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?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 58 by Realworldjack]

Why don't we start out easy here? It is a fact, we have the reports of a resurrection, from numerous disconnected sources. So then, what is your explanation to explain this fact?

We have reports of people from numerous disconnected sources seeing Elvis Presley alive and well weeks after his reported death. Hardly a hook to hang your hat on. You refer to reports as if that gives the unverified stories some credibility. It doesn't.
You keep repeating that we have a wealth of facts and evidence supporting the case for the resurrection. Why don't you just list the compelling facts and evidence for consideration?

Or even just listing the 'numerous' and 'disconnected' sources for the resurrection would be a start. As far as I'm aware, they are all contained in the Bible, which is neither numerous nor disconnected. Heck, some of them are anonymous and few of them claim to be direct witnesses of the event. i.e. what we mostly have are anonymous/disputed authorship of claims of people claiming a resurrection. Hardly what I would call "numerous disconnected sources" for any facts. I would call it some hearsay from a small pool of people promoting a religion.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 55 by bluegreenearth]

You keep misinterpreting my point. I can't really blame you for that, though, because it is my responsibility to describe my perspective in way that is understandable. Your responses are an obvious indication of my failure in that regard. I'll try to simplify the issue as best as I can in order to avoid confusion where possible. Forget everything you think you know about my position from our previous correspondences and start over from scratch.

I think you are doing a fine job articulating your position, and I think I understand your position just fine, but let's take a look and consider what you have to say here.

I am the only one here with the capability and authority to determine if someone else has properly understood my position since I am the only one inside my head. I've read your responses and determined that you are either missing my point or are deliberately ignoring it. If my responses do likewise for your point, please indicate as such. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will assume the failure of our responses to properly address my intended point is a consequence of my failure to adequately describe it.

Correct, and I notice that you use the words, "extraordinary", and "supernatural" to describe the events, and it is my guess, that if the events described were ordinary events, then you would have no problem believing the reports yourself, because the evidence would be overwhelming.

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

One of the things I believe we really need to consider is how, and why in the world have millions, upon millions, maybe even in the billions by now, come to believe these reports? Are we to simply assume there is no reasons at all to believe these things, and all these millions, upon millions, are simply gullible folk, and we are way more intelligent than they are? Or, should we look at the fact that there are indeed very good reasons to believe these reports, which would be the reason for the millions, upon millions, who have believed the reports?

The Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy in your reasoning doesn't necessary mean the claim is false, but it is a valid justification for my skepticism. However, I'll consider the possibility that a majority of people with limited information could be convinced to believe they have good reasons to support a claim. Whether those reasons are actually good is often a matter of subjective opinion.

When I used to be a Christian, prior to becoming familiar with some of the common logical fallacies inherent to apologetic arguments and before learning how to think critically, I thought my reasons for believing the resurrection were good in the same way that you do now. I've since come to the understanding that any reasons I give myself for believing a claim is true are subjectively good until I discover otherwise. Until you discover otherwise, I expect you will continue to insist you have good reasons to believe the resurrection claim. Where I take issue is when you assert that I should accept your reasoning is good enough. Maybe the available facts and evidence are good enough for you to believe the resurrection claim, but I'm not convinced by them.

Next, I think we also need to consider, how in the world could a man who left us nothing in writing at all himself, who was crucified, dead, and buried, and then somehow becomes the most significant figure in the history of the world, and has had the most impact on the world in all of it's history, going on 2000 years now, to the point he continues to consume the life of millions of folks today, including those who do not believe the reports, who spend much of their time, day, after day, on a web site, desperately attempting to shed the world of this impact he has had for all these 2000 years?

If it wasn't Christianity, some other man-made religious cult would have strategically benefited from political endorsement and subsequently forced upon a nation of people in the middle East during the ancient past. I'll grant you that Christianity was sufficiently pliable to permit its own evolution in such a way as to maintain its relevancy through 2000 years of human progress. It has also been brutally authoritarian enough throughout its existence to discourage mass apostasy. However, just because Christianity happened to fill that extraordinary role in history, it doesn't follow that this should be a good reason for me to believe its claims are true.

I am telling you, what I have just describe above, is indeed extraordinary! So then, how in the world could all of this have happened? Do we simply assume these ordinary followers of Jesus somehow pulled all this off? Because I am here to tell you that, these men all lying does not add up, along with the idea that they were all somehow deceived. So, how did we get where we are today?

The truth of what actually occurred is irretrievably lost to history. It is not only plausible but likely that the surviving stories are legends. Legends exist at the foundation of every major civilization including the United States of America. Not all legends involve supernatural events either. The story about George Washington chopping down a cherry tree is considered to be a legend and contains no supernatural elements. So, I'm skeptical about the cherry tree legend for the same reason I'm skeptical about the resurrection legend.

