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?

[marco]

We can stop right there if this is an example of your "evidence." To call it 'meager' would be overstatement.

We know little definitive about the man. There are many theories about who Theophilus was:

And your list is impressive.

That the recipient is simply "a God lover" tells us all we need to know. When Browning wanted to paint his devout, fictional hymn-singing child as pious, he gave him a similar name, Theocrite:

"Morning, evening, noon and night,
Praise God!; sang Theocrite" imitating the Psalmist

[marco]

Okay, you have some explaining to do? Exactly how in the world can one say, the information contained about the life, death, and resurrection would not be "thorough, or detailed"? How would it be, "dishonest, or disreputable"?

Date of birth? Activities between the ages of 10 and 30? Description of the man? Trade and occupation? Education? Adolescence? Strengths and weaknesses? Visits to other countries? Military experience? Death dates of parents and siblings?

We are supplied - in apparent seriousness - with birth details going back to Adam.
We have recorded conversations of him when there appears to have been no witnesses.
One of the reliable biographers tells us that one of the incidental details at crucifixion time was the walking about of corpses.
A young man was sitting in his tomb - no, it was two angels.

How much of this is "thorough" and "detailed"? When they try to give us a specific detail that historians can check, such as the Roman census, or the ruling king at Christ's birth, we find errors.

The Slavs have a saying: "A horse would laugh."

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 298 by benchwarmer]

GOOD GRIEF! This IS so COMICAL!! You seem to love this debate 'tactic' of exclaiming great grief and then trying to convince others it's funny.

Let us recall what I am responding too? You are attempting to compare the Christian claims to the claims concerning the "golden plates", and claiming "Joseph Smith could present actual signatures of bona-fide witnesses" and going on to claim that I, "have nothing but unsupported claims".

My point is, folks continue to make this argument, in the face of the fact that we have 5 different authors making the exact same claim, of the exact same resurrection, which means the claims support each other. This is exactly why I can say, "GOOD GRIEF".

I was not making an argument, I was agreeing with brnumb and adding the fact that you did not support your assertions of any of the LDS witnesses recanting.

And you continue to get hung up on things that I did not bring into the conversation, and which really has nothing to do with the conversation. In other words, Joseph Smith was brought into the conversation, as if what he, and others were claiming would have a thing to do with the resurrection. I point this out, and go on to be sure to say, "as I understand it" and go on to give a report that was shared with me by another member here, who is an unbeliever attempting to make the same argument.

In other words, this member was attempting to compare Christianity to the Mormon witnesses, and claiming some of these witnesses began to recant their testimony. My point simply is, one would have nothing to do with the other. However, when we do indeed go on to make the comparison, we see there is at least great turmoil involved in the witness accounts as far as the "golden plates" are concerned, that we do not see with the claims of the resurrection.

Just like with evolution, I am not attempting to refute the claims of the witnesses of the "golden plates", because as I said, "I really do not care". However, when there are those who want to make the comparison, then I will gladly do so. So then, if it makes you "feel" better, to champion the idea that none of the witnesses of the "golden tablets" ever actually recanted their testimony, but were rather excommunicated, and, or left the Church on their own, then so be it, but I really do not see how this would help your case?

I suggest responding to my actual statements rather than pretending I made an argument and having a grief explosion.

I am responding to you actual comments. You are getting hung up on, something that I did not bring into the conversation, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the facts, and evidence concerning the resurrection, and acting as if you have gained some sort of victory, by comparing Mormonism to Christianity, when no matter what the case is, there is no comparison at all? The bottom line here is the fact, that even if we could demonstrate beyond doubt that Mormonism is false, this would have nothing whatsoever to do with the claims of the resurrection, and it is the resurrection we are talking about.

Therefore, someone brings up the witnesses of the "golden tablets" (which I would never do) and I simply refer to "what I understand"about the issue, and what we find is, in the very least there is great turmoil concerning the witnesses, that we do not see concerning the claims of the resurrection. I really do not see how this would be helping your argument?

Understood. I recant my baseless assertion and replace with 'questionable understanding with no backup'. Perhaps now that you've been questioned about it, can you back up your understanding as I asked for (actually I asked the wider audience).

I do not know what you actually ask for? However, I do understand that comparing the two, has no bearing upon either. Moreover, as we have seen, when we do compare the two, we see there is really no comparison at all, with one having great turmoil, which we do not find in the other. Again, this is why you will never see me attempt to make such a comparison, but I will gladly do so when there are those who seem to be under the impression there is some sort of case to be made.

No link, no recanting of his witness statement. What was the point of this?

There is no point here, which is exactly my point! In other words, there is no need in making the comparison, but as I said, if there are those who would like to attempt to make the comparison, I am more than willing to do so.

