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?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 139 by Realworldjack]

You claim to have facts and evidences that qualify as "good reasons" for believing the resurrection story is true. To be clear, the claim that your particular set of facts and evidences qualify as "good reasons" is what I'm focused on, not the claim that the resurrection story is true. I've examined your argument but do not understand how it supports the claim that the facts and evidences you've provided qualify as good reasons. I am respectfully asking that you demonstrate for me how those specific facts and evidences qualify as good reasons? What criteria are you using to distinguish between good reasons, mediocre reasons, and bad reasons? I hope there isn't anything about that request for clarification you find objectionable, but I'm really trying my best to be diplomatic in gaining an accurate understanding of your epistemology.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 139 by Realworldjack]

You claim to have facts and evidences that qualify as "good reasons" for believing the resurrection story is true. To be clear, the claim that your particular set of facts and evidences qualify as "good reasons" is what I'm focused on, not the claim that the resurrection story is true. I've examined your argument but do not understand how it supports the claim that the facts and evidences you've provided qualify as good reasons. I am respectfully asking that you demonstrate for me how those specific facts and evidences qualify as good reasons? What criteria are you using to distinguish between good reasons, mediocre reasons, and bad reasons? I hope there isn't anything about that request for clarification you find objectionable, but I'm really trying my best to be diplomatic in gaining an accurate understanding of your epistemology.

To begin with, it is a fact that we have the claims. However, no one here seems to want to deal with this first fact. In other words, there is indeed a reason we have these claims, and it is not enough to simply say, "all we have are claims" or, "all we have are unverified claims" or "all we have are unfalsifiable claims", as if this would settle the case, because none of this would have a thing in the world to do with, whether the claims would be true or not. The point being, there have been, and will always be, claims which have not been verified, nor falsifiable, that are indeed true.

Therefore, if one is going to insist, I have no reason to believe these claims, then they are then under obligation to demonstrate how we have these claims, why we have these claims, along with the facts, and evidence that would demonstrate these claims to be false.

So then, for example, you may say something like, "the claims are all lies". However, at this point, you would have to be able to go through all that would have to be involved, in order for this to be the case, in order to determine if this would even be a possibility.

Next, we could say, "all these folks were deceived in some sort of way", or we could say, "there may have been others behind the scenes who orchestrated all the facts, and evidence we have", or we could say, "Jesus never really died." But again, we would be obligated to go through all these claims, to determine what all would have to be involved in order for any of these things to even be a possibility.

Again, we cannot just simply say, "all we have are claims" as if this would settle the case, because it does not in the least.

So again, if you are going to insist, I have no good reasons to believe the claims, then you are under obligation to explain to us, how, and why we have the claims, and at this point we can go on to determine what all would have to be involved, in order for your scenario to even be a possibility, along with determining how extraordinary that scenario to be?

Therefore, when, and if, you are able to deal with this first fact we have, this will allow us to move on to the other facts, and evidence we have, otherwise I see no need in moving on, when you either cannot, or will not, deal with this fact.

In other words, you are giving me no reason to doubt the claims, until, or unless, you deal with this first fact that we have, which would allow us to move on to the rest.

[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?

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.

Actually, there is. It's called being able to send men to the moon, medical and technological advances, labor saving devices, improved health et al. made possible by logical positivism, empiricism, science [whatever label you choose]. Stated in a cliche, "Science builds airplanes, faith sends airplanes into buildings."

[Danmark]

To begin with, it is a fact that we have the claims. However, no one here seems to want to deal with this first fact.

Not true. That people of religious faith have claims has been acknowledged thousands of times. Those claims are generally absurd, false, unconfirmed, or entirely speculative. But yes, you have 'claims.' So?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 139 by Realworldjack]
To begin with, it is a fact that we have the claims. However, no one here seems to want to deal with this first fact. In other words, there is indeed a reason we have these claims, and it is not enough to simply say, "all we have are claims" or, "all we have are unverified claims" or "all we have are unfalsifiable claims", as if this would settle the case, because none of this would have a thing in the world to do with, whether the claims would be true or not. The point being, there have been, and will always be, claims which have not been verified, nor falsifiable, that are indeed true.