Of course, I am not saying that this should cause anyone to believe the reports, but I do believe it is enough to say that we may better hold off on the idea that the extraordinary events somehow disqualify the reports, because either way we go, we are dealing with the, extraordinary.

The perspective you offer above is a type of agnosticism and doesn't function as a reason for believing the resurrection claim. In other words, you say we can't claim to know the reports are true, but we may better hold off on believing the claim is false regardless of its extraordinary nature. I've never disagreed with that reasoning.

I'm not skeptical of the resurrection because it is extraordinary but because the reasons given for believing the claim is true are not convincing to me. I cannot control what will or won't convince me. Otherwise, I could choose to believe any claim by simply choosing to be convinced by any reason given in support of it. The reality is that a "good" reason to believe a claim will the reason that convinces me to accept it. If I'm unconvinced by the reason, it isn't a good reason from my perspective.

You might argue that I have not provided a good reason not to be convinced by the facts and evidence supporting the resurrection claim, but that is an attempt to shift the burden of proof where it doesn't belong. I have never made the positive claim that the resurrection did not occur. Otherwise, I would accept the burden of having to defend that position. Instead, I've only attempted to identify where your defense of the resurrection claim is unconvincing to me.

My friend, when there are very good reasons to believe the reports, and you tell me I should doubt the reports, but go on to tell me you have no avenue in which to cause this doubt, in the face of all the reasons to support the claims, this gives me all the more reasons to understand there good reasons to believe the reports, and no good reasons to doubt. These are the facts, I have to go on.

You keep asking me to give you reasons to doubt the resurrection claim, but I can only demonstrate where I am not convinced by the reasons you've given for believing the reports. I'm not sure why you are convinced by those reasons and am trying my best to respectfully understand your perspective. If the reports are supposed to be sufficiently reliable enough to warrant belief in the resurrection claim, why do I remain unconvinced by them? Please feel free to help me discover if there are any errors in my thinking that many be preventing me from reaching a reasonable conclusion. In the mean time, I don't feel like I'm being deliberately biased, unreasonable, or illogical. Therefore, intellectual honesty compels me to disagree with the assertion that the available facts and evidence are good enough.

We have very good facts, reasons, and evidence to support the case of the resurrection. One of your objections is, you do not posses the ability to falsify the claim. I would think that objection would be over ruled in any court of law. In fact, I highly doubt you would attempt to make such an objection.

In a court of law, the objective is to demonstrate a defendant is guilty of committing a crime; not to demonstrate the defendant is innocent. A "not guilty" verdict never requires a defense in a court of law. At the same time, a verdict of "not guilty" does not necessarily mean the defendant is innocent even if that is presumed on the outset. Just because there was insufficient evidence to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty, it doesn't follow that the defendant's innocence was demonstrated.

In the case of Jesus, he has been accused of resurrecting from the dead along with other violations of the natural laws. The default position of the Judge and Jury at the onset of the trial must be that Jesus is presumed to be not guilty of resurrecting until sufficient evidence is provided by the Christian prosecuting team to falsify that presumption beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no requirement on the part of the defense to demonstrate that Jesus did not resurrect.

As a member of the jury, I am evaluating the available facts and evidence provided by the prosecuting team to determine if they meet the burden of proof necessary to falsify the presumption that Jesus is not guilty of resurrecting. At this point, none of the arguments and evidence that has been presented thus far serve to falsify the presumption of "not guilty" beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the verdict of "not guilty" does not require me to prove Jesus did not resurrect.

My understanding of your perspective is that the presumption of "guilty" must be falsified, and it is the responsibility of the defense to demonstrate Jesus did not resurrect. If that is how you are approaching this issue, it is obviously inverted.

Now, I would like to bring up something you seem to be avoiding. I have made the point that, "I am unaware of any other religion, or extraordinary claim, that would have historical facts, and evidence to support it, which would come close to comparing to the historical facts, reasons, and evidence we have in support of the resurrection"?

So, my point was that the tactic of referring to facts and evidence in support of a religious belief is not unique to Christianity. A variety of different faith traditions deploy the same tactic. They all claim to have facts and evidence to support their beliefs. Comparing the quantity and quality of facts and evidence supporting each competing religious belief will not function to rule any of them out. Having more and better facts and evidence for one claim than a completely different claim does nothing to justify one belief more than the other either. At best, the comparison would only identify which belief was more likely influenced by confirmation bias. As such, there is no reason to engage in such a useless exercise. (By the way, confirmation bias subconsciously influences people in such a way that it has an effect even when people don't want the conclusion they've arrived at to be true. I can provide more details on that later.)

