Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

[bluegreenearth]

For example:

Hebrews 11:3

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

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

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 287 by Realworldjack]

If we had certain evidence which would suggest that Paul recanted much of his story, or that Paul may have went on living his life just as he did before he had this so called "conversion", would you think this would be considered evidence against the resurrection claim?

We have no way of ascertaining any of Paul's motives. None of what you have said can be construed as evidence for an actual resurrection. It remains just a story.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 285 by Realworldjack]

However, if you would like to compare the two, then from what I understand, Smith attempted to add witnesses to the so called, "golden tablets", and then one, by one, some of these witnesses began to recant, with some even leaving the Church.

At least Joseph Smith could present actual signatures of bona-fide witnesses. You have nothing but unsupported claims.

Nothing but unsupported claims and now what appear to be baseless assertions. Although it seems some/most of the witnesses left Smith's church, I could find no evidence of any of them recanting. If someone has a link showing otherwise please share. In fact, all info I found talks about the fact that even though many of the original witnesses were excommunicated or left, they never actually recanted.

It's ironic that modern day people will buy into baseless claims from thousands of years ago, but quickly brush off similar claims with bona fide witness statements from the recent past. It's all hogwash of course because some of us demand actual verifiable evidence beyond simple hearsay.

[Danmark]

Now, as we compare this to Paul, we do not hear a peep at all of Paul recanting what he claimed to have witnessed, nor does the author of the two letters to Theophilus.

Smith never recanted either. Just like Paul, he doubled down and wrote more, claiming his additional writings were from God as well. Fortunately unlike Paul's work, we actually have some of the original works Smith 'translated.' We know they are frauds because we can now translate Egyptian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_ ... of_Abraham

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 284 by Danmark]

First you say it has nothing to do with credibility, then you give as your first example that it has EVERYTHING to do with credibility. When you assess facts and evidence, credibility is of supreme importance; your own example demonstrates why.

What my examples demonstrates is that my cousin had no credibility, and yet this had nothing whatsoever to do with what he had reported to me being true, or false. In other words, I added his credibility into the equation, as one of the reasons I should discount what he had reported, only to discover he had reported the exact truth.

The only thing credibility has to do with, is whether one can take your word, without any other sort of facts, and evidence. In other words, there may be times when you really need someone to simply take you at your word, and if you have no credibility, then it would be very difficult for one to do such a thing. Credibility has nothing to do with whether someone may be reporting the truth, at the time.

Ergo, we should not consider the credibility of a reporter, as to whether they may be telling the truth, unless this may be all we have to go on. Otherwise, we should always think critically concerning everything, and examine all claims, as closely as we can, no matter the credibility of the reporter. With this being the case, I would never suggest that anyone simply take the word of Paul, or any of the Biblical writers, but rather instead, go on to examine what all would have to be involved for these reports to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved for the reports to be false?

Despite your own example proving the opposite, you continue with

I do not know what in the world you are talking about when you say, "proving the opposite", because my example proves exactly what I wanted it to prove, which was, the credibility of my cousin, had nothing whatsoever to do with whether he was reporting the truth, or not. In other words, he has no credibility, and yet he spoke the exact truth, concerning something which would be extremely difficult to believe, because it was an amazing tale. So how would that be, "proving the opposite"?

Obviously credibility is important.

True, but important for what? Can credibility to used to determine whether one is telling the truth? In the tale of, "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" how was this boy's credibility important? Could his credibility be used to determine if he was reporting the truth? Well, no it could not, because when he did in fact spot a wolf, folks used his credibility to determine the truth of his report, only to discover, it is not wise to do so.

So then, it is true that credibility is important in that you may need folks to be able to simply take your word when needed. However, if there are other facts, and evidence to consider, then the credibility of the reporter would not be a factor, and the reporter can simply point out the facts, and evidence, so that no one would have to depend on any sort of credibility.

