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?

[ttruscott]

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

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

[Zzyzx]

.

Faith is an unproven hope, not proof of any truth.

Agree

The secularist pov misses the mark.

Is this to say that basing decisions on evidence rather than hope ‘misses the mark’?

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

What, exactly, is the meaning of ‘for this time being’? Would that be ‘during our lifetime’ or ‘until we die’?

because our personal experience moves us to put our trust in the hope spoken of in the bible.

Does one have personal psychological ‘experience’ based on the Bible that leads one to trust the Bible? What is the nature of such ‘experience’ and how is it different from ‘I think so and hope so’?

The full truth will be given to us...later.

Would this mean ‘hope’ you will find truth after you die?

[Realworldjack]

.

My question is, what did he have to gain,

Are you asking for a definitive statement regarding potential gains of someone who lived 2000 years ago?

Perhaps a bibliophile can provide such answer.

It can be noted, however, that religion promoters often can gain fame and fortune by convincing people to believe the tales they tell / sell.

along with, what did he actually get out of all of it in the end?!

In the end, the efforts of Paul/Saul and associates gained state sponsorship for their new splinter group religion (though that occurred beyond their lifetime). This might be comparable to the success of LDS after the lifetime of Joseph Smith -- and the success of Islam beyond the lifetime of Mohammad.

Each case exemplifies remarkable success for a well organized PR and promotional campaign (with a little help from promotional violence when possible).

Are you asking for a definitive statement regarding potential gains of someone who lived 2000 years ago?

My friend, I am simply asking that we stick to the facts we have, and we have letters written by Paul, and we also have letters which contain the actions of Paul, and there are facts we can know from these letters.

However, first we need to go back in this conversation, because it is not like I simply "out of the blue" asked, "what did Paul have to gain"? Rather, another poster had this to say, "Paul has an axe to grind, the establishment of a new religion with himself as the head of it".

So, it certainly seems as if this poster is under the impression that we can make "definite statements regarding" the motivation of Paul some 2000 years later, simply by reading these letters?

With this being the case, I am simply asking, "what Paul actually gained by continuing to proclaim these things"? I then went on to actually cite Paul on what he had to say concerning this,

2 Corn. 11:23-28
in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death. Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep. I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren; I have been in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. Apart from such external things, there is the daily pressure on me of concern for all the churches.

My point is, this is what Paul claimed to have endured, and we have other evidence this would be the case, so my question is, even if Paul was out to create a new religion (which he was not) with himself at the head, it does not seem to have worked out so well for him, and what did he really gain from it? That's it.

It can be noted, however, that religion promoters often can gain fame and fortune by convincing people to believe the tales they tell / sell.

This is absolutely true, and Paul himself even acknowledges such things. However, Paul has this to say to the Corinthian Church, "That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge", and he even gives instructions in more than one letter that, pastors, and elders should not be "fond of sordid gain".

So then, as we examine the evidence of the life of Paul, and what all he seemed to have endured, what would any of this have to do with, Paul? What material gain did Paul receive? How did preaching the gospel improve the life of Paul, as he lived out his life? This is the question we are getting at? Not what others may have done, or continuing to do, on top of the fact that Paul speaks out against such things.

In the end, the efforts of Paul/Saul and associates gained state sponsorship for their new splinter group religion (though that occurred beyond their lifetime).

Okay? So again, what did Paul benefit?

This might be comparable to the success of LDS after the lifetime of Joseph Smith -- and the success of Islam beyond the lifetime of Mohammad.

None of these things would have a thing in the world to do with the other. Not to mention the fact that I highly doubt you would really want to actually compare these other things to Christianity as far as the historical evidence is concerned, nor even the gain there may have been for those who were proclaiming these things.

Each case exemplifies remarkable success for a well organized PR and promotional campaign (with a little help from promotional violence when possible).

Again, what may have happened after the initial claims, would have nothing to do with those who first made the claims. Next, I cannot speak for the others, but as far as Christianity is concerned, the overwhelming majority of material which is contained in the NT, would have been addressed to those who would have already been believers, so I do not see how this can be considered, "promotional material"?

In fact, if we take the two letters which were addressed to Theophilus, along with the letters of Paul, we have the overwhelming majority of the content of the NT, and the two letters to Theophilus, is addressed to one individual, while the letters of Paul were addressed to particular Churches at the time, and, or other personal friends, which would be addressing particular concerns in those Churches, and, or with these individuals, and would have nothing whatsoever to do with promoting the religion, since it seems clear that these authors would have had no idea that anyone else would have read these letters other than the original intended audience, and they certainly would have had no idea about any sort of Bible.

The point is, we have just established that the overwhelming majority of the NT, would have nothing to do with, "promoting the religion to the wider world".

[marco]

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

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

I suspect, from what you say, that faith is an expression of hope which, in the future, will be realised (rather than "proved"). The child might hope to get a trainset for Christmas, and so the period of advent would be a period of "unproven hope", while Christmas day might see the hope mature into reality.

I don't see anything wrong with this idea except to say that there will be many children with trainset dreams who find that hope is futile on the day. Hope, however, of water keeps the thirsty wanderer plodding on, and so it must be with faith. We haven't the vaguest idea whether our expectations will bear fruit; we can but hope. This is a sad commentary on most human endeavours.

[ttruscott]

Is this to say that basing decisions on evidence rather than hope ‘misses the mark’?