I'm confused as to how the above comments are in response to my previous post. Are you suggesting the existence of Biblical claims about a resurrection is one of the facts that qualifies as a "good reason" for your belief? If so, what criteria did this fact satisfy to have qualified as a good reason? I'll grant you that it is a reason but need additional information to understand how you determined it was a "good" reason.

Therefore, if one is going to insist, I have no reason to believe these claims, then they are then under obligation to demonstrate how we have these claims, why we have these claims, along with the facts, and evidence that would demonstrate these claims to be false.

I'm not arguing that the existence of these claims isn't a reason or that they are false. I'm asking what criteria did this reason satisfy to have it qualify as a "good" reason.

So then, for example, you may say something like, "the claims are all lies". However, at this point, you would have to be able to go through all that would have to be involved, in order for this to be the case, in order to determine if this would even be a possibility.

I'm not making any such claim. At best, I can only agree that the resurrection claims exist. Whether they are true or false, I can't determine without additional information. Also, I am interpreting your remarks above to be a separate claim. Although it is hidden in the linguistic structure of your comment, it appears you are claiming that the resurrection accounts are not lies. If that is not the message you intend for me to receive, please clarify. If that is your claim, then you have the burden of proof to demonstrate how the resurrection stories are not lies.

Just to keep track, I'll make a list of the claims I think you are making:

1. The existence of claims are good reasons.
2. The claims are not lies.

Next, we could say, "all these folks were deceived in some sort of way", or we could say, "there may have been others behind the scenes who orchestrated all the facts, and evidence we have", or we could say, "Jesus never really died." But again, we would be obligated to go through all these claims, to determine what all would have to be involved in order for any of these things to even be a possibility.

Again, we cannot just simply say, "all we have are claims" as if this would settle the case, because it does not in the least.

Remember, I'm starting from scratch here. I'm not claiming any of the things you've mentioned above are true or false. Neither am I arguing that the lack of any evidence other than the resurrection accounts themselves is sufficient to conclude the claims are false. However, I am interpreting your comments above to mean that you are claiming the authors of the resurrection accounts were not deceived, did not orchestrate the facts and evidence, and Jesus did actually die as described by the claims. If that is not the message you intend for me to receive, please clarify. If those are your claims, then you have the burden of proof to demonstrate how they are valid.

Adding to the list of claims:

1. The existence of claims are good reasons.
2. The claims are not lies.
3. The authors of the claims were not deceived.
4. The authors of the claim did not orchestrate the facts and evidence.
5. Jesus died exactly as reported by the claims.

So again, if you are going to insist, I have no good reasons to believe the claims, then you are under obligation to explain to us, how, and why we have the claims, and at this point we can go on to determine what all would have to be involved, in order for your scenario to even be a possibility, along with determining how extraordinary that scenario to be?

I'll grant that you have identified a reason. This reason, as best as I can assess from your post, is the existence of claims about a resurrection. I could not identify from the content of your post where your claim about this reason being a good reason was validated. I'm asking you to explain what criteria this reason satisfied for it to qualify as a "good" reason. If the four additional claims implied from your response was supposed to demonstrate the validity of your first claim, then your work is incomplete since you have not yet met the burden of proof for the four claims as a necessary precondition.

Therefore, when, and if, you are able to deal with this first fact we have, this will allow us to move on to the other facts, and evidence we have, otherwise I see no need in moving on, when you either cannot, or will not, deal with this fact.

I have granted it is a fact that claims about a resurrection exist, and this fact is one reason for your belief. I'm still waiting for you to explain how that reason qualifies as a "good" reason. To be clear, I am not claiming the reason is a "bad" or "mediocre" reason by asking you to explain your perspective. So, please try not to misinterpret my intent.

