable for use in defending a resurrection claim. An examination of the other identified facts demonstrates where the additional evidence fails to securely demonstrate the reliability of these two letters in that regard. As such, we remain justified in our skepticism of both the reliability of these letters and the resurrection claim.

The continued application of skepticism in this case is not to be mistaken for a presupposition that the letters are unreliable. We simply don't have sufficient evidence yet to responsibly conclude one way or the other on the question of reliability. Before we can responsibly conclude the letters are reliable or unreliable, additional evidence must be provided that eliminates our justification for skepticism.

Now, before you accuse me of having a double standard in applying more skepticism towards these letters than to other anonymous texts like a letter to a friend, you should be reminded that most anonymous letters to friends don't contain extraordinary claims about supernatural events which have no implicit empirical basis. Where such extraordinary claims exist, additional skepticism is warranted whether the texts were written anonymously or not. We don't normally challenge the reliability of anonymous letters when the described content has an implicit empirical basis.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 235 by benchwarmer]


I really do not know what you fail to understand, but this is not a debate about evolution, and IF I were to concede the point, it would be completely irrelevant to the point I was making..

You are sure spending a lot of effort trying to wiggle out of this. If you feel better thinking you have justified your initial claim, then so be it. We'll let readers decide what to make of it.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 232 by Danmark]

"Two authors?" Who are they? Luke does not pretend to give a first hand account. And he couldn't since he was not with Paul on the road to Damascus.

Well, I do not know how we can be certain that Luke was not present? However, even if we concede this to be the case, we have certain evidence that Luke, was indeed a traveling companion of Paul for years, which would mean he would have gotten a first hand account of this event straight from the lips of Paul himself.

Next, we know that Paul does indeed mention the fact that he persecuted the Church, and goes on to say that it was an encounter with the risen Jesus, which changed his course, and it would be natural to think that Paul is referring to the exact same event reported by Luke, since Luke reports the events in that exact order, with Paul first persecuting the Church, with the event on the road to Damascus, being the encounter Paul claims to have had with the "risen Christ".

Even Paul does not write directly of the event.

What I mentioned above, is exactly why you understand why you have to use the word, "directly" since you realize that what I say above, would in fact be the case.

Acts mentions it 3 times, but not as a first hand report. "Paul told Agrippa...." "Paul told others...." Paul was blinded by a light no one else saw and fell down and ate nothing and drank nothing for 3 days. What is there to explain?

Right! However, as we have seen, Paul does in fact talk of encountering the reason Christ, and there is no reason not to understand this to be the encounter reported by Luke, on the road to Damascus.

Obviously he had some kind of medical event, whether it was an epileptic fit, sun stroke, or a neurological event of another sort does not matter.

I really do not understand how one could possibly say this would be, "obvious"? How could it possibly be "obvious" to us some 2000 years later, when we were not even there? Maybe you mean to say this could be a possible explanation? But to say, "it would be obvious" would go way over, and above, overstating the case.

Leaping to a supernatural conclusion because 'The Bible Tells me So' is the LEAST likely explanation.

You seem to be the only one here who is "leaping to conclusions". I have never suggested that we should, "leap", or even come to any sort of conclusions at all. Rather, I am suggesting we stick with the facts we have, which is, we know that Paul was at one point persecuting the Church. We know Paul goes from this persecution of the Church, to becoming it's biggest missionary, and the reason given by both Paul, and Luke would have been an encounter with the risen Christ. We also know that Paul continued to preach these same things, well into his old age, and was arrested for doing so.

You see, these things above would be facts, we can know for certain, which means they would be "obvious". What you have proposed, would be far from "obvious" and would be pure speculation, with no facts, or evidence in support of this, speculation.