Is faith a reliable path to reality?

[Angry Ukulele Girl]

Hi there!

This is my first post
This is according to Hebrews 11:1
How exactly can "confidence in what we hope for"
and an "assurance about what we do not see"
be a reliable path to reality?
For example,
Would it be advisable to approach my bank account balance in such a way?

Thanks!

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #110]

I think this is all old hat and can be got around quite simply.

The resurrection - belief on the disciples (and even Paul) was a belief, not an event. We can see this by looking at ! cor 15 and seeing it is more a vision in the head (imagination) than a record of the Sunday resurection.

None of the gospels can be relied upon as eyewitness record , and especially Luke. And it does no good to wag this or that Christian apologists who believes it as an authority.

Despite the extraordinary length of your posts, you actually don't get anywhere.

Not to look like a polemical guillotine, I'm open to any points you think are valid, but frankly I have seen it all before, even though Bible - apologists keep raising the same old arguments.

And to the OP, no, there is no real reason (only a human instinctive delusion, it seems), that Faith is a more reliable guide to reality than validated experiment or discovery.

Just a quick look back shows a real swindle, or trying to lean on the scales. By adding is 'necessarily' to create an element of 'can't be 100% certain', you again leap to a claim of reliable evidence when it was already pointed out that this 'evidence' is nothing like as good as the Bible apologists claim it is.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #107]

The position is thiz, at least from where I am. Yes, I think Paul was real. Thus I think the disciopkles were real, and very probably Jesus was real and crucified.

And how do you come to these conclusions? That would be based upon the facts and evidence we have. There are no serious students of Christianity, whether they are Christian or not, who would even question the things you say above, exactly because of the facts and evidence involved.

I have no problem with those claims at all.

That's because you cannot have a problem with them. There have been some folks who attempt to deny such things, which is to commit intellectual suicide. I am convinced these folks commit intellectual suicide, because they become overwhelmed with the facts and evidence we have, and then simply go on to claim that we can know nothing at all, thinking this will allow them to avoid having to deal with the facts and evidence. In the end, all this does is to eliminate such a person from serious conversation.

However I do have a problem with the claim that the resurrection belief of the disciples and indeed Paul is in any way of a solid body walking around Sunday still with the holes in for identification.

Well, I have no problem with what you have a problem with. All I can tell you is this is the way in which it is reported. You may have reasons to have a problem with this, and I am not insisting that you have no reason to have a problem. The problem comes in for me, when there are those who want to insist, I have no reason for the position I hold.

The resurrection was an idea of theirs and their vision of Jesus, just...a vision.

Again, I have no problem with your opinion. We are all free to believe as we wish. However, most all scholars agree that the facts and evidence demand that the early followers were convinced in what they claimed, and we can know that many of these same folks went on to continue to proclaim this same thing well into their old age, even while being persecuted for doing so.

The walking Jesus was not originally there. Three contradictory stories were added to invent a solid body resurrection.

You really need to supply some facts and evidence to support this statement. I mean, it is certainly fine to hold this as an opinion, but I can assure you that it cannot be demonstrated that it was not originally there and added later.

Now, I don't care if you deny it.

What I am denying is that what you are saying has been demonstrated to be fact, and you are stating it as if it were fact.

Not unless you present better evidence.

Better evidence for what? I am simply demonstrating there are facts and evidence surrounding the resurrection, and it is these facts and evidence which have convinced most all scholars that the early disciples truly believed they had encountered Jesus alive after death. What I have said thus far is a fact and does not require "better evidence". If these scholars are correct, then this demands some sort of explanation. With the scholars claiming we can KNOW these early followers were convinced in what they saw, this alone demonstrates we are dealing with eyewitnesses, and this does not require "better evidence". My friend, eyewitness testimony is considered evidence, and this does not require "better evidence". We can know these folks proclaim the resurrection in the face of those who would have every reason to stop the claims, and this does not require "better evidence". We can know these folks continued to proclaim the resurrection well into their old age, and this does not require "better evidence". The point is, I am not insisting a resurrection took place. I am simply demonstrating there are facts and evidence surrounding the resurrection and we can all look at the same facts and evidence and come to different conclusions.

I am not insisting there would be no reasons to doubt the claims. In fact, I understand the doubt very well, along with the reasons for doubt. So then, I have no problem with those who doubt, nor of those who outright do not believe. My point is, while there may be reasons to doubt the claims, there are also very good reasons to believe the claims. This is where you all seem to have the problem. In other words, you not only want to share your opinion, you also seem to want to insist there would be no reason to hold to a different opinion.