In other words, you are giving me no reason to doubt the claims, until, or unless, you deal with this first fact that we have, which would allow us to move on to the rest.

Since I'm trying to play a neutral role, there is no motivation for me to encourage you to doubt. At most, I'll ask critical thinking questions to help me reason through the issue and more accurately understand your perspective.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 144 by bluegreenearth]

I'm confused as to how the above comments are in response to my previous post.

GOOD GRIEF! The first sentence of your post was, "You claim to have facts and evidences that qualify as "good reasons" for believing the resurrection story is true", and I am giving you a fact, and asking you to deal with it. How is this not in response to your post?

Next, you are indeed misunderstanding my point, because I am not "claiming that the resurrection accounts are not lies", nor any of the other things on the list. Rather, this list I gave was simply an example of some of the reasons you may use, in order to explain to us, how, and why we would have these reports of a resurrection in the first place?

As I made clear, "it is not enough to simply say all we have is claims, as if this settles the case, as to whether there would be reasons to believe the claims, because it does not settle the case in the least". So then, we need some sort of reason form you as to why, and how we even have the claims to begin with, along with what all would have to be involved for your scenario to even be a possibility? The list I gave would have simply been examples you may use, but you may have other things in mind, that was not included.

As an example, I happen to believe the reason we have the claims, is because the claims would be true, and I have gone through every scenario I can think of, in order for the claims to be false, and everyone of them would end up being just as incredible, as the claims themselves.

The point is, you need to give me some sort of reasons to doubt the claims other than, "all we have is claims". Maybe, you are satisfied to stop right there, and you require no further investigation to doubt the claims, but this does not satisfy my mind, and so have went on further in order to determine what all would have to be involved for the claims to be false.

Again, I have no problem with you stopping right there, and doubting the claims. My problem comes in when you insist I have no good reasons to believe the claims, when you are not willing to even deal with the facts we can demonstrate, and give us some sort of reason as to why we have these facts?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 145 by Realworldjack]

The point is, you need to give me some sort of reasons to doubt the claims other than, "all we have is claims".

No, that is not the case at all. Doubt is the default position and you have the burden of proof for your claims. It is not up to the one doubting your claims to demonstrate that they are false. All you have done so far is avoided presenting any compelling evidence for the resurrection while clouding that fact with vain attempts to shift the burden of proof.

[Danmark]

I happen to believe the reason we have the claims, is because the claims would be true, and I have gone through every scenario I can think of, in order for the claims to be false, and everyone of them would end up being just as incredible, as the claims themselves.

Here's a 'scenario' for you:

Your claims rest on the New Testament wherein Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans who were murdering Christians:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.

I'm sure victims of the holocaust had this passage in mind as they marched to the gas chamber.
Your claims have a poor foundation.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 139 by Realworldjack]

You claim to have facts and evidences that qualify as "good reasons" for believing the resurrection story is true. To be clear, the claim that your particular set of facts and evidences qualify as "good reasons" is what I'm focused on, not the claim that the resurrection story is true. I've examined your argument but do not understand how it supports the claim that the facts and evidences you've provided qualify as good reasons. I am respectfully asking that you demonstrate for me how those specific facts and evidences qualify as good reasons? What criteria are you using to distinguish between good reasons, mediocre reasons, and bad reasons? I hope there isn't anything about that request for clarification you find objectionable, but I'm really trying my best to be diplomatic in gaining an accurate understanding of your epistemology.

To begin with, it is a fact that we have the claims. However, no one here seems to want to deal with this first fact.

I would also like to chime in here and point out this is patently false. In fact, some of us have been repeatedly saying that this is ALL we have. i.e. the claims in the Bible.

The point is: Yes, we have claims. Now what?

The next thing to address is are these claims disconnected such that any extraordinary claims within have some chance at unbiased corroboration. It appears, and you admitted, that these claims are indeed connected. i.e. these people either knew each other and/or were copying/adding to what the others had already written.