I really do not know why I would need to provide a link, because the information is right there in front of you, and you can check to see if any of it would be incorrect. However, if you would like a link which supplies this information, then here you go, and enjoy.

https://lettertoanapostle.org/chapter-thirty-one/

But again, the thing is, none of this has anything at all to do with the facts, and evidence concerning the resurrection, which again is what we are talking about. All we are doing is to divert the conversion. Again, I want to make clear, that I am not the one who brought Mormonism into the equation, and I am not attempting in any way to refute Mormonism.

So he didn't recant. He still saw them, but was changing his tune how he saw them. Still no link? We like to verify hearsay around here.

Your link has been provided! By the way, what does, "changing one's tune" actually mean?

Again, no recanting of seeing the plates. Just a confused bumbling when pressed for details. Sounds familiar to other arguments I've had when pressing some theists for details. No link again?

Again, your link has been provided. The fact of the matter is, we are off topic here, and it seems, just like on another occasion, there are those who are happy to get the conversation off of the actual facts, and evidence of the resurrection.

Do you have any evidence of actually recanting the previous written witness statement? There certainly wasn't any in your post. We have the original witness statements in the Book of Mormon:

From the link I provided, concerning Oliver Cowdery it is reported,

At that time he arose and addressed the audience present, admitted his error and implored forgiveness, and said he was sorry and ashamed of his connection with Mormonism.

My friend, if it makes you "feel" better to know these men may have never recanted, but most were either, excommunicated, or left the Church on their own, with all the other turmoil you will read about, in the link I have provided, then by all means enjoy your victory. But, I think the question was, "how would this compare to the those who were claiming the, resurrection"?

No I can't see. You didn't supply one single link that I can follow and research to see if anyone ACTUALLY recanted. Care to try again? Since you seem to believe this to be true to the best of your current understanding, I thought perhaps you actually saw good evidence of someone recanting.

I have explained how I came to my understanding. I did not go on to examine if what I was told would in fact be the case, because I understand that it makes no difference in the end, which is why I do not make such comparisons, until, or unless, there are those who would like to make the comparison. So then, recanting, or not, we can clearly see, when we do make such a comparison, we see great turmoil going on with the witnesses of the "golden plates", that we do not see with, those who report the resurrection.

In the end, just like with evolution, if you want to debate Mormonism, then I am not interested, because it will simply get us off topic. Unless of course you can demonstrate there would be some sort of comparison between Mormonism, and the claims of the resurrection.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 284 by Danmark]

First you say it has nothing to do with credibility, then you give as your first example that it has EVERYTHING to do with credibility. When you assess facts and evidence, credibility is of supreme importance; your own example demonstrates why.

What my examples demonstrates is that my cousin had no credibility, and yet this had nothing whatsoever to do with what he had reported to me being true, or false. In other words, I added his credibility into the equation, as one of the reasons I should discount what he had reported, only to discover he had reported the exact truth.

“...for they think that they will be heard for their many words."
Your cousin is, you say, a liar. End of story. He should not be believed because he is a liar. Yet you claim the fact he is a liar is not important. I find this as curious as the notion that 'many words' are offered as a substitute for logic.

for they think that they will be heard for their many words

I really do not think it is that. Rather, I am under the impression there are those who think it is all so simple, on both sides of the equation, which causes these folks to believe that this issue can be settled by easy, "one liners" when I will assure you that it is far more complicated, and takes far more actual thinking.

Your cousin is, you say, a liar. End of story.

True! However, as we see in my example, this would have nothing to do with what he reports being true, or false. In other words, simply because he is a known liar, is not cause to simply discount everything he has to say. It simply means, he is not the type of person you would simply take the word of, but would need to examine the facts, and evidence to support what he might have to say.

He should not be believed because he is a liar.

So, are you suggesting we should believe, nothing he has to say? Because, I am here to tell you now, I believe, and in fact know, he told the truth, when he told me that fantastic tale. Of course, I will not take him at his word, but I do understand now, that I cannot simply assume I cannot believe what he has to say, because he is a known liar.

Yet you claim the fact he is a liar is not important.

That is completely false! It is very important. However, we have demonstrated that we cannot simply dismiss what he has to say. In other words, simply because he is a liar, does not mean he cannot, and never speaks the truth.

Again, it simply means, there may be those with whom I may have the ability to simply take them at their word, if need be, which I could never do with my cousin.

I find this as curious as the notion that 'many words' are offered as a substitute for logic.

As we see, using few words does not demonstrate one who is using logic. Because, I cannot see the logic behind, "He should not be believed because he is a liar" when it is known that liars, can, and have spoke the truth.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 285 by Realworldjack]

However, if you would like to compare the two, then from what I understand, Smith attempted to add witnesses to the so called, "golden tablets", and then one, by one, some of these witnesses began to recant, with some even leaving the Church.

