Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1229
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 72 times

Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Post #1

Post by 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?

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Post #31

Post by Danmark »

Aetixintro wrote: [Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]

To this question, I recommend the following:
See Epistemology, Theory of knowledge and truth
- "Faith"/Belief
- Fact
- Justified True Belief (Tripartite after Plato)

See Conviction vis-a-vis "Faith"

See Scientific Method, the Hypothetico-Deductive Method (HDM)
- Experiment (or Way to Discovery, it took science to get the Hubble Telescope operating in space)
- Modus ponens and Modus tollens (logic)
- Observation
- Data

Good? :study: :D 8-)
No, in the sense that it is not helpful. There is little rational debate about the definitions of 'faith' and 'scientific method.'

The issue is their relative reliability. There is little, perhaps no reliability to faith. With faith one can believe anything.
While the scientific method is not infallible, it does not claim to be. But it is reliable enough to send men to the moon; whereas faith allows men to fly airplanes into buildings.

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 1915
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Post #32

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to post 28 by bluegreenearth]
If not science, what other method is sufficiently reliable for use in investigating these sorts of unfalsifiable claims?
And again, the resurrection, is not an "unfalsifiable claim" and you seem to be understanding this more, and more as we go, and we will get to that as we move on.

Next, how in the world would science be able to tell us if an event actually occured in history, or not? It cannot. The only thing science could possibly do in this case would be to tell us if the event would be scientifically possible. However, this would only be an admission on the part of science, that it could not explain the event, if it indeed happened. It would not in any demonstrate the event did not occur.

Moreover, science is not in the business of explaining to us whether the facts, and evidence which may support a particular claim would be good, and solid evidence, because science is not in the business of determining whether historical events have actually happened. This is why in school, we have science classes, and then we have history classes, because these two things would be different.
So, "we should not look to science to answer these sorts of questions," but this is exactly what you seem to be doing by relying upon facts and evidence to suggest it is reasonable to believe an unfalsifiable claim is true.
My friend, science is not the only field which uses, facts, and evidence. You seem to be suggesting that anytime we use, facts, and evidence, we are performing science, and this is not the case.

Next, it is reasonable, and rational, to believe claims, (whether unfalsifiable or not) which have facts, and evidence in support, especially when there are no facts, and evidence to suggest the claim would be false.

This finishes off your argument concerning the "unfalsifiable claims". It may be an opinion which you hold, (and not a very good one as far as I am concerned) that one should remain agnostic concerning "unfalsifiable claims", but this would not be a fact.

In fact, here is how "unfalsifiable claim" is defined from the internet,

Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons.

Two points need to be made here. First, this says nothing whatsoever concerning whether we should remain agnostic concerning the claim. Rather, it is said, the claim should not be "confidently asserted to be true, or false".

Next, it says, "this is usually done without strong evidence, or good reasons". However, as we have seen, there is strong evidence, and good reasons to support the claims of the resurrection.

With this being the case, I have not "confidently asserted that a theory or hypothesis is true, or false", but have rather only "confidently asserted" that there is very good evidence, and reason to believe the claim would be true.

Now, as we couple this with the argument you are making, it gives us even more reason to believe the claim may in fact be true, because you have given us no facts, or evidence which may suggest the argument would be false, but are rather remaining agnostic, which causes us to believe, that there must be no evidence at all that would suggest the claim would be false.

Ergo, if we have very good facts, and evidence to support the claim, with no facts, and evidence to the contrary, then what is one to conclude? I would conclude that we have every reason to believe the claim would be true, and no reason at all to doubt the claim, which would not be the same as, "confidently asserting the claim would be true". This argument, is not working out so well for you, my friend.
Facts and evidence are only useful in attempting to disprove falsifiable hypotheses.
I am afraid not. Facts, and evidence are used for any number of things, including whether there there would be reasons to believe a claim. Do you see what I am saying? Facts, and evidence can determine whether there would be reasons to believe a claim to be true, whether the claim has been proven, or not.
If you are attempting to "prove" an unfalsifiable claim with facts and evidence, then you are not doing science.
That is exactly what I have been attempting to explain to you. The claim in question would have nothing to do with science. Therefore, science cannot help us answer this question. If science cannot help us answer this question, then it would be folly to be, "doing science" in an attempt to answer the question.