Connected and/or biased claims (i.e. to promote a religion) do not exactly hold a lot of sway. It is understood that this does not make the claims false. No one here has said "thus these claims are false". We have simply pointed out that these types of claims don't make for 'good' evidence that they are true since they appear to be well connected.

In other words, there is indeed a reason we have these claims, and it is not enough to simply say, "all we have are claims" or, "all we have are unverified claims" or "all we have are unfalsifiable claims", as if this would settle the case, because none of this would have a thing in the world to do with, whether the claims would be true or not. The point being, there have been, and will always be, claims which have not been verified, nor falsifiable, that are indeed true.

No one is arguing against this. You appear to be misunderstanding what people are saying.

Yes, we have claims. The very basic reason we have these claims is because someone wrote them down. The next logical questions to ask are who wrote them and why?

Well, we have a problem right away because most of the claims are anonymous. When anonymous people claim things, it's hard to ascertain their motivation or figure out if these people actually really knew anything or were just writing down what they heard/read from others.

The next issue is that these anonymous (for the most part) claims are also not even claiming to be first hand witnesses. So why did these claims get written down? Well, it appears they were just writing down what other people told them. This is hardly convincing stuff.

Again, none of this rules out the claims being true, but it certainly casts doubt on them being 'good' evidence for something we have no real world experience with. i.e. bodies that have been dead for a number of days spontaneously coming back to life, wandering around, then flying off into the sky.

Therefore, if one is going to insist, I have no reason to believe these claims, then they are then under obligation to demonstrate how we have these claims, why we have these claims, along with the facts, and evidence that would demonstrate these claims to be false.

Classic strawman. No one here, that I've noticed, is claiming you have NO reason. YOU were the one claiming you have 'good' reasons. Your burden of proof or at least burden to back up with something.

So then, for example, you may say something like, "the claims are all lies". However, at this point, you would have to be able to go through all that would have to be involved, in order for this to be the case, in order to determine if this would even be a possibility.

Strawman number 2. Who said they were lies?

Next, we could say, "all these folks were deceived in some sort of way", or we could say, "there may have been others behind the scenes who orchestrated all the facts, and evidence we have", or we could say, "Jesus never really died." But again, we would be obligated to go through all these claims, to determine what all would have to be involved in order for any of these things to even be a possibility.

Strawman number 3

Again, we cannot just simply say, "all we have are claims" as if this would settle the case, because it does not in the least.

No on is saying the case is settled, we are asking you for the 'good reasons' to accept the only thing we have which are the claims. Strawman number 4?

So again, if you are going to insist, I have no good reasons to believe the claims, then you are under obligation to explain to us, how, and why we have the claims, and at this point we can go on to determine what all would have to be involved, in order for your scenario to even be a possibility, along with determining how extraordinary that scenario to be?

Strawman number 5. Who has said you have NO good reasons to believe these claims? We are busy waiting for YOU to tell us these good reasons. So far all we have been presented are yet more claims. What can we do to verify any of it?

Therefore, when, and if, you are able to deal with this first fact we have, this will allow us to move on to the other facts, and evidence we have, otherwise I see no need in moving on, when you either cannot, or will not, deal with this fact.

Already dealt with. We have claims. Granted, pointed out, and even researched. The claims we have are mostly anonymous, written well after the events, and appear connected through textual analysis by scholars on both sides (religious and secular). We can even go read our own Bibles in multiple translations and/or original languages to compare for ourselves what we have. On top of that, by looking in our Bibles, we appear to have ALL the claims collected in one spot for easy reference.

In other words, you are giving me no reason to doubt the claims, until, or unless, you deal with this first fact that we have, which would allow us to move on to the rest.

What do you mean we've given you NO reason? I just gave a bunch of reasons to consider above and they have been given before in this very thread. It is granted that you may dismiss these reasons and consider them not an issue, but we have certainly provided some reasons to consider.