My next point would be, there is no way anyone can examine the facts and evidence we have concerning the resurrection and come away believing there are easy answers. In other words, even if you are convinced one way or the other, there is no way one can be convinced that it is a "no brainer". There is no way one can sit down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false and come away believing there are any sort of easy answers. Anyone who does such a thing is demonstrating one who simply defends what it is they would rather believe. So, what "better evidence" do I need?

Without that you have nothing to persuade me and - and this is the point

It is certainly not my point. In other words, it is not my goal in the least to attempt to "persuade" you. I mean, that would be silly. Your arguments are not persuading me in any way. Does this mean you need "better evidence"? Or does this mean that I am the one who is simply defending what it is I would rather believe? You see, I am agreeing that you may indeed have reasons to believe as you do. If you will agree that there are no easy answers as far as the resurrection is concerned, and that there could be reason on both sides, then we really do not have a debate. The debate will come in, when and if you attempt to make the argument there would be no reason to be opposed to the position you hold.

Remember, the point of debate is not to see how much you can deny but how many t you can persuade.

As far as denying, I am not denying that you would have no reason to believe as you do. As far as persuading, I have no aspiration to persuade you, nor anyone else. That would be next to impossible. I mean, you act as if my arguments do not persuade you, then my arguments are a failure. If this is the case, this would mean, if your arguments do not persuade me then your arguments are a failure. This is not how it works. The fact of the matter is, the more I converse on this site, the more I am convinced of the position I hold, but I do not look at this as any sort of validation.

[Goose]

Because, you see, we have enough facts and evidence to know this is not a fictional tale. We know this because we have most scholars today who are convinced the early disciples truly believed they had encountered the risen Christ.

They're convinced that the early disciples truly believed they had encountered the risen Christ in some way, but not necessarily in any objective and physical sense.

Bart Ehrman deals with this extensively in How Jesus Became God and devotes a whole chapter to it. Introducing chapter 5, "The Resurrection of Jesus: What We Can Know," he says this:

It is striking, and frequently overlooked by casual observers of the early Christian tradition, that even though it was a universal belief among the first Christians that Jesus had been raised from the dead, there was not a uniformity of belief concerning what, exactly, "raised from the dead" meant. In particular, early Christians had long and heated debates about the nature of the resurrectionspecifically, the nature of the resurrected body. Here I explore three options for what that resurrected body of Jesus actually was, as evidenced in writings from the early church.

I start with our earliest recorded source, the writings of Paul, and once again with his "resurrection chapter" (1 Cor. 15), so named because it is devoted to the question of Jesuss resurrection and the future resurrection of believers. Here Paul stresses that Jesus rose from the dead in a spiritual body. Both terms are important for understanding Pauls view of the resurrection of Jesus: Jesus was raised in the body; but it was a body that was spiritual.

But Ehrman continues in the next paragraph...

Many readers of 1 Corinthians undervalue and misinterpret the first point. But Paul is emphatic: Jesus was bodily raised from the dead. Paul states this view vigorously in 1 Corinthians 15, and in some sense the entire chapter is written to make the pointprecisely because Pauls opponents in Corinth had a different view. In their opposing view, Jesus was raised in the spirit, not in the body, such that Christians who enjoy the resurrection with him in their own lives are also spiritually raised not in their bodies but in their inner beings. These opponents believed that they were already experiencing the full benefits of salvation in the present. Paul mocks this view in his letter by sarcastically reflecting their own views back to them: "Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Quite apart from us you have become kings!" (1 Cor. 4:8). That he is not stating this as fact, but sarcastically, is clear from the context: in the next breath he tells them that he wishes it were true. But alas, it is not. This current evil age is an age of weakness and powerlessness. It is only in the age to come, when Christ returns from heaven, that his followers will enjoy the full benefits of salvation when they are raised from these poor, lowly, weak, inferior, mortal bodies to be given amazing, spiritual, immortal bodies such as Jesus himself had at his resurrection.

And that is the point of 1 Corinthians 15. The factPaul takes it as a factthat the resurrected bodies of believers will be like the resurrected body of Jesus shows that the resurrection has not yet taken place. It is a bodily (not purely spiritual) event, and since it is a bodily event, it obviously has not happened yet because we are still living in our pathetic mortal bodies.

But the body Jesus had when he was raised was not simply his resuscitated corpse brought back to life. It was an astoundingly immortal body, a "spiritual" body. A body, yes. A material body, yes. A body intimately connected to the body that died and was buried, yes. But a transformed body that could not experience pain, misery, or death.

