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!

[Difflugia]

What kind of evidence isn't materialistic evidence? Do you have any statements by scientists that they see some sort of nonmaterialistic evidence and feel hamstrung by methodological naturalism? Do they have an alternative to methodological naturalism, like

No, they do not, and that was my point.

Then your point doesn't support your argument. You claimed without support that scientists feel like methodological naturalism is insufficient because its results don't match the evidence ("It is not like scientists are choosing to test only materialistic ideas because they see the evidence leading in that direction."). If there's no alternative method, whence this "evidence" that you're talking about? It's almost like you're making unsupported and unsourced assertions about what scientists think without actually knowing how scientists think.

Jesus bucks are materialistic. We can test for those.

No, they are not. They are a figment of your imagination.

I'm the one that made them up, so I know that they're materialistic. If you want to posit immaterial Jesus bucks, we can add those to the list, too, at least if there's a way to distinguish having immaterial Jesus bucks from not having them.

Just like your probability argument, you like it so much.

I do like probability arguments, specifically because the math is pretty straightforward. That's why most scientific experiments and arguments are based on statistical analysis.

Relativity says that materialism has to stop at creation. Therefore, science and materialism have no input or discovery power.

This is the slippery slope to which you keep appealing. If youl can identify something that you think we can't know, then we can't know anything and therefore gods are just as likely as real things. But your assertion is just false. Leaving aside your use of "materialism" as just some sort of pejorative, Science and its methods have demonstrated an enormous amount of "discovery power." Both informal and formal uses of the scientific approach quite literally allow us to predict the future. The nearest competition is what might be called "gut feel," which the scientific method has demonstrated to just be a heuristic approach that approximates the scientific method, but with quicker (and less accurate) math. In fact, you seem willing enough to accept the scientific approach except when it fails to validate your favorite religious ideas.

So, you have nothing to base your probability on except your imagination,

The "probability argument" is just based on mathematical definitions. Seeing them borne out in "material" reality is what the experiment was for. I also suspect that's why you didn't like it; gods seem much more real when we ignore sources of statistical data.

which you have used quite a bit in this discussion.

I have to. We're discussing imaginary things like gods and leprechauns.

You might say that we do not see God in our materialistic universe; therefore, He does not exist.

Aside from "anything's possible," yes.

But you also do not see evidence of whatever you believe is the universe's cause.

Hyperbole doesn't help your argument. Cosmologists have been experimentally probing universal origins for decades producing empirical data and evidence. Here is just one example.

Using your probablity the universe cannot exist because it does not have a cause.

Whether intentional or unintentional, that's not the probability argument I made. To apply it here, let's assume that your earlier hyperbolic statement is literally true. If we genuinely "do not see evidence" for the "cause" of the universe, then our full space of 100% (or 1.0, or however we want to represent it) is made up of an infinity of equally likely possibilities that are made up. Only one can be what actually happened, so the truth is somewhere among the other equally likely, but infinite possibilities. If we find some evidence that one of them is more likely than the others, then it gets a larger share of the space. Let's say that we measure the Cosmic Microwave Background and conclude that in the absence of other evidence, the Big Bang is 5% likely. That means that the other infinite array of explanations fit within the remaining 95%. The probability of any one of those is now 95% of one in infinity. Because of the nature of limits in calculus, that number doesn't actually change.

The universe, however, exists and so has something that can be defined as a cosmological origin. We might not know what that is or be only 5% confident in our best answer, but that neither means that it "cannot exist" nor that your favorite made-up answer is any more likely than when we started.

Let's use your example sort of because it really is not an origins theory. :

There it is. You've asserted that the "study of origins" is in the same realm as things that are made up, so Jesus bucks are just as plausible as, say, string theory.

String theory is not an origins theory. It was developed to answer the question of the universe's fine-tuning. However, it has become a colossal failure because of its many solutions, like 10E400th. If we use your probability paradigm with 10E400 solutions, then the possibility of the universe existing is 10E10000, 20000, or 100000. There would have to be an infinite number of universes in the totality of reality for our universe to exist. So yes, Jesus bucks are much more plausible than uninverse bucks.

What kind of dressing would you like with your salad?

[William]

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!