There has been a whole lot of back and forth in this thread and the sum total as far as I can tell is that we have the claims in the Bible. That's it.

If there were some good corroborating claims from obviously disconnected sources or some sort of physical evidence to be examined, etc. it would have been proudly plonked down pages ago. One can only assume any following 'evidence' is going to simply assume the preceding claims must be true in order to continue. Why else hold onto any other evidence to be considered?

[bluegreenearth]

GOOD GRIEF! The first sentence of your post was, "You claim to have facts and evidences that qualify as "good reasons" for believing the resurrection story is true", and I am giving you a fact, and asking you to deal with it. How is this not in response to your post?

Your comments are not in response to my post because I specifically asked what criteria a reason must satisfy in order to be labeled as a good reason from your perspective. For instance, an example of one criterion someone might establish would be that the reason must have an implicit empirical basis to be a good reason. A criterion set by someone else might be that, for a reason to be a good reason, it must correspond or be consistent with Christian theology. So, according that person's criterion, the existence of claims about a resurrection would qualify as a good reason. If the first example criterion is being considered, then the fact that claims exist would be a reason but not a good reason because the claims themselves have no implicit empirical basis. Now, I'm not here to dictate what your criteria should be but am asking you to explain the criteria you've established for yourself.

Next, you are indeed misunderstanding my point, because I am not "claiming that the resurrection accounts are not lies", nor any of the other things on the list. Rather, this list I gave was simply an example of some of the reasons you may use, in order to explain to us, how, and why we would have these reports of a resurrection in the first place?

I don't have enough information to claim knowledge of how and why these resurrection claims came to exist. Do you have any information for me to consider?

As I made clear, "it is not enough to simply say all we have is claims, as if this settles the case, as to whether there would be reasons to believe the claims, because it does not settle the case in the least". So then, we need some sort of reason form you as to why, and how we even have the claims to begin with, along with what all would have to be involved for your scenario to even be a possibility? The list I gave would have simply been examples you may use, but you may have other things in mind, that was not included.

Remember, I'm starting over from scratch here. I haven't indicated that the case was settled. Why do I have the burden of proof for claims I haven't made? Other people have certainly made those claims and should defend them accordingly. I don't know how or why these resurrection claims came to exist. Maybe you will offer an explanation in the comment below.

As an example, I happen to believe the reason we have the claims, is because the claims would be true, and I have gone through every scenario I can think of, in order for the claims to be false, and everyone of them would end up being just as incredible, as the claims themselves.

If a resurrection occurred, then that would serve as one reason for the existence of claims about the event. Whether that is a good reason or not will depend on the criteria you've established. For a reason to be good, does it have to be demonstrable according to your criteria? If so, has anyone been able to demonstrate that a resurrection can occur to know such an event can serve as an explanation for the existence of these claims about a resurrection? If that is not part of the criteria you've set for yourself, then please indicate what qualifications a reason must satisfy to be considered "good" in your perspective.

The point is, you need to give me some sort of reasons to doubt the claims other than, "all we have is claims". Maybe, you are satisfied to stop right there, and you require no further investigation to doubt the claims, but this does not satisfy my mind, and so have went on further in order to determine what all would have to be involved for the claims to be false.

Any reason that doesn't meet your criteria for being labeled as a "good reason" will be your reason to doubt the claim. For instance, let's imagine Pat's criteria requires that a good reason be demonstrable. If the proposed explanation for the existence of these resurrection claims is that a resurrection occurred, then the inability to demonstrate the possibility of a resurrection will disqualify the proposed explanation as a "good reason" according to Pat's criterion. Therefore, Pat would be justified in doubting that a resurrection is a good explanation for the existence of these claims about a resurrection.

Of course, you might have a different set of criteria for what qualifies as a good reason. Once you've identified those criteria for me, I can use them to assess whether the reasons you've given qualify as "good reasons" from your perspective.