Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

[bluegreenearth]

For example:

Hebrews 11:3

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at Gods command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

There are numerous verses following the one above that equally proclaim, "By faith," something is understood or known to be true. Therefore, in this context, "faith" is being encouraged for use as an epistemology. How does "faith" function to reliably distinguish true claims from false claims or does it fail in that regard? What would demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Christian community that "faith" is not a reliable tool for discovering what is true or false?

[Don McIntosh]

To the degree that "faith" means "belief" (of a particular religious kind), therefore, faith is an essential aspect of (a particular religious kind of) knowledge. If this is what Scripture means when it says "by faith we understand," then it seems there's not much objectionable about an "epistemology of faith" " and when compared to self-defeating atheistic epistemologies like logical positivism, much to commend it. The problem, of course, is that this faith still needs to be true and justified. But those are separate questions.

The way you are defining "faith" does not appear to be consistent with the way it is being used in the context of Hebrews 11: 1-31. In those verses, "faith" cannot be equivocated with mere "religious belief" because it would be circular reasoning to declare that a religious claim is believed to be true by way of a religious belief. You are welcome to adopt such an epistemology but would have no justification for objecting when people from competing religious traditions utilize it to declare their beliefs are known to be true by faith.

As for logical positivism, that epistemology doesn't define atheism and is not necessarily endorsed by most modern atheists. If you brought that up because you think all atheists are logical positivists, please don't make that assumption in the future. Thanks.

Note that your OP referenced Hebrews 11:3, which (as you pointed out yourself) does seem to address the idea of an epistemology of faith " and not the entire eleventh chapter of Hebrews, which explores various facets of faith and the life of faith. (In that sense "faith" is a lot like "science" and a host of other words, in that it may convey different shades of meaning as the immediate contexts change.)

Yes, it would be circular reasoning to assert that a claim is justified (or rightly "believed to be true" as you put it) by nothing more than a belief in the claim. But I was not trying to justify the claim. In fact, I specifically stated that whether the religious belief in question is justified is a separate question.

What I did say, and maintain still despite some vigorous hand-waving on your part, is that belief, whether religious or otherwise, is an essential aspect of knowledge. Again, that's because for there to be knowledge there must be subjective or willing knowers " thinking beings like you and me. Note also that even the most self-evident of propositions are termed "properly basic beliefs" by most epistemologists. The upshot of all this is that there is no reason on the face of it to think that religious belief (faith) should not be an essential aspect of a perfectly reasonable religious epistemology.

And no, I did not suggest that all atheists are logical positivists, which is why I referred to "self-defeating atheist epistemologies like logical positivism." Notice the use of the plural, "epistemologies," and the use of "like," which in context alludes to epistemologies that are atheistic and yet are not positivism. That should have been enough to tell you that I understand there to be more than one atheist epistemology, which should have told you in turn that I don't understand logical positivism to be the only epistemology held by atheists.

Now please try to spend less time blaming me for fallacies I have not committed, and more time constructing arguments that are not aimed at straw men.

[Danmark]

What I did say, and maintain still despite some vigorous hand-waving on your part, is that belief, whether religious or otherwise, is an essential aspect of knowledge.

Here, simply stated, is your refutable blunder. "Belief" may be necessary for knowledge, but belief is just as likely to confer false 'knowledge' as the genuine article. One may, and frequently does, believe in a lie. Once a lie is taught, it is kept alive by confirmation bias. That is what faith is, confirmation of a false religious belief.

Religionists themselves tacitly believe this in two demonstrable ways:
1) They believe all gods but their own are false gods.
2) They frequently resort to attempts OTHER THAN faith to 'prove' their false belief.

In other words, they attempt to use science, history, and triple hearsay to 'prove' their god is the one true god. They openly admit, tacitly, that faith is NOT a way to prove anything, thus they use phony science and suspect historical accounts to convince the nonbeliever.