Next, and far most, I am not attempting to "PROVE" a resurrection occurred. Rather, what has been proven, is there are indeed facts, and evidence to support the claim, which means we have reason to believe the claim would be true, which is not the same as saying, "the claim would be true".
Instead, what you are doing is submitting to confirmation bias.
No, because I am sticking to the facts, as we have them. I am not confirming that a resurrection has indeed occurred, so this clearly demonstrates, that it is not, "confirmation bias". What I am confirming is, there are facts, and evidence which support the resurrection, and this is a fact which can indeed be proven, which eliminates the possibility of "confirmation bias".

You see, you cannot in any way deny the fact that we have facts, and evidence in support of the resurrection. Ergo, since this would be a fact, this would not be "confirmation bias". Next, I am not insisting that a resurrection has occurred, which eliminates "confirmation bias" since I am not confirming the resurrection.
This is because, if the unfalsifiable claim happens to be false (which is an inescapable possibility), the only thing your facts and evidence has done is mislead you into believing a false claim is true. If the unfalsifiable claim happens to be true, then the facts and evidence would still only function to feed your confirmation bias rather than objectively demonstrate the validity of the unfalsifiable claim.
My friend, exactly how can you demonstrate I have a "bias" toward Christianity? Is this something you know for a fact? Or, is it simply something you assume?

Because you see, the fact of the matter would be, I could very much rather Christianity not be true, but have become convinced it would be true, because of the facts, and evidence involved, and I could have become convinced, in spite of my bias against Christianity.

Whether you would like to believe it or not, what I have just described above, would be far closer to the truth, as far as I am concerned, than my being guilty of, "confirmation bias". In other words, I will assure you that I would rather not believe Christianity to be true, because who would want to believe it?

What I am looking for, is some sort of facts, reason, and evidence to support the fact that the claims would be false, and you are not helping one bit. So what I am looking at is, a pile of evidence that certainly support the claims, with not a shred of evidence which would cause one to doubt the claims, so how would this be, "confirmation bias".
What could you imagine that would falsify the resurrection claim?
As I continue to demonstrate, you do not even seem to understand what an "unfalsifiable claim" actually is. From in internet.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... ifiability
Making unfalsifiable claims is a way to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims are often faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason.
Now, do you see where it clearly says "unfalsifiable claims", "are not founded on evidence, and reason"? This is what I have been trying to tell you. An claim is not "unfalsifiable" simply because it has not been falsified, but rather that there would be no facts, and evidence involved with the claim, and we have facts, reason, and evidence to support the resurrection.

However, even if the resurrection were to be an "unfalsifiable" claim, this would still not necessitate that we should all remain agnostic toward the claim as you suggest. From the same article above, (which you may want to read btw),
All unfalsifiable claims are not fallacious; they are just unfalsifiable. As long as proper skepticism is retained and proper evidence is given, it could be a legitimate form of reasoning.
So then, your "unfalsifiable" argument is defeated right here! Because you see, it says, "as long as proper skepticism is retained". Well, I retain the proper skepticism, because I am more than willing to consider counter evidence, which is one of the reasons I spend so much time on this site.