From the KJV
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Wesley's Notes for Hebrews 11:1

11:1 The definition of faith given in this verse, and exemplified in the various instances following, undoubtedly includes justifying faith, but not directly as justifying. For faith justifies only as it refers to, and depends on, Christ. But here is no mention of him as the object of faith; and in several of the instances that follow, no notice is taken of him or his salvation, but only of temporal blessings obtained by faith. And yet they may all be considered as evidences of the power of justifying faith in Christ, and of its extensive exercise in a course of steady obedience amidst difficulties and dangers of every kind. Now faith is the subsistence of things hoped for, the evidence or conviction of things not seen - Things hoped for are not so extensive as things not seen. The former are only things future and joyful to us ; the latter are either future, past, or present, and those either good or evil, whether to us or others. The subsistence of things hoped for - Giving a kind of present subsistence to the good things which God has promised: the divine supernatural evidence exhibited to, the conviction hereby produced in, a believer of things not seen, whether past, future, or spiritual; particularly of God and the things of God.

People's Bible Notes for Hebrews 11:1

Heb 11:1 Living by Faith SUMMARY OF HEBREWS 11: Faith Explained. The Faith of the Elders. Remarkable Examples of Ancient Faith. All Seeking for a Better Country. The Victories of Faith. The Sufferings Ended by Faith. Christians Exhorted to Follow These Glorious Examples. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for. The old meaning of "substance", as well as of "hupostasis", the Greek word here used, is "stand under", that is, to be a foundation. Faith is the foundation on which all our hopes for the future are built. The evidence of things not seen. Rather, the conviction or persuasion of things not seen. Without faith we would be limited to the very narrow world comprehended by the senses.

The question "Is faith a reliable path to reality?" is somewhat confusing as it does not appear to be what the verse (in context) is speaking of, but rather the verse is speaking of something believed to be surrounding what we call reality (our experience on the planet in the galaxy in the universe) and assumed to be the natural foundational source of said reality.

Faith in that context is in the existence of that which we cannot normally sense through the human form - especially re the eyes.

The unseen (what does not appear in reality) is what the faith is placed in, rather than only what is seen.
I would change the question then, to suit the context of the verse under question.

Q: Is faith in the existence of what is not seen, a reliable way in which to understand the reality of what is seen?

It would not be advisable to approach your bank account balance in such a way because you would have to assume a different thing which occurred after the fact and the verse is proposing a thing existing before the fact. Those are different approaches.

To clarify.

One is not being advised in the verse to believe that an idea (the universe was mindfully created) be inserted into reality via the over-imagination of human mindfulness, but in the idea that because of mindfulness, the universe came to exist (was created).

Approaching your bank with the over-imagination that one is going to discover a major deposit from a generous donor is inserting an unreal expectation into reality.
That is not what the verse is advising one re how to approach reality.

The verse is pointing to something that existed before the creation of the universe and that applying faith in this idea will lead one to discover knowingly that this is the most likely explanation for why the universe exists.

In order for the knowledge to become apparent through this approach, work has to be done (faith without works doesn't achieve this) and the work involves placing the pieces of evidence together correctly with in mind that in doing so one will reach the conclusion that the faith in that idea is justified.

4o. (Chat GPT)
Your rephrasing of the question to focus on whether faith in the unseen is a reliable way to understand the reality of what is seen is insightful. Hebrews 11:1 emphasizes a faith that reaches beyond our immediate sensory experiences, proposing that the unseensomething pre-existing and foundationalcan be understood and accepted through faith. This aligns with the concept that the universes existence is not the result of mere chance but of a mindful creation.

When applying this concept to everyday matters, such as checking a bank account, it becomes clear that such faith isn't about believing in something unreal or hoping for an arbitrary outcome, but rather trusting in a foundational truth that has been established. Faith in the context of the verse is about acknowledging and exploring an underlying reality that isn't directly observable but can be inferred through evidence and experience.

In this way, faith serves as a tool for understanding deeper truths that go beyond what is immediately visible or tangible, rather than a means of wishful thinking. Your explanation makes it clear that this approach requires not just belief but active engagement and the application of reason to arrive at a justified conclusion.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #161]


It is a mess of an argument, full of perjoratives, misrepresentations and accusations. And so often based on the same theist game - pay; Goddunnit is the default hypothesis, so all that is needed it to dismiss scientific naturalism on any pretext, misrepresentation or lie and Godunnit wins.

This is the basic fallacy that invalidated ALL theist argument, such as cosmic origins, as 'don't know' or 'cannot prove' is not a point for a god, never mind a religion.

The Only case for the christian god, claim and religion, is the Bible, and specifically the NT and particularly the resurrection. Arguing about proving where the universe came from gets Christianity nowhere, but I guess they feel this is the only atheist - stumper they have, apart from 'we do not see evolution' (they mean speciation, as Creationism actually accepts evolution - within 'kinds') happenning before our very eyes.