Faith is not an epistemology; it is mere belief or hope.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 124 by bluegreenearth]

The thing here is, you have not demonstrated where I have straw-manned your argument? As an example, you accuse me of this when I say, "you seem to have a lot of faith in your doubt", and in post 122 I tell you exactly why it seems this way by reading exactly what you say yourself, and you have not as of yet explained how I would be misrepresenting your position?

Moreover, and again, when one uses the word, "seems" they are not making a definite statement, and are asking for clarification. So then, could you please deal with these issues, before accusing someone?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 124 by bluegreenearth]

The thing here is, you have not demonstrated where I have straw-manned your argument? As an example, you accuse me of this when I say, "you seem to have a lot of faith in your doubt", and in post 122 I tell you exactly why it seems this way by reading exactly what you say yourself, and you have not as of yet explained how I would be misrepresenting your position?

Moreover, and again, when one uses the word, "seems" they are not making a definite statement, and are asking for clarification. So then, could you please deal with these issues, before accusing someone?

Your comment below is what frustrated me:

The difference between us seems to be, you seem to be under the impression that any time you doubt something to be true, that this is some sort of evidence the claim must be false, while I understand that my doubt would have no bearing upon the matter.

While the word "seem" is a convenient linguistic tactic for avoiding or refuting accusations of straw-manning, your invalid assumption was conveyed nonetheless.

I have never directly stated or implied that doubt is a justification for believing a claim is false. Doubting the validity of claim is to assume an agnostic posture. Intellectual honesty requires doubt to be the default position until the claim has met its burden of proof. It is my understanding of your position (correct me if I'm wrong) that the available facts and evidence has satisfied the burden of proof for the resurrection claim. After examining the available facts and evidence for myself, I am not convinced that the burden of proof has been met. This appears to be where we disagree.

[Danmark]

....I referred to "self-defeating atheist epistemologies like logical positivism."

What is "self defeating" about holding that the ultimate basis of knowledge rests upon public experimental verification or confirmation; i.e. logical positivism?

[bluegreenearth]

Note that your OP referenced Hebrews 11:3, which (as you pointed out yourself) does seem to address the idea of an epistemology of faith " and not the entire eleventh chapter of Hebrews, which explores various facets of faith and the life of faith. (In that sense "faith" is a lot like "science" and a host of other words, in that it may convey different shades of meaning as the immediate contexts change.)

At least in the NIV translations, the phrase "by faith" is given as the method by which something is known to be true in each of those verses. Faith, as an epistemology, is not like science in that it assumes the conclusion is true on the outset and submits to confirmation bias as way to support itself. Science, as an epistemology, mitigates for confirmation through the principle of falsification.

Yes, it would be circular reasoning to assert that a claim is justified (or rightly "believed to be true" as you put it) by nothing more than a belief in the claim. But I was not trying to justify the claim. In fact, I specifically stated that whether the religious belief in question is justified is a separate question.

What I did say, and maintain still despite some vigorous hand-waving on your part, is that belief, whether religious or otherwise, is an essential aspect of knowledge. Again, that's because for there to be knowledge there must be subjective or willing knowers " thinking beings like you and me. Note also that even the most self-evident of propositions are termed "properly basic beliefs" by most epistemologists. The upshot of all this is that there is no reason on the face of it to think that religious belief (faith) should not be an essential aspect of a perfectly reasonable religious epistemology.

I never argued against knowledge as a subset of belief. I also acknowledge that faith is an essential aspect of a "religious" epistemology. My contention is that faith is an unreliable epistemology for distinguishing empirical knowledge from belief because its ability to be applied equally in support of competing and incompatible religious claims produces logical contradictions.

And no, I did not suggest that all atheists are logical positivists, which is why I referred to "self-defeating atheist epistemologies like logical positivism." Notice the use of the plural, "epistemologies," and the use of "like," which in context alludes to epistemologies that are atheistic and yet are not positivism. That should have been enough to tell you that I understand there to be more than one atheist epistemology, which should have told you in turn that I don't understand logical positivism to be the only epistemology held by atheists.

Now please try to spend less time blaming me for fallacies I have not committed, and more time constructing arguments that are not aimed at straw men.