---

And so the body of the believer that is to be raised is still a bodyand it is intimately connected with the present bodybut it is a glorious, immortal, spiritual body, the present body transformed. And Paul knows this because that is the kind of body that Jesus had when he himself was raised.

Some modern readers have trouble understanding how there can be such a thing as a "spiritual body" that is still an actual body. The problem is that today we tend to think of "spirit" and "body" as two opposite things, with the spirit being invisible and nonmaterial and the body being visible and material. For us, spirit is intangible and body is made of "stuff." Most ancient people, however, did not see spirit and body this way, which is why it is possible for Paul to speak of a spiritual body. It was widely believed in antiquity that the spirit we have within us was also made of "stuff." It was material. But it was very highly refined material that could not be seen with the eyes. (Kind of like what people think when they imagine theyve seen a "ghost"theres something there, made of stuff, since it can be seen, even though its pure spirit.) 3 When Paul speaks of a spiritual body, then, he means a body not made of this heavy, clunky stuff that now makes up our bodies, but of the highly refined spiritual stuff that is superior in every way and is not subject to mortality. Thats what the future bodies will be like, because thats what Jesuss resurrected body was like. His body did indeed come out of the grave. But when it did, it was a transformed body, made of spirit, and raised immortal.

A few paragraphs later, he continues:

Modern readers are not the only ones who find Pauls views confusing or who read Paul to mean something that he didnt say. We know that other Christians stressed either one or the other aspect of his spiritual body to an extreme. Some maintained that Jesus was not raised in the body at all but only in the spirit, and others insisted that his raised body was so closely connected to his corpse that it bore all the marks of its mortality still upon it.

Some ancient Christianstaking a line very similar to that found among Pauls opponents in Corinthmaintained that Jesus was raised in the spirit, not in the body; that his body died and rotted in the grave, as bodies do; but that his spirit lived on and ascended to heaven. This view became prominent among various groups of Gnostic Christians.

This scholar, anyway, thinks that early Christians were quite varied in what "resurrection" meant.

But Ehrman doesnt support your contention. In fact he quite patently argues against it. He argues that Paul, our earliest source, held to a material, bodily resurrection of Jesus.

[Difflugia]

"I encountered Jesus!"

My friend, we are not talking about what folks claim today, and you know this.

We're talking about what foks claim, period. Your whole argument seems to revolve around special pleading, that what Christians believed in the first century is somehow qualitatively different than what they believe now.

We are talking about the claims the early disciples made, with the facts and evidence which has convinced the scholars they truly believed this to be the case,

The "facts and evidence" are the claims themselves. That's it. I'm convinced based on facts and evidence that modern Christians sincerely believe that Jesus rose from the dead, too.

in the face of those who would have had every reason to stop the claims.

You haven't established this.

The fact that there was an empty tomb is what makes the claim extraordinary.

This shows that you don't understand the argument. Because scholars are convinced that early Christians believed in some sort of resurrection. That's not the resurrection account specific to any of our Gospels and you don't get to drag the empty tomb along with it.

All you have is the scholarly opinion that the disciples believed in a resurrection of some kind. If that's not enough, you need a different argument.

It is not extraordinary at all for those today to make such a claim, because there is really no way to examine the claim.

That's right. The same is true about the claims of early Christians, though.

With this being the case, if the early followers were simply making the claim that Jesus somehow only spiritually rose, while the body remained in the grave, then these stories would have gained about as much traction as the stories you share above.

You haven't established that the disciples claimed otherwises or that a claim of spiritual resurrection wouldn't have "gained ... traction." You're inventing evidence and saying that it's somehow part of the narrow claim attributed to scholars.

My friend, if there are those who want to have some sort of mystical experience, they can dream one up.

And they do. And apparently did.

However, as we have it reported in the New Testament, these folks were not looking to have any sort of experience with Jesus again, except to see to the body.

You're again conflating the disciples believing in some sort of resurrection with the New Testament being in any way reliable. Even if we agree to the first for the sake of argument, you haven't established the second.

We don't have any of those things. We have stories about those things.

You can continue to refer to these things as "stories" but the fact of the matter is, it is what you refer to as "stories" which has convinced most all scholars that the early disciples were convinced in what they saw.

Yes.

This sort of demonstrates we are dealing with more than simply "stories".

No.

"If we have a story about a duck, there must really be a duck!"

No! Rather, if you have a story about a duck, and if in this story there is real solid evidence that it is a duck, then it is perfectly legitimate to hold the position that we are dealing with a duck.

Yes. But if, like the New Testament, all we have is the story, then it's pretty reasonable to be skeptical.

I cannot stress enough the fact that what you are calling stories the scholars are convinced there are certain things we can know.