This is exactly what the Biblical writers did at the time. In other words, they were not simply asking folks to take them at their word. Rather, they were pointing to facts, and evidence such as the empty tomb. This is also exactly why Paul referred to the 500 who were reported to have seen Jesus alive after death, and went on to tell his audience at the time, "most who are still alive to this day", in order to demonstrate to his audience, "here are folks you can talk to about this".

The point is, the Apostles were not asking folks to take their credibility into account. In fact, let us take a look at some of the words these men used. They used words like, witness, eye witness, testimony, testify, defense, convict, convince, evidence, judge, judgement, proof, etc. So.......? Where would one hear these sort of words on a daily basis?

Just as obviously there are additional factors, such as whether what the person reports is fantastic and defies the laws of physics and common sense experience.

Just like your cousin's, Paul's report fails on both counts.

All I can think of here is, you must have read my example of my cousin wrongly, because, my cousin's report, failed on his credibility, it failed on it being a fantastic story that I still find hard to believe, however, it passed with flying colors as far as the truth is concerned. The whole point here is, I took into account my cousin's credibility, in order to dismiss the report, when if I had ignored his credibility, to go on to examine the facts, and evidence which may have been involved, I may have arrived at the truth of the matter, years before.

However, you are correct to say, "there are additional factors, such as whether what the person reports is fantastic and defies the laws of physics and common sense experience". However, do you suppose this is all that needs to be considered? Or, would there be other factors as well, which need our consideration? In other words, should we go on to consider what all would have to be involved in order for these ordinary men to have pull such a thing off, in the face of all the obstacles they were encountering? Or, should we simply dismiss the case, simply because the claims are fantastic?

I have said this numerous times here on this site. It is not as simple as many Christians make it out to be, when they say things like, "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it". However, I will assure you that it is not as simple as many of those opposed make it out to be.

His claim is fantastic AND Paul has an axe to grind, the establishment of a new religion with himself as the head of it.

As far as the claim being "fantastic" you would be correct. However, I do not believe, Paul, and the other Apostles were out attempting to demonstrate that a resurrection would be possible. Rather, they certainly seemed to understand the claims they were making would be "fantastic", and they seem to be proclaiming the "fantastic" has happened, and they continued to do so in the face of trouble, as the former life of Paul would demonstrate.

As far as, "Paul having an axe to grind" this would be an opinion, and not a very good one, and I would like to see the facts, and evidence involved to demonstrate such a thing?

It seems to me Paul, "had an axe to grind" when he was out persecuting the Church? You see, Paul pretty much had it made before his conversion, and had every reason to attempt to put a stop to this movement. In other words, "an axe to grind". Once he converted, he had, decades of painful journeys, and according to Paul, here is what he endured,

in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death. Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep. I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren; I have been in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure.

As far as, "the establishment of a new religion with himself as the head of it"? Well, after reading the above, it certainly did not seem to pay off. We can also throw in the fact that we have pretty strong evidence that Paul was indeed imprisoned late in his life, for proclaiming these things, and we also have certain evidence that this imprisonment lasted some 2 years. He had a nice life, "with himself as the head"?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 285 by Realworldjack]

However, if you would like to compare the two, then from what I understand, Smith attempted to add witnesses to the so called, "golden tablets", and then one, by one, some of these witnesses began to recant, with some even leaving the Church.

At least Joseph Smith could present actual signatures of bona-fide witnesses. You have nothing but unsupported claims.

You can continue saying these sort of things, but your facts do not add up. We have at least 5 different claims of the same resurrection, which means they would all support each other.

Moreover, we have these claims in the form of personal letters addressed to particular audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea, that you, and I would be reading these letters, some 2000 years letter.

The point is, what we have contained in what we call the NT, were not written in order to evangelize the world, but were rather personal letters written to audiences at the time.