The only way to justify a belief is by using it to make future testable predictions and observing if it accurately functions in that capacity. Without that capability, all you have is a useless belief. What future testable predictions do belief in the resurrection or belief in the night flight make? As far as I can tell, neither of those beliefs would serve to reliably help me make more informed decisions during my life.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 59 by brunumb]

We have reports of people from numerous disconnected sources seeing Elvis Presley alive and well weeks after his reported death.

Okay? So I will ask you the same question here. In other words, it is a fact that we have reports of "Elvis sightings" after his death. So, do you have an explanation for this fact?

In other words, have you studied the facts, and evidence which may be in support of these sightings, to determine if there may be indeed reasons to support these sightings? You know like, maybe there were folks who saw someone who looked like Elvis playing an extra in a movie, and then much later someone came along and verified that the man who looked like Elvis was indeed his father, who was an extra in that movie, and that his dad had since passed away?

You see, in this way, you would be using facts, and evidence to support the idea that these "Elvis sightings" were not "Elvis sightings" at all. As it is, all you seem to be doing is to assume these "Elvis sightings" are false, without actually investigating all the facts, and evidence involved, and then going on to compare these sightings, to the reports of the resurrection.

In other words, you really have no idea if the "Elvis sightings" would be true, and rather simply assume they are false, which then causes you to assume there would be no good facts, and reasons to support the claims, and going on to compare this to the resurrection, which you also would have no idea if it were true or not, and if there would be any good reasons to believe this claim, and then assuming from this comparison, that the resurrection must be false, simply because you assume the "Elvis sightings" must be false.

This is extremely fallacious thinking because, even if you could demonstrate beyond any doubt, that every one of the "Elvis sightings" would indeed be false, this would have no bearing whatsoever upon whether the resurrection would be false, of if there would be any good evidence in support of the resurrection.

The point is, there is a reason we have the reports of the resurrection. We are also given the reason for the reports, by at least one of the authors, who explained to his audience at the time, which would have been someone by the name of Theophilus, that he was giving an "orderly account of the things which had occurred".

Therefore, there is no need in us moving on to any other facts, and evidence we may have, until you deal with this very first fact. So then, the question to you would be, how, and why do we have the reports of the resurrection, and what would be the facts, and evidence we have which would be in support?

As an example, (and this is only an example, because maybe you have something else in mind) you could say, "those who reported, were all lying about the events". However, we would need the facts, and evidence which may support the idea they were lying, and simply comparing the claim of the resurrection, to other claims you assume are false, and even to claims you may be able to demonstrate would be false, is not in any way whatsoever, evidence that the claim of the resurrection would be false.

So again, unless, or until, you are able to give us an answer for the reason we have these reports, with the facts, and evidence in support, then all we have to go on is, the facts, and evidence we have in support of the claims being true, which is all I am seeing at this point, and there would be no reason to move on to all the other facts, and evidence in support of the resurrection, until, or unless, you have an answer for this very first fact, which would be evidence.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 61 by benchwarmer]

Or even just listing the 'numerous' and 'disconnected' sources for the resurrection would be a start.

Okay, you have the author of Matthew, the author of Mark, the author Luke, the author of John, along with the author of the letters of Paul.

As far as I'm aware, they are all contained in the Bible, which is neither numerous nor disconnected.

Okay? I just listed 5 authors, so how many does it take to make it numerous?

Next, if you insist the authors would have been connected in some sort of way, exactly how would they have been connected?

Heck, some of them are anonymous

Which is exactly my point! In other words, if you concede the authors were anonymous, meaning we cannot know who they were, and when, and where they may have wrote, then how can we know they would have been connected in any sort of way?

few of them claim to be direct witnesses of the event.

Well here is a fact. The author of the two letters to Theophilus does in fact claim to have been an eyewitness to many of the things he records concerning the life, and missionary journeys of Paul, and we have very strong evidence to support the fact that this author would have traveled with Paul, for a good number of years on these journeys.

Now, do you understand what this would mean? Well allow me to explain. This would mean, this author would have been alive during the time of Jesus. It would also mean, this author would have known, and spent a good deal of time with the original Apostles, and would have understood completely the claims they were making. In other words, from this author, we are getting first hand information, from those making the claims.

I would call it some hearsay from a small pool of people promoting a religion.

Opinion noted. However, what we would need is some facts, and evidence in support of this opinion, which may compare the the facts, and evidence I have just supplied.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 63 by Realworldjack]

In other words, have you studied the facts, and evidence which may be in support of these sightings, to determine if there may be indeed reasons to support these sightings? You know like, maybe there were folks who saw someone who looked like Elvis playing an extra in a movie, and then much later someone came along and verified that the man who looked like Elvis was indeed his father, who was an extra in that movie, and that his dad had since passed away?