Next, it says, "as long as proper evidence is given", and we certainly have "proper evidence" to support the claim of a resurrection. So then, the conclusion is,"this could be a legitimate form of reasoning" even though the resurrection would not be an "unfalsifiable claim".
Would you be convinced by the remains of someone named Jesus from the 1st century in Jerusalem buried with a note indicating the body belonged to someone who claimed to be the King of the Jews? This is doubtful because Christians could always argue that the body fragments are from one of the many failed Messiah impersonators that happened share the same common name as Jesus (Yeshua).
All you are doing here is to continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding of what an "unfalsifiable claim" would be.
However, for the sake of argument, let's imagine a discovery of skeletal remains belonging to Jesus could somehow falsify the resurrection claim. If it is the case that the body of the Biblical Jesus is buried somewhere undiscovered, does our ignorance of the existence of this evidence justify the belief that Jesus was resurrected? No, absence of evidence is not evidence of a resurrection. In that hypothetical situation, it would be a mistake to believe a resurrection occurred because the evidence that we imagined would falsify the claim does exist but is not currently known to exist. Therefore, being able to imagine a way to falsify the extraordinary claim is not enough on its own to justify belief in the validity of the resurrection story.
The facts, as we have them are, we have an abundance of facts, and evidence in support of the resurrection, and thus far from you, we have not one reason whatsoever to doubt the claim. Not one!

So then, while you would be correct to say, "absence of evidence is not evidence of a resurrection", when you have an abundance of evidence in support of a claim, and no facts, and evidence which would cause us to doubt the claim, then what are we to conclude from this?

While I do not think we can conclude that a resurrection did indeed occur, I am certain we can indeed conclude we have every reason to believe that it did, and no reason to doubt.

I want to pause here in order to be clear on something. I am not in any way insisting that you believe a resurrection did in fact occur. Rather, I am insisting that there are very good reasons for one to believe it did in fact occur, and this belief would not be based upon faith, but rather upon the facts, and evidence.

Therefore, I do not have a problem with those who do not believe, or doubt. The problem comes in when there are those who insist, that I have no reason to believe the claims.
Remember, we must distinguish between historical claims which have an implicit empirical basis and extraordinary historical claims which do not have an implicit empirical basis. There is nothing relatively extraordinary about the claim that George Washington was a historical person. If you wanted to test your belief about George Washington being a historical person, then it should be reasonable and sufficient to simply investigate if the claim has an implicit empirical foundation. We have empirical evidence that other people exist, empirical evidence that George is a common name for other people, and empirical evidence that other people can become President of the United States. Therefore, the possibility that a person named George could have been President of the United States at some point in the past has an implicit empirical basis.

On the other hand, if the claim was that George Washing was a compassionate extra-terrestrial alien sent to Earth disguised as a human being in order become the 1st American President and influence our species towards a more democratic existence, then we will need to establish an implicit empirical bases upon which this extraordinary belief can be justified. Since there is currently no implicit empirical evidence of intelligent extra-terrestrial aliens visiting Earth disguised as human beings, we have no reason to presume George Washington could have been a visitor from outer space. Even if someone were to produce letters written by alleged eyewitnesses claiming to have observed the 1st American President step out of a flying saucer, the only implicit empirical basis we have is for the historicity of George Washington and not the story about him emerging from an alien space craft.
GOOD GRIEF! All you really had to say here was, we can believe the claims concerning George, because there is nothing extraordinary about the claim. However, the only reason you seem to be giving that we may have to doubt the claims of Jesus is, because they were, extraordinary, because in the end, that is all you are saying. But let's see just how this works out for you, here.
For the exact same reasons, it isn't unreasonable to believe there was a historical 1st century Jew named Jesus who was crucified. We know Jews were living in and around Jerusalem during the 1st century, many of them were named Jesus, and many Jews were crucified. This serves as a sufficient empirical foundation upon which we can assume the claim about a historical Jesus may be reasonably believed.
Well, I certainly appreciate you acknowledging that I would be, reasonable to conclude there was a man named Jesus who was crucified. So, what do I have to base such a belief upon? Well, that would be the facts, and evidence we have, with no facts, and evidence to support any doubt.
We never observe dead people resurrecting unless they were not really dead to begin with.
Agreed! However, the assumption seems to be, that the only things we can believe would be things we have seen, and that if we have not seen these things, then they should not be believed, no matter what the evidence may be.
However, there is empirical evidence of religiously motivated people being emotionally and psychologically primed in such a way as to believe they have observed a dead friend or relative walking around where other non-religious people placed in the exact same situation did not observe anything supernatural at all.
Again, agreed! However, we cannot simply assume this must have been what happened as far as the resurrection, simply because we know this sort of thing does in fact happen.
This observation serves as an implicit empirical basis for the claim that the resurrection story is more likely an embellished legend which developed from a less extravagant and non-supernatural historical event misperceived as miraculous by gullible and grieving religious zealots.
THAT"S IT? REALLY? It "is more likely an embellished legend which developed from a less extravagant and non-supernatural historical event misperceived as miraculous by gullible and grieving religious zealots" simply based upon the fact that we know this sort of thing has happened, and continues to happen, without even going on to understand what evidence we may have to actually support the truth of the claims?