Next, these "bona-fide witnesses you speak of had some problems,

Oliver Cowdery
Cowdery exposed Joseph Smith’s affair with Fanny Alger and, as a result, was excommunicated from the Mormon Church. Smith described Cowdery as a thief, liar, perjurer, counterfeiter, adulterer and leader of “scoundrels of the deepest degree�. Cowdery eventually became a Methodist and denied the Book of Mormon, publicly stating that he had “sorrow and shame� over his connection with Mormonism.

Martin Harris
Harris was a member of five different religious groups prior to becoming a Mormon and eight different religious groups after leaving Mormonism. Like Cowdery, Harris was also excommunicated from the Mormon Church. He recanted his “eyewitness� testimony related to the Golden Plates and reported that he did not see them as Joseph Smith maintained. Harris instead said that he saw the plates spiritually in a “state of entrancement� after praying for three days.

David Whitmer
Whitmer, like Cowdery and Harris, was eventually excommunicated from the Mormon Church. He declared himself to be a prophet of the New Church of Christ, resulting in condemnation from Joseph Smith who called him a “dumb beast to ride� and an “ass to bray out cursings instead of blessings�. Whitmer later admitted that he saw the Golden Plates “by the eye of faith� rather than with his physical eyes. He waffled repeatedly on the descriptions he offered related to this sighting.

Joseph Smith eventually decided to add additional “eyewitnesses� to his list of authenticators. He added eight more men to his list, limiting his choices to close friends or family members. These men also had difficulty staying true to Mormonism; two apostatized and left the faith and one was excommunicated. Of the five remaining “witnesses� three were blood relatives of Joseph Smith.

Now then, what evidence to we have as far as history is concerned, of these same sort of problems with what was recorded in these personal letters, written to audiences at the time?

[benchwarmer]

We have at least 5 different claims of the same resurrection, which means they would all support each other.

But do we actually have 5 DIFFERENT claims? Or do we have ONE claim which 4 other (anonymous?) people just repeated. In other words, did 5 people witness the resurrection (or at least the crucifiction and later living Jesus) and write what they saw or do we only have people repeating what other people said. There is a huge difference here.

In fact, I don't think we have one single, actual witness account of the resurrection do we? What we have are people claiming other people saw a risen Christ. At best we have Paul and there is debate whether he saw Jesus in the flesh or in dreams. Even then, he did not witness the resurrection. He MAY have seen Jesus later, but was not there to watch a dead Jesus go into a tomb and a live Jesus wandering around later.

Face it, the evidence we have is sketchy at best. Given the type of claims we are dealing with here one would think there should be something better to go on. Why was there not mass conversions and other witness statements after the supposed undead roamed the streets of Jerusalem?

[polonius]

Wikipedia summarizes correctly:

Broadly speaking, there are two categories of views regarding the relationship between faith and rationality:

1. Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by
reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching.

2. Fideism holds that faith is necessary, and that beliefs may be held without any evidence or reason and even in conflict with evidence and reason.

That someone is a person of "faith" in no way is evidence that their conclusions are correct.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 285 by Realworldjack]

However, if you would like to compare the two, then from what I understand, Smith attempted to add witnesses to the so called, "golden tablets", and then one, by one, some of these witnesses began to recant, with some even leaving the Church.

At least Joseph Smith could present actual signatures of bona-fide witnesses. You have nothing but unsupported claims.

Nothing but unsupported claims and now what appear to be baseless assertions. Although it seems some/most of the witnesses left Smith's church, I could find no evidence of any of them recanting. If someone has a link showing otherwise please share. In fact, all info I found talks about the fact that even though many of the original witnesses were excommunicated or left, they never actually recanted.

It's ironic that modern day people will buy into baseless claims from thousands of years ago, but quickly brush off similar claims with bona fide witness statements from the recent past. It's all hogwash of course because some of us demand actual verifiable evidence beyond simple hearsay.