The message is nonetheless received as a blanket accusation that every epistemology utilized by atheists is self-defeating. I have not stated my epistemology in this thread because the intention is to evaluate the reliability of faith as an epistemology. If you would like to evaluate the reliability of some other epistemology, feel free to start a new thread where we can examine it together.

[Don McIntosh]

Note that your OP referenced Hebrews 11:3, which (as you pointed out yourself) does seem to address the idea of an epistemology of faith " and not the entire eleventh chapter of Hebrews, which explores various facets of faith and the life of faith. (In that sense "faith" is a lot like "science" and a host of other words, in that it may convey different shades of meaning as the immediate contexts change.)

At least in the NIV translations, the phrase "by faith" is given as the method by which something is known to be true in each of those verses. Faith, as an epistemology, is not like science in that it assumes the conclusion is true on the outset and submits to confirmation bias as way to support itself. Science, as an epistemology, mitigates for confirmation through the principle of falsification.

I understand that this may be how you honestly feel about the concept of faith. But it's one thing to simply describe faith as conclusion-assuming, bias-confirming, and so on, and another to explain exactly why faith should be so described. In the absence of such explanation, your description appears, ironically enough, to assume a conclusion without justification.

And in considering the history of science itself, I could not agree that science is a reliable epistemology. Take cosmology. First we had Ptolemy's system, which put Earth at the center of the universe. Then we had Copernicus' system, which put the Sun at the center of the universe. And then we were given big bang cosmology, which basically says that there is no identifiable center of the universe at all.

I never argued against knowledge as a subset of belief. I also acknowledge that faith is an essential aspect of a "religious" epistemology. My contention is that faith is an unreliable epistemology for distinguishing empirical knowledge from belief because its ability to be applied equally in support of competing and incompatible religious claims produces logical contradictions.

I would say the same about science, and will go you one further with a specific example: it's still widely acknowledged that two of our best scientific theories, quantum mechanics and general relativity, are inconsistent with one another. As Hawking said, "they cannot both be correct." Now if our best scientific theories are sources of reliable knowledge, q.m. and g.r. should both be correct. If they are not both correct, then our best scientific theories are not sources of reliable knowledge.

The message is nonetheless received as a blanket accusation that every epistemology utilized by atheists is self-defeating. I have not stated my epistemology in this thread because the intention is to evaluate the reliability of faith as an epistemology. If you would like to evaluate the reliability of some other epistemology, feel free to start a new thread where we can examine it together.

Once I have carefully explained why positivism is not the only atheist epistemology (and I only accused positivism of being self-defeating), if someone still interprets it as a blanket accusation it's no longer my problem. Meanwhile your own message is a blanket accusation against the epistemology of the entire "Christian community," is it not? And yet it would not describe my own epistemology, let alone the highly evidential understanding of faith held by someone like, say, Richard Swinburne.

Part of the confusion here, I think, is that you say that faith itself functions "as an epistemology," or "the method by which something is known to be true," which suggests that in principle faith simpliciter is all that a religious person needs to know something is true. Yet I don't know of any religious person who honestly thinks, for example, that the speed of light in a vacuum would be twelve miles an hour, or that Austin would be the capital of Minnesota, if only someone really believed it.

As for starting a new thread: my thinking is that pointing out deficiencies in (at least some) atheists' epistemologies can be part of an effective rebuttal to an argument against a faith-centered religious epistemology, and therefore I see no reason not to mention that in this thread. Not even a well-crafted OP can determine the future course of a debate.

[Don McIntosh]

....I referred to "self-defeating atheist epistemologies like logical positivism."

What is "self defeating" about holding that the ultimate basis of knowledge rests upon public experimental verification or confirmation; i.e. logical positivism?

Basically the problem is that the truth of the principle itself cannot be experimentally verified or confirmed.

Consider the statement: "The ultimate basis of knowledge rests upon public experimental verification or confirmation." There is no publicly accessible experimental means by which to verify or confirm the truth of such a statement. But the statement's content suggests that all knowledge derives from experimental verification or confirmation. So the statement is self-defeating.