Again, GOOD GRIEF! How about we go on to examine what all would have to be involved for the claim to be false, as opposed to what all would have to be involved for the claim to be true?

Because you see, once you do such a thing, you will certainly discover that it is nowhere as simple as you make it out to be. All you are really doing is to compare these claims with other claims, which you would have no idea would be true, or not, and simply assuming the claim of the resurrection would fit into this same category, without even examining what all would have to be involved for your scenario to be correct.

Again, if this is the way in which you think, then I have no problem with that at all, but I tend to think far more critically than you seem to.

These sort of ideas certainly seems to demonstrate to me, one who really does not understand what we have contained in the NT, otherwise they could not possibly come to such conclusions.

Because you see, in the NT what we have is, letters that were written to different audiences at the time, addressing different concerns, and these authors had no idea that anyone else would be reading their letters, besides the original intended audience, and they certainly had no idea about any sort of Bible, which demonstrates, they were not writing in order to be in any sort of holy book, which demonstrates they had no idea that you, and I would be reading what they wrote to their intended audience 2000 years ago.

In other words, all of the letters contained in the NT, were intended for those who would have already been believers, which demonstrates the authors were not making claims in order to convert anyone, and these letters were simply the by product of their lives, and were never intended by the author to be a witness to the world.
This doesn't eliminate the possibility that God actually raised Jesus from the dead, but it makes the supernatural claim less believable than the one with an implicit empirical foundation.
What would make it less believable to me would be, if there were not so much facts, and evidence in support of the claim, with the only evidence against the claim being, "it is far to extraordinary".

Again, you really need to get into the NT, and begin to examine what all would have to be involved for the claims to be false, because I will assure you, it ain't as simple as you are making it out to be. In other words, it is not as simple as, "there may be other similar claims which may not be true".
If I did not have access to the evidence that would falsify the claim, then I wouldn't not be able to test it. If I cannot test the claim, I can neither falsify nor validate it. As such, I would not be justified in believing the NT does or does not describe the resurrection. For the same reason, belief in the resurrection claim on account of there being no reports of anyone finding the remains of Jesus anywhere is not justifiable. Absence of evidence is not evidence of a resurrection.
You are missing the whole point here, and all of what you say here does not matter in the least. The point is, the resurrection would not fall into the category of an, "unfalsifiable claim". However, even if it did, we have already demonstrated that those who came up with the idea went on to acknowledge that, it could be perfectly reasonable, rational, and justifiable to believe an "unfalsifiable claim" based upon the facts, and evidence involved. Ergo, your argument that we should remain agnostic, is defeated.
Either way, seeking "evidence to support the claim" reveals you are submitting to confirmation bias.
However, I am not simply seeking evidence to support the claim. I am also seeking evidence which would cause doubt, which is one of the reasons I am here on this site. Moreover, if one has a purpose to cause doubt for a claim, and ends up becoming convinced by the evidence that the claim would be true, such is the case with Butterfield, would she be guilty of "confirmation bias".