At least Joseph Smith could present actual signatures of bona-fide witnesses. You have nothing but unsupported claims.

You can continue saying these sort of things, but your facts do not add up. We have at least 5 different claims of the same resurrection, which means they would all support each other.

Five? You have none. You can't quote a single witness by name, a witness we can authenticate. Can you even prove any of these 'witnesses' ever even lived? Do any of them even have a last name? Are any of them more credible than your cousin who you call a 'liar?'

Five? You have none. You can't quote a single witness by name, a witness we can authenticate.

Did I say "witnesses"? Or, did I say claims? The fact of the matter is, these claims may have been made by those who may not have been actual witnesses of Jesus after the crucifixion, but they very well may have been. However, either way, it has no bearing upon the truth, or falsehood of the reported resurrection.

However, we do have strong evidence to suggest that the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have been alive at the time of the events, would have known the apostles, along with the claims they were making first hand, and he indeed reports the resurrection to Theophilus.

Next, we also know Paul was alive at the time of the events, and we know that Paul was out to put a stop the Christianity, and he goes on to claim to have been encountered by the risen Christ.

Of course, we cannot know for certain that what Paul reports would be accurate, but what we do know is, something certainly happened which caused Paul to go from being the biggest enemy of Christianity, to it's biggest champion. In fact, we cannot know for certain the reports of the resurrection would be accurate, but what we can know is, something extraordinary did in fact occur.

Can you even prove any of these 'witnesses' ever even lived?

My friend, it can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jesus was a real historical figure, that the apostles were proclaiming his resurrection, and that Paul, and the author of the two letters to Theophilus were companions who would have known and conversed with those who were originally making the claims of the resurrection. To suggest otherwise, is a sure sign of, desperation.

Do any of them even have a last name?

I

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 312 by PghPanther]

Your larger picture is an interesting diversion. Of course we may be the computer playthings of a little boy in another dimension or the images in a dream of someone else. Does such speculation add anything to our progress through time?

We can certainly imagine ourselves as ants, scurrying on our perceived tasks to assist and labour before dying, but then there is nothing wrong with restricting our universe to the environs of the anthill, for what else matters?

Leaving our nets and our families and occupying our mind with matters from another, inaccessible dimension seems a denial of existence, the action of a renegade ant that withdraws its efforts for the community. If it prays, instead, for prolific production and plenty of food, can we say it is helping the formic community? Faith seems to be in the area of the renegade ant.

I agreed to what you said but our scientific indulgence first by philosophical speculation on top of what is known may lead to expanding our knowledge of reality and our environment through eventual implementation of those claims within the scientific method and is valuable for us as a species in our striving to understanding the boundary of our existence.

For example.....there was a time when science thought all of physical reality or our universe was what we now know as our own home Milky Way galaxy..........during that period science had observed "fuzzy" clusters which were thought of as star nebulas within our own "universe" (ie galaxy)..........but the philosopher Kant imagined them as "island universes" separate from our own......in time it was show he was correct and we upgraded to the idea of our whole reality was a lot bigger than just our own galaxy as it turned out there were billions more..

Now as strange as strange can be the early many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and resultant models of String/M theory in some cases result in speculations of multiple universes beyond our own existence.........early efforts to understand these speculations further has scientists studying the WAAP model background radiation of our universe and it irregularities.....speculating that this could be the result of collisions with other universes and that dark energy and dark matter may be substrates of other parrellel universes "leaking" into ours..........much more needs to be done here but the path has been set in motion once again to expand our understanding of the big picture of reality.

Obtaining a bigger picture of reality by using the scientific method continues to peel back more onion layers of reality as we best know it.....both in the past and today.

The problem with faith is the claim that an omnipresent, eternal God is the "backstop" of that onion layer and can no longer be peeled any further..

...so not only are they interested in just the ant hill so to speak......but they are claiming that the ant hill is all there is.....and to inquire further would in many doctrines of faith amount to nothing short of blasphemy.....

That is not a prudent way to discover reality nor make consistent and predictable claims about it.......

The countless examples of revelation of the nature of reality through the scientific method however has a long track record of expanding that understanding for us to which we owe a more fulfilling and meaningful quality of life unlike the claims of faith which cannot be demonstrated as such nor are allow to be revised.

What else matters besides the ant hill?

When Maxwell demonstrated the curious observation that electricity and magnetism were related forces to the royal court of his country the Queen asked him, "to what value is any of this to us?"