No it is saying that using evidence (or lack of it) to mean it is proven (or lacks proof) misses the mark.

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

What, exactly, is the meaning of ‘for this time being’? Would that be ‘during our lifetime’ or ‘until we die’?

Yes...

because our personal experience moves us to put our trust in the hope spoken of in the bible.

Does one have personal psychological ‘experience’ based on the Bible that leads one to trust the Bible? What is the nature of such ‘experience’ and how is it different from ‘I think so and hope so’?

I cannot speak for a billion people. The scripture says, Rom 10:16 But not all of them welcomed the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?� 17 Consequently, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. 18 But I ask, did they not hear? Indeed they did: “Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.�… which Barnes concludes means:

but that faith does not exist unless there is a message, or report, to be heard or believed. It cannot come otherwise than by such a message; in other words, unless there is something made known to be believed. And this shows us at once the importance of the message, and the fact that people are converted by the instrumentality of truth, and of truth only.

and which I accept. So yes, faith is produced in the sinful elect by the Spirit bringing the word to us again for us to hear the ring of truth. That the message does not (cannot?) resonate the same in all people is not proof it does not some people.

The full truth will be given to us...later.

Would this mean ‘hope’ you will find truth after you die?

You mean after I leave here and go back to the source? Sure, if not sooner...

[ttruscott]

We haven't the vaguest idea whether our expectations will bear fruit; we can but hope. This is a sad commentary on most human endeavours.

Matt 7:13 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it. is about the worldly gate of trusting only the physical evidence and the small gate of faith, an unproven hope.

The fact that the belief that there is no spiritual component to our reality is also a faith based position of hope that that there is no GOD and no hell waiting for the decison to deny Christian faith is pretty clear. Every plan and all working to create a future is by faith also, an unproven hope your plans and work will not be wasted. So the world lives by faith even though the secular world likes to deny the efficacy of faith to keep us motivated because they deny Christian faith as nothing but wishful thinking, having committed their faith elsewhere.

[marco]

Matt 7:13 Enter through the narrow gate.

Matthew is the man who tells us of walking corpses, so one wonders what possible truth there can be in his talk of narrow gates. I think the man meant well but so, I suppose, did Humpty Dumpty.

The fact that the belief that there is no spiritual component to our reality is also a faith based position of hope that that there is no GOD and no hell waiting for the decison to deny Christian faith is pretty clear.

There may well be a spiritual dimension but I am certain Yahweh isn't in it, nor Hamlet nor David Copperfield. I have no problem with the idea that we are made of atomic particles and those that made Caesar are still around somewhere, maybe in the Kremlin. I am intrigued by the wonders that atomic physics produces, but I smile when somebody called Matthew asserts:

"His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.'

He would be in a straitjacket today.

[bluegreenearth]

We haven't the vaguest idea whether our expectations will bear fruit; we can but hope. This is a sad commentary on most human endeavours.

Matt 7:13 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it. is about the worldly gate of trusting only the physical evidence and the small gate of faith, an unproven hope.

The fact that the belief that there is no spiritual component to our reality is also a faith based position of hope that that there is no GOD and no hell waiting for the decison to deny Christian faith is pretty clear. Every plan and all working to create a future is by faith also, an unproven hope your plans and work will not be wasted. So the world lives by faith even though the secular world likes to deny the efficacy of faith to keep us motivated because they deny Christian faith as nothing but wishful thinking, having committed their faith elsewhere.

Despite the numerous times I've conclusively demonstrated where it is an equivocation fallacy to compare faith in untestable religious assertions with faith in testable secular reasoning (i.e. "planing and working to create a future"), theists continue to deploy this dishonest argument anyway. What will it take to convince theists to discontinue with this false equivocation?

[Zzyzx]

.

What will it take to convince theists to discontinue with this false equivocation?

De-conversion might work -- or abandoning fundamentalist religious beliefs in favor of moderate to liberal beliefs.

Such tactics are most associated with Fundamentalist / Fanatical theistic positions. Those who are fanatical in defense of the indefensible will use any tactics that give the illusion of convincing arguments -- perhaps including the arguments that convinced them to adopt ideas that contradict the real world.

A significant percentage of Non-Theists who debate here de-converted / abandoned religion when they discovered that honest answers to significant questions were not included in, or available from, religious dogma -- and that evasions were common.

Multiple verifications are available at www.ExChristian.net and www.NewExChristian.net and www.clergyproject.org

[bluegreenearth]

.

What will it take to convince theists to discontinue with this false equivocation?

De-conversion might work -- or abandoning fundamentalist religious beliefs in favor of moderate to liberal beliefs.

Such tactics are most associated with Fundamentalist / Fanatical theistic positions. Those who are fanatical in defense of the indefensible will use any tactics that give the illusion of convincing arguments -- perhaps including the arguments that convinced them to adopt ideas that contradict the real world.

A significant percentage of Non-Theists who debate here de-converted / abandoned religion when they discovered that honest answers to significant questions were not included in, or available from, religious dogma -- and that evasions were common.

Multiple verifications are available at www.ExChristian.net and www.NewExChristian.net and www.clergyproject.org

I used to identify as a Christian and valued honesty enough to recognize and admit when my apologetic arguments were demonstrated to be fallacious. If it was possible for me to value intellectual honesty in that way when I was a "Born-Again" Christian, then it should not be unreasonable to expect other Christians to acknowledge where logical fallacies exist in their arguments.