Your "confirmation bias" argument is not working either, because one cannot be accused of "confirmation bias", unless it can be demonstrated that a person would have a bias toward what they believe, and this cannot be demonstrated in any way at all. In fact, a person can be persuaded something would be true, even if they would rather believe the opposite.
Facts and evidence are only useful for disproving hypotheses which can be tested.
This is false! Facts, and evidence can, and is used in order to determine if there would be any reason at all to believe something to be true, or false. I am not saying the facts, and evidence, "prove" the resurrection, but rather the facts, and evidence, "proves" there is very good reasons to believe it.
If there is no way to test an extraordinary claim that has no implicit empirical basis, the only thing facts and evidence does is feed your confirmation bias.
Again false! One can have a bias towards one position, and be persuaded by the evidence to go against that bias.
If the untestable resurrection claim with no implicit empirical foundation happens to be false (which remains a legitimate possibility since it can't be tested), then it would be logically fallacious and unreasonable for you to seek out facts and evidence to support that false belief. If the untestable resurrection claim with no implicit empirical foundation happens to be true, we cannot demonstrate such an event is either possible or impossible since none of the facts and evidence you've offered function as a satisfactory implicit empirical foundation upon which a test for truth can be constructed.
Again, all you are really doing here is to say that we should not believe the claim because it is, "extraordinary". Moreover, you are attempting to do a science project here, when science is not involved. You have already acknowledged that we would be perfectly reasonable to conclude George Washington would be a real historical figure, and we did not use science in order to do so.

In fact, we also have determined that it would be reasonable to conclude that Jesus would have been a real historical figure based upon the evidence we have, with no science needed. However, we should discount the miraculous reports, simply based upon the fact, they are miraculous, even if the facts, and evidence is in support?

If this is the way in which you would like to operate, then that is fine by me, but please do not insist that it would be a fact, that this is the way we should all operate, because this would not be a fact, and is not the way, history, or science is done. In other words, in neither of these fields is it suggested that we should remain agnostic in the face of the facts, and evidence.
Once again, this seems to be more of a semantic discomfort for you than anything else. So, as previously suggested, substitute the word "untestable" for "unfalsifiable" if that helps you to acknowledge my point.
It does not matter which word you use, the facts would remain the same in the example. When there were those who believed the sun moved, and the earth was stationary, and those who came along and said, "the earth moves, and the sun is stationary" according to your logic, they would be making an "unfalsifiable" or "untestable claim" because they would have no way in which to falsify, nor test the claim, so it does not matter which word you use.
Acknowledging an idea is currently untestable does not destroy it but encourages people to seek out an objective way to have the idea tested where possible.
It destroys the intention of the "unfalsifiable claim" argument, because it was never the intention of those who came up with it, to insist that there would be no reason to believe, "unfalsifiable claims".
My comment was rhetorical because there doesn't appear to be a way for us to acquire that sort of metaphysical knowledge.
That is not what constitutes an "unfalsifiable claim". An "unfalsifiable claim" is one in which there would be no facts, and evidence involved. It is not that we have no way to verify, or falsify the claim.
How do we determine what rules should apply in this case if science is off the table? Why should those rules be universally accepted?
Well, I guess we need to go back to school for a moment. We have history classes, and we have science classes, and there is a reason why they are separate, which is because they are separate fields of study. How can science help us determine if there was a resurrection? It cannot.
There you go... advertising your confirmation bias again.
You cannot insist I am "advertising confirmation bias" unless you can demonstrate I have a bias, and you cannot. The fact of the matter is, I could have a bias against Christianity.
The reason to doubt an extraordinary supernatural claim is because it lacks an implicit empirical basis, and we have no way to test it.
So are you suggesting we should doubt anything that we cannot test? I highly doubt that you have tested everything you accept as being true. At any rate, I need a whole lot more, than simply we should doubt the claim simply because it is extraordinary, when the facts, and evidence certainly seem to support the claim.
The reason we aren't as skeptical about more mundane historical claims is because most of them have an implicit empirical basis that can be tested. Once you've demonstrate the supernatural objectively exists, you can use it as an implicit empirical basis for the resurrection claim. Until then, the claim has no implicit empirical basis which can be tested.
All this really demonstrates to me is, you seem to be under the impression that everything is a science project, and if science cannot confirm it, then we should doubt it.

However, this is not even the way science works.