Yes. There are multiple stories about a resurrection that take different forms. Paul's potentially spiritual resurrection, Mark's apparently direct translation to heaven, Matthew's and Luke's bodily resurrections and transfigurations, and John's resurrection into a body that was difficult to recognize as Jesus have together convinced scholars that the disciples believed in some kind of resurrection. They're all different, though, so they don't say what kind and whether it was material or spiritual, let alone that it fits any one Gospel story or any harmonization of them. The only thing extraordinary about the stories is that there's enough of a common theme that scholars think they can find a common thread of belief.

Now, we may not be able to know a resurrection occurred, but we can know we have enough evidence for one to hold such a position.

You may not have any cake, but you can definitely eat it.

As I've told you before and will probably tell you again, "possible" and "probable" are not the same thing. Santa Claus and leprechauns are possible.

As I have told you before and will probably have to tell you again, "probable" has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

And thus the difference in our approaches. I guarantee that scholars disagree with you, too.

In other words, the probabilities simply tell us what is the more likely, but the more likely does not in any way get us to the truth.

This is the essence of special pleading.

Let's just use your Santa Claus example. Santa Claus in the sense that very young children understand it, is not probable at all, because Santa Claus in the way in which these kids understand it is impossible.

Yes.

In the same way, there are no probabilities of a resurrection after 3 days of death, because such a resurrection is impossible.

Yes.

With this being the case, the folks who were reporting the resurrection of Jesus were not attempting to argue that a resurrection is probable or even possible. Rather, they were proclaiming the improbable, and the impossible has occurred.

Yes. Like children and Santa Claus. Or maybe like Tolkien and Hobbits.

Next, with what you say above, combined with some of the other things you say, you are coming really close to intellectual suicide, because I can assure you that no serious scholar would ever make any sort of comparison between Santa, and the facts and evidence we have concerning the resurrection.

No? Why? Are they different orders of impossible?

This only occurs when we have those who become overwhelmed with the facts and evidence they would rather not have to deal with.

That's hard to do when you haven't given us any.

People can and do examine the facts and evidence and come to the conclusion that Santa Claus is real. That many of them are four years old makes the statement no less true.

No one, and I mean no one at all, including you, believe the facts and evidence concerning Santa is on equal footing with the facts and evidence concerning the resurrection.

You're right. People have actually seen Santa. No such evidence exists for the resurrection.

You seem to think that I'm being hyperbolic here or something. The only evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is the stories in the New Testament. I'm convinced that Paul had visions and the Gospels are allegorical fiction.

If you believe that it is (and you do not)

I assure you that I do. Whether I'm right or wrong, if you can't wrap your head around why I do, then I assert that you don't fully understand the state of the evidence.

then you have already committed intellectual suicide.

Maybe. If I have, I'd hardly be in a position to know, would I? On the other hand, I think I'm at least statistically on intellectually safer ground thinking that the Gospels are fiction than thinking that a resurrection actually happened.

If you know there is no comparison whatsoever (and there is not) then making these sort of comparisons takes away any credibility. I enjoy our exchanges because it is beneficial for me, but I am not going to waste time if this is not going to be a serious discussion.

This is absolutely a serious discussion. The probabilities for the resurrection, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the other made-up things anyone can think of can all dance together on the head of a pin. The expression of those probabilities are mathematically known as epsilon. It's nonzero by definition, but it's also arbitrarily small.

There are no scholars who dedicate their lives to the study of Santa. There are many who dedicate their life to the study of the facts and evidence concerning the resurrection,

Regardless of the state of the evidence, Christianity certainly seems to resonate emotionally with more people (or at least more adults). In that vein, I think you'll find that those that "dedicate their life to the study of the facts and evidence concerning the resurrection" are sectarian, as opposed to secular, scholars. These are scholars that are already professing Christians and for whom theology is considered a valid research tool.

and most of them have become convinced by the evidence we have,

You haven't established this and I think it's false. They're convinced, but not by evidence.

that those who were proclaiming Jesus was raised from the dead, truly believed this to be the case.

As you've stated it, that's been the premise of the discussion.

Again, I want to stress that I am not insisting here, that the resurrection took place.

But you are insisting that the disciples saw Jesus in an objective, physical sense and that there was actually an empty tomb. We still just have stories of those things, though.

[TRANSPONDER]

We are at least at the heart of the matter 'did the resurrection really happen?' Which is the only debate that matters, together of course with discussion of the rest of the Bible and whether any of it is reliable. from claims refuted by science to contradictions that through doubt on the claims of reliable eyewitness.