Nothing but unsupported claims

This is SO, SO, COMICAL! Do you all really think this is any sort of argument? We have 5 claims, from 5 different authors, addressing 5 different audiences, which all report the same exact resurrection, and you can say, "nothing but unsupported claims"? GOOD GRIEF! How many times, and by how many people, must a claim have to be made, in order for it to be considered, supported? But hey, if that argument satisfies your mind, then by all means do not let me get in the way.

and now what appear to be baseless assertions. Although it seems some/most of the witnesses left Smith's church, I could find no evidence of any of them recanting.

If you will notice, I said, "from what I understand". How did I come to understand this? Well, an unbeliever on this site reported this to me, which is why I was sure to say, "form what I understand" which by the way, is not "asserting" anything.

Because you see, I really do not care in the least, one way or the other, until there are those who would like to make a comparison, as if there would be a comparison, and as we can see, there is not really a comparison at all.

Oliver Cowdery
Cowdery exposed Joseph Smith’s affair with Fanny Alger and, as a result, was excommunicated from the Mormon Church. Smith described Cowdery as a thief, liar, perjurer, counterfeiter, adulterer and leader of “scoundrels of the deepest degree�. Cowdery eventually became a Methodist and denied the Book of Mormon, publicly stating that he had “sorrow and shame� over his connection with Mormonism.

Martin Harris
Harris was a member of five different religious groups prior to becoming a Mormon and eight different religious groups after leaving Mormonism. Like Cowdery, Harris was also excommunicated from the Mormon Church. He recanted his “eyewitness� testimony related to the Golden Plates and reported that he did not see them as Joseph Smith maintained. Harris instead said that he saw the plates spiritually in a “state of entrancement� after praying for three days.

David Whitmer
Whitmer, like Cowdery and Harris, was eventually excommunicated from the Mormon Church. He declared himself to be a prophet of the New Church of Christ, resulting in condemnation from Joseph Smith who called him a “dumb beast to ride� and an “ass to bray out cursings instead of blessings�. Whitmer later admitted that he saw the Golden Plates “by the eye of faith� rather than with his physical eyes. He waffled repeatedly on the descriptions he offered related to this sighting.

Joseph Smith eventually decided to add additional “eyewitnesses� to his list of authenticators. He added eight more men to his list, limiting his choices to close friends or family members. These men also had difficulty staying true to Mormonism; two apostatized and left the faith and one was excommunicated. Of the five remaining “witnesses� three were blood relatives of Joseph Smith

So as you can see, we do have those who do at least recant, some of their testimony. I really do not know how it can make one feel better, even if none ever recanted, considering the turmoil surrounding most all those who claim to have witnessed these, "golden plates".

The point is, this is the sort of thing that begins to happen when you have those who are attempting to hold together, what they know is not exactly true. However, when you begin to add persecution, interrogation, ridicule, etc., it becomes even more difficult. So then, when we begin to do the comparison between the witnesses of the "golden plates", as opposed to the claims of the resurrection, there really is no comparison, in the least.

It's ironic that modern day people will buy into baseless claims from thousands of years ago

What is "ironic" is the fact that we have 5 reports, by 5 different authors, to 5 different audiences at the time, along with other facts, and evidence in support, and have one to call these claims, "baseless". But hey? If it works for you!

but quickly brush off similar claims with bona fide witness statements from the recent past.

I do not know who you are talking about, but I have not "brushed off" anything at all. I have no idea if what is reported concerning the "golden plates" would have any merit, or not, because as I said, "I could not care less". Again, this is why I was sure to say, "as I understand", because I have not studied, nor analyzed all the facts, and evidence which may be involved, and really do not care to do so.

It's all hogwash of course because some of us demand actual verifiable evidence beyond simple hearsay.

My friend, it is indeed "verifiable" that we have the claims made which are contained in the NT, and this would be what is called, "testimonial evidence". Ergo, we have, "verifiable evidence". We also have the two letters addressed to, Theophilus, and in the second letter, the author begins to use the words, "we", and "us" when describing the travels of Paul, as if he is there to actually witness the events he records. This my friend, is "verifiable evidence" that the author of this letter would have been alive at the time of Jesus. It is also 'verifiable evidence" that this author would have known the original Apostles, along with the claims they were making first hand. This means, this would be "verifiable evidence" that this author could very well have"investigated everything carefully from the beginning" as he assures Theophilus that he had.