User avatar
brunumb
Guru
Posts: 2035
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 239 times
Been thanked: 106 times

Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Post #33

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to post 32 by Realworldjack]
Next, how in the world would science be able to tell us if an event actually occured in history, or not? It cannot. The only thing science could possibly do in this case would be to tell us if the event would be scientifically possible. However, this would only be an admission on the part of science, that it could not explain the event, if it indeed happened. It would not in any demonstrate the event did not occur.
So you are saying that science cannot tell us if an event occurred but an unverified account in a book of fanciful tales can. Pfft. Science can, and does, address the credibility of claims concerning historical events. Take the biblical flood for example. Such a catastrophic worldwide event should leave permanent traces. Data can be collected and analysed using techniques such as chemical analysis and radiometric dating etc. Based on such scientific examination the biblical flood has been dismissed as not only never having occurred but also as not even being possible.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
brunumb
Guru
Posts: 2035
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 239 times
Been thanked: 106 times

Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Post #34

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to post 32 by Realworldjack]
You see, you cannot in any way deny the fact that we have facts, and evidence in support of the resurrection.
Yes, we can deny that. All we have is hearsay and unverified accounts of an alleged event. There are no facts and there is no irrefutable evidence in support of the resurrection. Unsupported claims do not constitute evidence.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
brunumb
Guru
Posts: 2035
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 239 times
Been thanked: 106 times

Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Post #35

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to post 32 by Realworldjack]
So are you suggesting we should doubt anything that we cannot test? I highly doubt that you have tested everything you accept as being true.
When it comes to claims of significance such as things relating to the supernatural, then scepticism should always be the default position. If the supernatural is not open to investigation of any sort then it is indistinguishable from the non-existent or imaginary. It is irrational to accept the existence of something that is not demonstrably real. Suggesting that something exists because there is no way to prove it doesn't is just one step further into absurdity.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1229
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 72 times

Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Post #36

Post by bluegreenearth »

[Replying to post 32 by Realworldjack]

Realworldjack,

Adopting your epistemology will require the acceptance of incompatible conclusions. This is because your epistemology can be applied equally well to a variety of extraordinary or supernatural claims in both historical and modern contexts. In other words, every argument you've made in defense of belief in the resurrection can be used to justify a variety of other beliefs about different extraordinary or supernatural claims. When those claims are in support of beliefs in non-Christian gods, we are left with an unresolvable paradox because all of those claims can't be true at the same time.

There are other problems with your reasoning. According to your epistemology, should we all align ourselves with cryptozoologists who seem to deploy similar reasoning in defense of their belief in Sasquatch or lake monsters? What about ufologists or paranormal investigators? Do the facts and evidences they've obtained to support those extraordinary or supernatural claims function to justify their beliefs? Is our inability to locate the facts and evidence which would disprove those extraordinary or supernatural claims serve as a sufficient justification for us to believe in ghosts, big foot, and aliens? Based on your epistemology, we have every reason to adopt all of those extraordinary and supernatural beliefs.

Obviously, you must explain how your epistemology distinguishes a justified belief in an extraordinary or supernatural claim supported by facts and evidence from an unjustified belief in an extraordinary or supernatural claim which is also supported by facts and evidence. You must explain how your epistemology determines when it is reasonable to believe an extraordinary or supernatural claim where no facts and evidence are available that would disprove the claim and when it is unreasonable to believe an extraordinary or supernatural claim where no facts and evidence are available that would disprove the claim. Based on the arguments you've presented thus far, that critical capability has not yet been demonstrated. To the best of my knowledge, only the scientific and secular historiographic methods retain those capabilities.

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 1915
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Post #37

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to post 33 by brunumb]
So you are saying that science cannot tell us if an event occurred
Exactly! This is not what science does. History, is not the field of science. Science, can explain to us if a historical event would be scientifically possible. However, even if science declares an event to be scientifically impossible, would not mean the event did not occur. Rather, it simply means that science would not be able to explain the event, if it did occur.
but an unverified account in a book of fanciful tales can.
Nope! I never said this at all. However, referring to the Bible, as a "book of fanciful tales" demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of what the Bible actually is.

Your problem is, it is a fact we have these accounts of a resurrection, and there are facts, and evidence which support these accounts. So then, exactly what would be the facts, and evidence that would suggest these accounts would be false?