To which he stated, "My queen someday you will be taxing that"

[marco]

[Replying to post 323 by PghPanther]

I wasn't in any sense suggesting we stop research. I am aware of the apparent absurdities we come across at the cutting edge of mathematics and science. Einstein's double cone touching at the vertices defines past, present and future space and there are transformations whereby a point can be moved from one region to another. In statistical theory we take it that when a coin is tossed twice, the outcomes HH, TT and head or tail occur with probabilities in the ratio 1:1:2, but in Bose-Einstein statistics the ratio is 1:1:1. One of my friends working in Black Hole theory tells me that virtual particles can become real particles then virtual again. Many dimensions is a commonplace now in mathematics. So yes, science makes miracles as great as Christ's, but with more back-up proof.

My point was that for us labouring ants, whose daily routines do not involve tackling Schrodinger's equation, our godless universe suffices. We will become the gradual recipients of scientific progress as our computers improve and our flight paths are extended. We may fly to the edge of the universe in a time of 70 years but not of course conventionally. We may even get Lorentz to help us travel in time, despite the murdered grandfather problem.

Given all this, faith seems to be something like a wet piece of fur rather than a thing that moves mountains. I rather think Jesus meant hope moves mountains and dreams achieve the impossible.

I believe we are in complete agreement.

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 323 by PghPanther]

I wasn't in any sense suggesting we stop research. I am aware of the apparent absurdities we come across at the cutting edge of mathematics and science. Einstein's double cone touching at the vertices defines past, present and future space and there are transformations whereby a point can be moved from one region to another. In statistical theory we take it that when a coin is tossed twice, the outcomes HH, TT and head or tail occur with probabilities in the ratio 1:1:2, but in Bose-Einstein statistics the ratio is 1:1:1. One of my friends working in Black Hole theory tells me that virtual particles can become real particles then virtual again. Many dimensions is a commonplace now in mathematics. So yes, science makes miracles as great as Christ's, but with more back-up proof.

My point was that for us labouring ants, whose daily routines do not involve tackling Schrodinger's equation, our godless universe suffices. We will become the gradual recipients of scientific progress as our computers improve and our flight paths are extended. We may fly to the edge of the universe in a time of 70 years but not of course conventionally. We may even get Lorentz to help us travel in time, despite the murdered grandfather problem.

Given all this, faith seems to be something like a wet piece of fur rather than a thing that moves mountains. I rather think Jesus meant hope moves mountains and dreams achieve the impossible.

I believe we are in complete agreement.

Makes sense to me......except the statement by Jesus at the end............we assume a person called Jesus may have said this but we only have records of it after many decades of verbal exchange of such statements, so while I agree with you... its even worse for the person of faith........such folks are staking their lives and purpose based on quoting ancient manuscripts of which no one can be ever certain were even originally uttered by this person or at least in the verbatim claim they have been written down....

thanks for your replies.

[marco]

..such folks are staking their lives and purpose based on quoting ancient manuscripts of which no one can be ever certain were even originally uttered by this person or at least in the verbatim claim they have been written down....

Verbatim is the telling word. Matthew 4:10 tells us: "Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.’ � It's an interesting passage on Christ's state of mind, or a metaphorical account of his fight against carnality, but verbatim attribution is of course typical of dreamy Matthew who probably got the report from Satan himself.

[Danmark]

Date of birth? Activities between the ages of 10 and 30? Description of the man? Trade and occupation? Education? Adolescence? Strengths and weaknesses? Visits to other countries? Military experience? Death dates of parents and siblings?

We are supplied - in apparent seriousness - with birth details going back to Adam.
We have recorded conversations of him when there appears to have been no witnesses.
One of the reliable biographers tells us that one of the incidental details at crucifixion time was the walking about of corpses.
A young man was sitting in his tomb - no, it was two angels.
....
The Slavs have a saying: "A horse would laugh."

Thanks for this. We have not discussed this for a while... and need to.

The Gospels give us exquisite detail about his birth, including the journey of his parents and their circumstances, even detailing their efforts to find lodging. Tho' the chronology is confused, even visitors bringing gifts are mentioned by name. Then their flight to Egypt is chronicled.

Let's assume these were first person accounts; that people actually witnessed these events. Why then is there virtually no record of this extraordinary person until 30 years later? There is a brief, passing reference to him at 12, a reference devoid of detail.

This account smacks of fable and legend, a thing of fiction not of fact. I am NOT arguing there was/is no historical Jesus [a person I loved in my youth and still revere]. But any serious scholar or fan of logic must be skeptical... highly skeptical about the legend and details that are asserted about the real Jesus.

One must conclude that an extraordinary teacher/prophet burst upon the scene in Judea and impressed people by his learning and personal presence and that he developed a powerful tho' small local following; that he was eventually seen as a threat to both Rome and the Jewish leadership. After his death, a cult following developed legends about this extraordinary person until finally in a typically human phenomenon, his message was eclipsed by his deification.
It is typical of human culture to first appreciate the message, then extol the messenger, and finally to worship not just the message, but the messenger. Thus the message itself is subsumed, if not destroyed, by the cult of personality that envelopes it.