We have "verifiable evidence" which very strongly supports the fact that the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have indeed been Luke, because we have the evidence that there was indeed a Luke who traveled with Paul, on top of the fact that this author ends his second letter with Paul being under arrest for some 2 years, while continuing to use the words, "we", and "us" and we have a letter written by Paul, while he would have clearly been under arrest, and in this letter he mentions the fact that, "only Luke is with me".

I could continue on, and on, but the point is, I am not at this time, insisting the claims must, and have to be true, and, or, there would be no reason to doubt the claims. However, to insist there would be no historical evidence to support the claims, and, or, attempting to compare the claims made by the authors contained in the NT, to other claims as far as the historical evidence is concerned, is wishful thinking.

The fact you must face is, either the claims made in the NT, are true indeed, or these men were very cleaver indeed, who were not only able to simply make these extraordinary claims, but were somehow able to do so, while also leaving behind some very strong evidence to support what they were claiming.

So then, all you are really doing is to exchange one extraordinary event, for another extraordinary event, and going with the one which you deem to be the less extraordinary of the two. But again, if this is the way in which your mind would like to think, then by all means go right ahead. But please do not insist that the rest of us, must follow suit.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 291 by Danmark]

Smith never recanted either.

I never said a word concerning Smith, recanting. However, as we can see, there was a great deal of turmoil surrounding the others who claim to have witnessed the, "plates", that we do not see with the claims concerning the resurrection.

Moreover, these are the sort of things you expect when you have those who are attempting to hold together a story, that may not be exactly the truth, especially when you begin to add things such as persecution, ridicule, mocking, and the like, and we know this did in fact occur with those who claim the resurrection, and yet we do not have such turmoil with the reporters of the resurrection, as compared to those who report of the "golden plates".

Just like Paul, he doubled down and wrote more, claiming his additional writings were from God as well.

Well, I do not know much about what Smith would have wrote, or if he claimed it was from God? What I do know is, what we have as far as Paul is concerned, is letters he was writing to audiences at the time, which would have included the Churches he had planted, and he was addressing certain issues in those particular Churches, and was not intending, and could not have possibly known, that the letters he was writing would have been collected, and contained in what we now call the Bible.

The point is, Paul was not writing in order for the world to read. Rather, the writings we have form Paul, are simply the by product of how he was living his life, with no concern, nor any idea that what he was writing at the time, would have been read by anyone else, besides his original intended audience.

Fortunately unlike Paul's work, we actually have some of the original works Smith 'translated.' We know they are frauds because we can now translate Egyptian.

Thanks for the info, but I am really not all that interested.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 285 by Realworldjack]

However, if you would like to compare the two, then from what I understand, Smith attempted to add witnesses to the so called, "golden tablets", and then one, by one, some of these witnesses began to recant, with some even leaving the Church.

At least Joseph Smith could present actual signatures of bona-fide witnesses. You have nothing but unsupported claims.

Nothing but unsupported claims and now what appear to be baseless assertions. Although it seems some/most of the witnesses left Smith's church, I could find no evidence of any of them recanting. If someone has a link showing otherwise please share. In fact, all info I found talks about the fact that even though many of the original witnesses were excommunicated or left, they never actually recanted.

It's ironic that modern day people will buy into baseless claims from thousands of years ago, but quickly brush off similar claims with bona fide witness statements from the recent past. It's all hogwash of course because some of us demand actual verifiable evidence beyond simple hearsay.

Nothing but unsupported claims

This is SO, SO, COMICAL! Do you all really think this is any sort of argument? We have 5 claims, from 5 different authors, addressing 5 different audiences, which all report the same exact resurrection, and you can say, "nothing but unsupported claims"? GOOD GRIEF! How many times, and by how many people, must a claim have to be made, in order for it to be considered, supported? But hey, if that argument satisfies your mind, then by all means do not let me get in the way.