[bluegreenearth]

I understand that this may be how you honestly feel about the concept of faith. But it's one thing to simply describe faith as conclusion-assuming, bias-confirming, and so on, and another to explain exactly why faith should be so described. In the absence of such explanation, your description appears, ironically enough, to assume a conclusion without justification.

The way the phrase "by faith" is interpreted with consideration given to the context of the verses from the book of Hebrew was the explanation I gave.

And in considering the history of science itself, I could not agree that science is a reliable epistemology. Take cosmology. First we had Ptolemy's system, which put Earth at the center of the universe. Then we had Copernicus' system, which put the Sun at the center of the universe. And then we were given big bang cosmology, which basically says that there is no identifiable center of the universe at all.

The inherent self-correcting mechanism contained within the process of science is what makes it a reliable epistemology. Your criticism actually demonstrates the reliability of science as an epistemology in that science is able to: 1) identify where it was in error and 2) update itself accordingly.

I would say the same about science, and will go you one further with a specific example: it's still widely acknowledged that two of our best scientific theories, quantum mechanics and general relativity, are inconsistent with one another. As Hawking said, "they cannot both be correct." Now if our best scientific theories are sources of reliable knowledge, q.m. and g.r. should both be correct. If they are not both correct, then our best scientific theories are not sources of reliable knowledge.

Although it might seem counter-intuitive, the gauge for reliability in science is not the ability to always produce a single correct answer but whether its proposed explanations are falsifiable yet survive every test designed to falsify them. More importantly, reliability is also determined by a scientific explanation's ability to make future testable predictions.

For example, paleontologists used the Theory of Evolution to predict that the ancestor of all amphibians should be a transitional species featuring a skeletal structure with characteristics of both fish and amphibians. The Theory of Evolution also predicted this animal would have appeared between 360 and 390 million years ago because amphibian fossils from around the world do not appear in rock layers older than that. Going back further than 390 million years ago, fish are the only vertebrate fossils in the geologic record. After 360 million years ago, four-footed vertebrates that lived on land are observed in the fossil record. So, using the Theory of Evolution, the paleontologists predicted that a fossil of this unknown transitional species would most likely exist in sediments deposited around 375 million years old. Having formed a falsifiable hypothesis, these scientists decided to test their prediction by attempting to find a fossil that matched the predicted skeletal structure in rock strata comprised of sediment deposited during the predicted age range.

Previous research on amphibians predicted that the transitional species would have lived in freshwater. Accordingly, the paleontologists searched geologic maps for places in the world where rock strata composed of sediment deposited in ancient freshwater environments during the predicted age range were accessible for fossil hunting. Eventually, a site matching the predicted criteria was identified on Ellesmere Island in Canada. After five years of digging on Ellesmere Island, a fossil precisely matching the description of this previously unknown transitional species emerged from the rock as predicted by the Theory of Evolution.

The discover of this new transitional species that Theory of Evolution predicted would have existed between 360 and 390 million years ago not only validates the Theory of Evolution but provides further validation for geological dating methods. The paleontologists had to rely on these dating methods to help them determine where they would most likely discover the fossil.

In response to your criticism, the existence of two or more competing or incompatible scientific explanations for something is not a mark of unreliability but a feature of its self-correcting mechanism. Thanks to this remarkable feature of science, we were able to determine that an even more reliable scientific explanation awaits our discovery which will incorporate quantum mechanics with general relativity.

Once I have carefully explained why positivism is not the only atheist epistemology (and I only accused positivism of being self-defeating), if someone still interprets it as a blanket accusation it's no longer my problem. Meanwhile your own message is a blanket accusation against the epistemology of the entire "Christian community," is it not? And yet it would not describe my own epistemology, let alone the highly evidential understanding of faith held by someone like, say, Richard Swinburne.

I suppose if you want to adopt a different interpretation of what "by faith" means in the verses I referenced, that is your prerogative. Meanwhile, my message about using faith as an epistemology was in response to the way every Christian I've encountered thus far clams the phrase "by faith" should be interpreted from the book of Hebrews and in response to every Christian apologetic I've ever been offered on the subject. So, if I've made a blanket accusation, it is because the use of faith as an epistemology was presented to me by Christians as a blanket concept.