In other words you acknowledge that there are many other explanations for the sightings other than a resurrected Elvis. That makes the alleged sightings of Jesus pretty poor on the scale of compelling evidence. Got anything better?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 64 by Realworldjack]

The author of the two letters to Theophilus does in fact claim to have been an eyewitness to many of the things he records concerning the life, and missionary journeys of Paul, and we have very strong evidence to support the fact that this author would have traveled with Paul, for a good number of years on these journeys.

You are still failing to realise that unsupported claims do not constitute evidence. That is even more significant when we cannot even irrefutably establish the identities of the people making those claims. You have yet to supply anything compelling to support your case.

[Danmark]

Okay, you have the author of Matthew, the author of Mark, the author Luke, the author of John, along with the author of the letters of Paul.
.....
Okay? I just listed 5 authors, so how many does it take to make it numerous?

And all, save Paul are anonymous. We don't know who they were or what the basis of their claims were. We are left with Paul, who never saw Jesus tho' he lived at the same time. We have Paul who contradicts the first half of his life. We have Paul who had some kind of medical event that left him blind and delirious and apparently guilt ridden, who, after 3 days without food or drink, told the world of the thoughts or dreams he had when he was delirious.

THAT is your basis for belief based on faith? Only 'faith' would presume to be a foundation for such utter nonsense. One can have 'faith' in anything. Faith is the most unreliable method of knowing ever invented.

"Faith" = confirmation bias.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 64 by Realworldjack]

The author of the two letters to Theophilus does in fact claim to have been an eyewitness to many of the things he records concerning the life, and missionary journeys of Paul, and we have very strong evidence to support the fact that this author would have traveled with Paul, for a good number of years on these journeys.

You are still failing to realise that unsupported claims do not constitute evidence.

Are you suggesting that the author of Luke does not support his claim with evidence?

.... Or that the writer of Acts was not a travelling companion of Paul? (although that is not something he implicitly states)

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 61 by benchwarmer]

Or even just listing the 'numerous' and 'disconnected' sources for the resurrection would be a start.

Okay, you have the author of Matthew, the author of Mark, the author Luke, the author of John, along with the author of the letters of Paul.

And you believe these are all disconnected?

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



Given the obvious connection between the gospels and their dating, we've essentially just gone from 5 sources to 3. I don't consider people copying other peoples work and adding in new stuff to be original sources of information, at least the copied portion.

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

Historical-Critical Scholarship
More modern, historical-critical scholarship generally states that the Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66"70,[16] Matthew and Luke around AD 85"90,[17] and John AD 90"110.[18] Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and none were written by eyewitnesses.[19] Like the rest of the New Testament, they were written in Greek.[20]

As described above, these were all written at least 30 years after the fact and NONE were eyewitness accounts.

So what we have from the original 5 is maybe 3 original claims of other people claiming something.

As far as I'm aware, they are all contained in the Bible, which is neither numerous nor disconnected.

Okay? I just listed 5 authors, so how many does it take to make it numerous?

Your 'numerous' just went to 'a few' as shown above.

Next, if you insist the authors would have been connected in some sort of way, exactly how would they have been connected?

See above. I suggest some research into what Biblical scholars have to say about the composition of the Bible.

Heck, some of them are anonymous

Which is exactly my point! In other words, if you concede the authors were anonymous, meaning we cannot know who they were, and when, and where they may have wrote, then how can we know they would have been connected in any sort of way?

By textual analysis. i.e. what was copied essentially verbatim from where and what was original. See above and Biblical scholarship.

few of them claim to be direct witnesses of the event.

Well here is a fact. The author of the two letters to Theophilus does in fact claim to have been an eyewitness to many of the things he records concerning the life, and missionary journeys of Paul, and we have very strong evidence to support the fact that this author would have traveled with Paul, for a good number of years on these journeys.

Great, so you have a claimed witness to Paul who himself did not witness the actual resurrection. Paul himself goes on to claim there were witnesses. So, we have a claim to be a witness to a man who himself claims that there were people who claimed they saw a resurrection. Wow. How does that help you?

Now, do you understand what this would mean? Well allow me to explain. This would mean, this author would have been alive during the time of Jesus. It would also mean, this author would have known, and spent a good deal of time with the original Apostles, and would have understood completely the claims they were making. In other words, from this author, we are getting first hand information, from those making the claims.

As shown above, claims about people making claims. Not an eyewitness, just another person making claims.

I would call it some hearsay from a small pool of people promoting a religion.

Opinion noted. However, what we would need is some facts, and evidence in support of this opinion, which may compare the the facts, and evidence I have just supplied.

Facts and evidence provided above. Go research some actual Biblical scholarship. All you have presented is evidence of claims being made by mostly anonymous people who are then claiming other people claimed something.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 69 by benchwarmer]

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