GOOD GRIEF! This IS so COMICAL!! You seem to love this debate 'tactic' of exclaiming great grief and then trying to convince others it's funny.

I was not making an argument, I was agreeing with brnumb and adding the fact that you did not support your assertions of any of the LDS witnesses recanting. I suggest responding to my actual statements rather than pretending I made an argument and having a grief explosion.

and now what appear to be baseless assertions. Although it seems some/most of the witnesses left Smith's church, I could find no evidence of any of them recanting.

If you will notice, I said, "from what I understand". How did I come to understand this? Well, an unbeliever on this site reported this to me, which is why I was sure to say, "form what I understand" which by the way, is not "asserting" anything.

Understood. I recant my baseless assertion and replace with 'questionable understanding with no backup'. Perhaps now that you've been questioned about it, can you back up your understanding as I asked for (actually I asked the wider audience).

Oliver Cowdery
Cowdery exposed Joseph Smith’s affair with Fanny Alger and, as a result, was excommunicated from the Mormon Church. Smith described Cowdery as a thief, liar, perjurer, counterfeiter, adulterer and leader of “scoundrels of the deepest degree�. Cowdery eventually became a Methodist and denied the Book of Mormon, publicly stating that he had “sorrow and shame� over his connection with Mormonism.

No link, no recanting of his witness statement. What was the point of this?

Martin Harris
Harris was a member of five different religious groups prior to becoming a Mormon and eight different religious groups after leaving Mormonism. Like Cowdery, Harris was also excommunicated from the Mormon Church. He recanted his “eyewitness� testimony related to the Golden Plates and reported that he did not see them as Joseph Smith maintained. Harris instead said that he saw the plates spiritually in a “state of entrancement� after praying for three days.

So he didn't recant. He still saw them, but was changing his tune how he saw them. Still no link? We like to verify hearsay around here.

David Whitmer
Whitmer, like Cowdery and Harris, was eventually excommunicated from the Mormon Church. He declared himself to be a prophet of the New Church of Christ, resulting in condemnation from Joseph Smith who called him a “dumb beast to ride� and an “ass to bray out cursings instead of blessings�. Whitmer later admitted that he saw the Golden Plates “by the eye of faith� rather than with his physical eyes. He waffled repeatedly on the descriptions he offered related to this sighting.

Again, no recanting of seeing the plates. Just a confused bumbling when pressed for details. Sounds familiar to other arguments I've had when pressing some theists for details. No link again?

Joseph Smith eventually decided to add additional “eyewitnesses� to his list of authenticators. He added eight more men to his list, limiting his choices to close friends or family members. These men also had difficulty staying true to Mormonism; two apostatized and left the faith and one was excommunicated. Of the five remaining “witnesses� three were blood relatives of Joseph Smith

Again, no recanting.

Do you have any evidence of actually recanting the previous written witness statement? There certainly wasn't any in your post. We have the original witness statements in the Book of Mormon:

(see picture)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Witnesses

So as you can see, we do have those who do at least recant, some of their testimony. I really do not know how it can make one feel better, even if none ever recanted, considering the turmoil surrounding most all those who claim to have witnessed these, "golden plates".

No I can't see. You didn't supply one single link that I can follow and research to see if anyone ACTUALLY recanted. Care to try again? Since you seem to believe this to be true to the best of your current understanding, I thought perhaps you actually saw good evidence of someone recanting.

I'll ask again - to the wider audience - has anyone got anything solid on any of the witnesses actually recanting their witness to the golden plates? I'm not asking if they fell out of favor, were excommunicated, or waffled on what exactly they say the saw. I'm asking if ANY of them said something along the lines of "It was a lie, I never saw a golden plate in any way". Thus far, at best, we might have some of them saying HOW they saw the golden plates, but still saying they saw them.