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?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 69 by benchwarmer]

And, do we know the true identity of ANY of these writers except Paul? And who wrote Q the hypothetical source of the synoptic gospels?

And to further muddy the waters, there may not even be a Q. We may simply have the author of Matthew or Luke copying the other one. i.e. the order might be Mark, Matthew, Luke as proposed by Austin Farrer:

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

What's abundantly clear is that these sources are not disconnected. I thought we were promised numerous, disconnected sources? So much for facts.

Our evidence so far, as presented, is claims made by people that other people have made some claims. I would be hard pressed to believe a modern day story based on such flimsy hearsay. I would guess, if push came to shove, most theists wouldn't buy into something this flimsy in another realm such as real estate, car buying, or anything else not related to their favorite religion.

If you found a pamphlet with no author that claimed someone they know is selling a car they've never seen themselves, but is sure it is a good deal, would you call the number and give the person your credit card number to buy the car?

[Danmark]

Not exactly. For instance, there is a scene described in the gospels where Jesus is praying in a garden while the Apostles who arrived there with him were asleep. Presumably, Jesus was praying in silence. So, even if someone happened to briefly observe him praying while passing through the area, how would the author of the text know what Jesus was praying about? Even if Jesus was praying aloud, the text does not indicate anyone else heard his prayer. As such, how would the author of the text know what Jesus was doing at that time, let alone know the content of his private thoughts? This third person omniscient perspective is a literary device used by authors for fictional character development. There is nothing extraordinary about someone praying in a garden, but the fictional literary style of the narrative is a justifiable reason for me to doubt that particular event occurred precisely as described in the text.

[emphasis applied]
This is an excellent point (among many in the post) that again proves the mysterious, anonymous authors of the gospels could not have known what they were talking about; that they used standard fictional techniques for their work. Of course the apologist will always fall back on the magic of their supernatural claims. But this puts the lie to their attempt at reliance upon "witness accounts." They cannot have it both ways. They cannot suggest we should believe because of eye witness verification while using supernatural (magical) explanations for how the witnesses observed.

[Zzyzx]

.

Not exactly. For instance, there is a scene described in the gospels where Jesus is praying in a garden while the Apostles who arrived there with him were asleep. Presumably, Jesus was praying in silence. So, even if someone happened to briefly observe him praying while passing through the area, how would the author of the text know what Jesus was praying about? Even if Jesus was praying aloud, the text does not indicate anyone else heard his prayer. As such, how would the author of the text know what Jesus was doing at that time, let alone know the content of his private thoughts? This third person omniscient perspective is a literary device used by authors for fictional character development. There is nothing extraordinary about someone praying in a garden, but the fictional literary style of the narrative is a justifiable reason for me to doubt that particular event occurred precisely as described in the text.

[emphasis applied]
This is an excellent point (among many in the post) that again proves the mysterious, anonymous authors of the gospels could not have known what they were talking about; that they used standard fictional techniques for their work. Of course the apologist will always fall back on the magic of their supernatural claims. But this puts the lie to their attempt at reliance upon "witness accounts." They cannot have it both ways. They cannot suggest we should believe because of eye witness verification while using supernatural (magical) explanations for how the witnesses observed.

I’ve raised the omniscient narrator issue several times – without any apparent effect on Apologists. Could it be that they do not understand that no one can know what another person thinks or says or does when they are alone? Can they not accept that omniscient narrator is a point of view for FICTIONAL writing?

Perhaps if one is inclined to think in magical terms, omniscience isn’t considered unusual (or impossible) for humans.

Similarly, it is difficult to get across the idea that a story claiming ‘there were witnesses’ is NOT an eyewitness account.

Or, is refusal to recognize such flaws just a matter of denial and diversion?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 73 by Zzyzx]

I note that neither your, nor my, nor bge's posts have been responded to. Bluegreenearth made several excellent points in his post that I quoted, yet RealworldJack, while responding to others, has not responded to BGE's. I await his or others' responses. It may be the apologists have no good rebuttal.
Neither have I heard any response to my claim that 'faith' = 'confirmation bias.'

Faith is not a 'method for determining truth.' It is not an epistemology at all. Faith is simply believing what one has been taught.

[Zzyzx]

.

Bluegreenearth made several excellent points in his post that I quoted, yet RealworldJack, while responding to others, has not responded to BGEs. I await his or others' responses. It may be the apologists have no good rebuttal.

Bluegreenearth makes MANY excellent points, as do other Non-Theists. Some seem irrefutable.

The response is often NO response at all. Dead silence. Crickets.

I trust that readers notice and recognize that compelling points have been made and that there is no response.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 75 by Zzyzx]

We should try to model the behavior we expect from others. In the interest of being fair and patient, I recommend we give theists the benefit of the doubt for the time being. It is possible they are preoccupied with other things in their lives at the moment or are taking the time to think critically about our posts before submitting responses to them (one should hope). If they value intellectual honesty, they will indicate if our objections have at least temporarily stumped them for the time being. Otherwise, we can just continue to wait patiently.

... or maybe they've all been raptured unbeknownst to us.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 76 by bluegreenearth]

I do not disagree. However, after debating here for twelve years, I still await answers to difficult questions. Many who are no longer with us may have gone to their reward.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 77 by Zzyzx]

Maybe some of us non-theists could pretend to respond to each other's posts from the perspective of a theist? However, we must not deliberately straw-man the theist position we attempting to emulate. Otherwise, if and when theists return to this thread, they will likely object to our role-play exercise.

Actually, this gives me an idea for another thread...

[Zzyzx]

.

Maybe some of us non-theists could pretend to respond to each other's posts from the perspective of a theist? However, we must not deliberately straw-man the theist position we attempting to emulate. Otherwise, if and when theists return to this thread, they will likely object to our role-play exercise.

When reading some Apologist responses I have often wondered if the person posting is a shill – pretending to be Christian and making inane comments in an effort to make Christianity look foolish.

If anyone is doing so, don’t waste your time because many ‘True Believers’ manage the task remarkably well on their own.

Over the years I have observed many Christian Crusaders joining the Forum intent upon slaying the infidel. They typically present ‘killer arguments’ (such as Pascal’s Wager) that evidently are compelling to audiences in church and where opposition is absent. However, on our level playing field, where their position is not granted special status or treatment, those tired arguments are shot full of holes. Some come up with innovative arguments which seem to hold up even worse.

Some hang on using fancy footwork, word games, translation gymnastics, word salads, obfuscation, evasion, and/or restricting their defense to their personal version of Christianity (which can be modified at will to suit the occasion).

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 79 by Zzyzx]

I feel compelled to agree with your assessment. It is likely that any serious attempt to emulate the Christian perspective on our part will be met with objections.