Part of the confusion here, I think, is that you say that faith itself functions "as an epistemology," or "the method by which something is known to be true," which suggests that in principle faith simpliciter is all that a religious person needs to know something is true. Yet I don't know of any religious person who honestly thinks, for example, that the speed of light in a vacuum would be twelve miles an hour, or that Austin would be the capital of Minnesota, if only someone really believed it.

I'm only describing "faith as an epistemology" the way every Christian I've encountered thus far has conveyed it to me. If they meant something different, it wasn't articulated to me as such.

As for starting a new thread: my thinking is that pointing out deficiencies in (at least some) atheists' epistemologies can be part of an effective rebuttal to an argument against a faith-centered religious epistemology, and therefore I see no reason not to mention that in this thread. Not even a well-crafted OP can determine the future course of a debate.

Fair enough, though, I haven't described an "atheist epistemology" in this thread for you to rebut. I should point out that there are really no such things as "atheist epistemologies" because the epistemologies many atheists use are not necessarily confined to atheism. A pragmatic epistemology, for example, can serve an atheist but doesn't necessitate the rejection of theism.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 124 by bluegreenearth]

The thing here is, you have not demonstrated where I have straw-manned your argument? As an example, you accuse me of this when I say, "you seem to have a lot of faith in your doubt", and in post 122 I tell you exactly why it seems this way by reading exactly what you say yourself, and you have not as of yet explained how I would be misrepresenting your position?

Moreover, and again, when one uses the word, "seems" they are not making a definite statement, and are asking for clarification. So then, could you please deal with these issues, before accusing someone?

Your comment below is what frustrated me:

The difference between us seems to be, you seem to be under the impression that any time you doubt something to be true, that this is some sort of evidence the claim must be false, while I understand that my doubt would have no bearing upon the matter.

While the word "seem" is a convenient linguistic tactic for avoiding or refuting accusations of straw-manning, your invalid assumption was conveyed nonetheless.

I have never directly stated or implied that doubt is a justification for believing a claim is false. Doubting the validity of claim is to assume an agnostic posture. Intellectual honesty requires doubt to be the default position until the claim has met its burden of proof. It is my understanding of your position (correct me if I'm wrong) that the available facts and evidence has satisfied the burden of proof for the resurrection claim. After examining the available facts and evidence for myself, I am not convinced that the burden of proof has been met. This appears to be where we disagree.

Your comment below is what frustrated me:

All the while, I am being accused of "straw manning" and using tactics to avoid this accusation, and I am not frustrated in the least, because I am more interested in the truth of this matter, than I am whether there are those accusing me of something, I am convinced I am not guilty of.

While the word "seem" is a convenient linguistic tactic for avoiding or refuting accusations of straw-manning, your invalid assumption was conveyed nonetheless.

The word "seems" demonstrates clearly one is assuming, and asking to be corrected, and I said as much, which made this abundantly clear. Here are some of the exact things I said in that post,

The reason why I use the words "seems" is because I am assuming here

This clearly demonstrates, I am asking for correction from you concerning your position. The whole quote here was,

The reason why I use the words "seems" is because I am assuming here that you would be under the impression that "the improbability of him faking his death justifies your doubt" that Elvis actually faked his death?

I then immediately, go on to question "if I am correct"?

If I am correct here, then the difference between us is, I am not attempting to justify my doubt, where you would be?

Do you see the question mark at the end of the sentence? What would that mean? You then go on to say,

Even though you have a justification for doubting the conspiracy theory

To which I respond by ASKING,

But you see, I have never said such a thing, because this would not be the case concerning me, so I am ASSUMING then, that this would be the position you hold, which is, there is justification for the doubt, which would mean we hold two opposing positions concerning our doubt, with me not attempting to defend my doubt as being justified, while you seem to be under the impression that it would be justified?