Which, to refer to the OP, is not Faith - it is evidence. Where Faith comes in is skewing the debate so evidence is dismissed if inconvenient but held up as valid support for the Claim, even if it is wrong. Like for instance that Jesus was killed by the Jews for a Christian concept of Blasphemy, when Jesus was (on all evidence) executed by the Romans for insurrection.

[Difflugia]

We are at least at the heart of the matter 'did the resurrection really happen?' Which is the only debate that matters, together of course with discussion of the rest of the Bible and whether any of it is reliable. from claims refuted by science to contradictions that through doubt on the claims of reliable eyewitness.

We've had a few discussions of this, but I disagree. I think, perhaps ironically, that a modern analog to the New Testament is something like The Shack. It would be a plausible enough story without the supernatural elements, but it's obviously fiction. Its power has nothing to do with whether or not the story actually happened, impossible though it is, but in what the story says to you about your relationship with the divine.

[TRANSPONDER]

We are at least at the heart of the matter 'did the resurrection really happen?' Which is the only debate that matters, together of course with discussion of the rest of the Bible and whether any of it is reliable. from claims refuted by science to contradictions that through doubt on the claims of reliable eyewitness.

We've had a few discussions of this, but I disagree. I think, perhaps ironically, that a modern analog to the New Testament is something like The Shack. It would be a plausible enough story without the supernatural elements, but it's obviously fiction. Its power has nothing to do with whether or not the story actually happened, impossible though it is, but in what the story says to you about your relationship with the divine.

Yes. This is understandable. I of course thought the Gospel story was broadly correct, given doubts about the supernatural elements.

Without repeating my life story, it was a desire to exclude the dubious contradictions and see whether the story itself added up, even with the possibly of agreed supernatural events that first convinced me that a huge amount was added material. Notably that John has nothing between Jesus starting his mission in Galilee and the feeding of 5,000. I did not and do not buy the excuse that John concentrated on Jerusalem. I was an am convinced that much of the celebrated Galilee preaching and healing material is invented, just as John's teaching and preaching in Jerusalem is unknown to the synoptics, despite its' theological importance.

More and more I cam to understand that puzzling differences, for example the healing at a distance in different location meant bald miracle claims with no context that were used in different contexts, and this is another clue to Gospel fabrication, from the Nativities to the resurrection.

The clues are all there telling us that the Gospels are a Christian construct based on a likely true story, of a Roman execution of someone they saw as a nuisance, and where the Jews were involved, it was as part of the roman administration.

It is all there and explains just about everything, if only we trouble to look.

I could be wrong, but I see everything accounted for, while with all the experts, problems are ignored or shrugged off, and not just by Christian apologists.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Angry Ukulele Girl in post #1]

Welcome, Argry Ukulele girl
What makes you so angry?

But now to your post,

This is my first post
This is according to Hebrews 11:1
How exactly can "confidence in what we hope for"
and an "assurance about what we do not see"
be a reliable path to reality?
For example,
Would it be advisable to approach my bank account balance in such a way?

If you believe in methodological naturalism, what are you saying is real?

Money is not real. In the US, the dollar is based on the economy. The value of Gold is based on confidence in what is happening in the world. If you believe that money is real, go somewhere where hyperinflation is present, and you will find out that money is not real.

How are you identifying what is real? Are you saying matter is real? Matter is nothing more than energy in solid form. Where did the energy come from?

You do not know where the energy came from to make matter. You may hope that the universe made matter from nothing, but you do not know. So you would have confidence in something that you hope for even though you do not have evidence for your hope.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #116]

Its power has nothing to do with whether or not the story actually happened, impossible though it is, but in what the story says to you about your relationship with the divine.

If you can have a relationship with the Divine, then there must be a Divine person. If there is a Divine person, then He could do everything that the Bible says because He is Divine. So either there is no Divine person to have a relationship with, or there is a Divine person and He did everything that He said that He did. There can be no Divine relationship without Divine action.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #116]

Its power has nothing to do with whether or not the story actually happened, impossible though it is, but in what the story says to you about your relationship with the divine.

If you can have a relationship with the Divine, then there must be a Divine person. If there is a Divine person, then He could do everything that the Bible says because He is Divine. So either there is no Divine person to have a relationship with, or there is a Divine person and He did everything that He said that He did. There can be no Divine relationship without Divine action.

I'd say that was simple. There is no verifiable divine action. Physics, biology and indeed history works better without a god being postulated, never mind which one.

Same with consciousness, morals and all the various religions.

On evidence, I'd say the Divine is the less viable or credible logical option for the way things are.