Because you see, it is not enough to simply refer to the Bible as a "book of fanciful tales". Rather, if one is going to hold this position, then they need to be able to demonstrate exactly how this would be the case.
Science can, and does, address the credibility of claims concerning historical events. Take the biblical flood for example. Such a catastrophic worldwide event should leave permanent traces. Data can be collected and analysed using techniques such as chemical analysis and radiometric dating etc. Based on such scientific examination the biblical flood has been dismissed as not only never having occurred but also as not even being possible.
This is completely false. There is evidence of catastrophic events, which is why some scientists have come up with the idea of an, "ice age". I will also point out the fact that there are scientists who hold to the idea that a "worldwide flood" may have been the cause.

Next, as I have already pointed out, you are simply saying that science would not be able to explain the event when you say, "science has determine the Biblical flood to be impossible".

However, we are not talking about the flood here. Rather, we are talking about the resurrection. I am not under obligation to defend the flood.

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 1915
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Post #38

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to post 34 by brunumb]
Yes, we can deny that.
Sure, you can say this, but you have not, and cannot demonstrate this.
All we have is hearsay and unverified accounts of an alleged event.
Here is an example. You are not demonstrating anything here, but are rather simply sharing an opinion. In other words, it is simply an opinion of yours that the accounts we have are "hearsay". You cannot demonstrate that it actually is.

Next, simply because you do not have the ability to "verify" an event, would not in any way whatsoever have any bearing at all, upon whether the event actually occurred.
There are no facts and there is no irrefutable evidence in support of the resurrection.
My friend, there are a pile of facts in support of the, resurrection. In fact, there are so many, we do not have the time, nor the space here to cover them all. However, just to begin with, we have the fact, that we have the reports of a resurrection, and you can in no way explain how, and why we have them.
Unsupported claims do not constitute evidence.
This is true. However, we have the claims in the NT, and one can certainly study these claims, and go on to determine what all would have to be involved for these claims to be false, as opposed to what all would have to be involved for these claims to be true. Or, one can simply assume these claims must be true, or they can simply assume they must be false.

However, if I were going to simply assume these claims would be true, or false, without doing the work necessary to determine what all would have to be involved for that particular position, then I certainly would not spend my time on a debate site, simply sharing my assumptions.

User avatar
brunumb
Guru
Posts: 2035
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 239 times
Been thanked: 106 times

Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Post #39

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to post 37 by Realworldjack]
Your problem is, it is a fact we have these accounts of a resurrection, and there are facts, and evidence which support these accounts.
Nope. There are no facts or evidence in support of the resurrection. We only have unsupported and unverified stories.
Also, the scientific method can be applied in any field to assess the validity of claims. Calling something that happened in the past history and therefore not relevant to the field of science is just a dodge. If an alleged event in the past should have left traces as a consequence of its occurrence, then research and scientific evaluation can be used to assess the credibility of claims regarding that event. Stories and claims and hearsay do not count as substantiating evidence.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 1915
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Post #40

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to post 35 by brunumb]
When it comes to claims of significance such as things relating to the supernatural, then scepticism should always be the default position.
Not only do I agree here, but I go even further to say, "skepticism is always my default position" until, or unless the evidence becomes overwhelming.
If the supernatural is not open to investigation of any sort then it is indistinguishable from the non-existent or imaginary.
Well, the claims of a resurrection are certainly, "open to investigation" and I will assure you there are very good reasons to believe the accounts.
It is irrational to accept the existence of something that is not demonstrably real.
This would not be a fact, but rather an opinion, and not a very good one in my opinion. In other words, we may not be able to demonstrate something absolutely, however, there may be enough evidence to reasonable believe something to be true, based upon this evidence.
Suggesting that something exists because there is no way to prove it doesn't is just one step further into absurdity.
This may be true, but this is not what I am doing. Rather, what I am saying is, there is very good reasons, facts, and evidence to support the claims of the resurrection. This is very different than saying, "something exists because there is no way to prove it doesn't".

Post Reply