So, as we can clearly see, I am pointing out the fact that I am assuming, and then again there is the question mark at the end of the sentence which clearly demonstrates that I am asking to be corrected.

You then ask this question,

According to your perspective, do the people making the claim about Elvis faking his death have a justified belief?

To which I clearly respond,

My answer was, and still is, "I would not know, and do not care to know", while I am assuming you hold the position that, these folks would not "have a justified belief"?

Again, everyone who reads this would clearly see that I am not claiming this is your position, but am rather asking for clarification, as the question mark clearly indicates.

I then begin my next sentence by clearly acknowledging I may be incorrect by saying,

So then, unless you can correct my understanding of your position

I do not know how this could have been more clear? The whole sentence reads,

So then, unless you can correct my understanding of you position, then it would seem that I would be justified in understanding this would be a difference between us, and I would not have been, straw-manning you.

This is clearly asking, and giving you the opportunity to correct my understanding of the position you hold.

I have never directly stated or implied that doubt is a justification for believing a claim is false.

And this is why I made this point, all the while using the word "seems" giving you an opportunity to correct my understanding,

And all you seem to be using to justify, that they would not be justified in their belief is the "improbability of Elvis faking his death" which I see as nothing but doubt, and so you seem to be placing far more faith in your doubt, than I would ever place in my own doubt.

All I am doing here is to ask for a clarification of your position, because as it stands, this is the way it SEEMS to me?

Doubting the validity of claim is to assume an agnostic posture.

ag-nos-tic
/anstik/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

I do not see anything in this definition about doubt? I would think "doubt" would be to consider to be, unlikely?

Intellectual honesty requires doubt to be the default position until the claim has met its burden of proof.

This is simply an opinion, and not a very good one in my opinion. Rather, I believe we should operate by facing the facts we have. This means, I acknowledge the fact that I cannot demonstrate these reports would be true, but I can go on to share the facts, and evidence we have concerning these reports, and give the reasons why I am convinced these reports would be true, while not insisting that everyone should see it in the same way.

In this way, we all have the freedom to use our own minds, and come to our own conclusions, not insisting that everyone should think, and or believe as we do, which means it would be fine for you to hold the opinion that it is best to be agnostic, as long as you are not insisting that I must do the same.

It is my understanding of your position (correct me if I'm wrong) that the available facts and evidence has satisfied the burden of proof for the resurrection claim.

You would be incorrect, in that I have never said such a thing. What I have said is, "we can all look at the same exact facts, and evidence and come to completely different, and opposing potions, and it is possible that we could both have very good reasons for the position we hold".

So then, I am not insisting that all should believe, and think like I do, and I am also not condemning anyone, who may think differently. My problem comes in when there are those who insist I do not have good reasons for the position I hold, when they fail to demonstrate this to be the case.

After examining the available facts and evidence for myself, I am not convinced that the burden of proof has been met. This appears to be where we disagree.

No, we agree completely at this point, and I have no problem in the least with you holding this position. In fact, I would not even attempt to argue that you would not have good reasons to hold this position.

As an example, one my say they, "do not believe the claim because the claim is far to extraordinary, because a resurrection is impossible", and I would agree that this would be a good reason to have doubts.

You see, I have no problem with someone stopping right there who may not be interested in going any further to investigate the facts, and evidence involved, and rather simply chooses to doubt the claim based on this conclusion, because as I have said, "I do the same thing myself with many things".

However, when I do decide to doubt a claim because I am not interested enough to thoroughly investigate the facts, and evidence involved, I do not then go on to insist that those who believe the claim, have no reason for their belief, and I certainly do not insist that their "default position should be doubt, until the claim has met the burden of proof".

So then, to be clear, my position is, there are good reasons to believe the claim of the resurrection, and I am not insisting that there would be no reasons to doubt the claim.

With this being the case, it SEEMS I give everyone the liberty to examine the facts, and evidence themselves, and use their own mind to come to their own conclusions, while there are others who SEEM to be insisting that everyone should hold the same exact position they happen to hold, when they cannot in any way whatsoever demonstrate the position which they hold, would be the correct position.