Well, we do not see resurrections happen before our werry eyes, either. Nor arms growing back, nor indeed any evidence for prayer, God or the validity of Christianity for that matter.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]

Then your point doesn't support your argument. You claimed without support that scientists feel like methodological naturalism is insufficient because its results don't match the evidence ("It is not like scientists are choosing to test only materialistic ideas because they see the evidence leading in that direction."). If there's no alternative method, whence this "evidence" that you're talking about? It's almost like you're making unsupported and unsourced assertions about what scientists think without actually knowing how scientists think.

Statements like this are the reason I quoted AquinasForGod's.

1. I never said that scientists feel anything.
2. I never said methodological naturalism is insufficient because its results don't match the evidence.
3. I said that relativity limits materialism because it links time and space and, therefore, the constants of nature together. If you do not think this is true, do you have a scientific law refuting this position? And if you do, how is it consistent with relativity?

I'm the one that made them up, so I know that they're materialistic.

That's funny! That is exactly what I said. If you made them up, then they are a figment of your imagination.

Cosmologists have been experimentally probing universal origins for decades, producing empirical data and evidence. Here is just one example.

What? The Big Bang does not address the creation of the universe, only its evolution after it was created. String theory initially explained the fine-tuning of the universe, not its creation. However, higher dimensions were added because of the need for infinite universes to overcome its probability issues.

100% (or 1.0, or however we want to represent it) is made up of an infinity of equally likely possibilities that are made up.

No, one has proved an infinite number of possibilities. There are only two: supernatural intelligence and materialistic mechanisms. If you want to include the mechanisms or the ways this could have happened in your probability statement, that can be done. Still, all it means is that there will be an infinite number of ways an intelligent being could have brought this universe into existence and an endless number of materialistic mechanisms according to your belief system. However, the probability would still be simplified to one of two ways: materialistic or supernatural.

However, an excellent case could be made for the impossibility of anything material existing outside this universe. Therefore, your probability statement would have to lean heavily towards the supernatural as being the most probable.

[William]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #164]

The Big Bang does not address the creation of the universe, only its evolution after it was created.

Re BB I think of a seed.

I can point to the seed and deduce "the seed was created" by way of explaining its existence.

I could also deduce that - like a seed, the BB may be something which sprang forth from something else - even that I cannot see what the something else is. I needn't assume that just because I cannot see it, that it must be something "other than" natural.

I can look at the current universe and its supposed history and deduce that the seed has become something other than what it originally was. The universe as it currently looks (in terms of relativity), is like a seedling - as it is still undergoing its initial stages of development.

Thus, the seed created isn't the thing it will become, any more than the BB was.

This allows for the idea that the universe was created using a specific technique which allowed for it to unfold in its own time and space, yet like a seed - the information as to what it will eventually become in some way is installed within its initial (default) state.

A default state in and of itself is not that important in the scheme of things because it is "what was" rather than "what has become of what was". Thus anyone arguing for the legitimacy of a default position (such as materialism) isn't proclaiming anything of significant importance which requires undue consideration or support.

The notion that the universe is a created thing is bonded to a curiosity. As an object, it can be currently said to be a seedling and looked upon and studied as such, but it is difficult to see what it will look like in a future time when it becomes whatever the seedling grows into.

What are people saying when they claim that the universe was created? They are saying that the type of thing which was created, was made in a way which required it to undergo a particular unfolding rather than simply something created to be a fully-formed thing immediately.

The obvious question re the claim is;

Q: Why was the universe created in this particular manner (to unfold gradually in its own time and space) and further to that, why was consciousness placed within it (perhaps on all levels) in order to (obviously) experience said creation in real time?

A great variety of religious-based theology has attempted to provide answers to the question, none of which I myself have found overly satisfactory/unquestionable.

But I do agree that we exist within a created thing.

[Difflugia]

Then your point doesn't support your argument. You claimed without support that scientists feel like methodological naturalism is insufficient because its results don't match the evidence ("It is not like scientists are choosing to test only materialistic ideas because they see the evidence leading in that direction."). If there's no alternative method, whence this "evidence" that you're talking about? It's almost like you're making unsupported and unsourced assertions about what scientists think without actually knowing how scientists think.

Statements like this are the reason I quoted AquinasForGod's.

1. I never said that scientists feel anything.
2. I never said methodological naturalism is insufficient because its results don't match the evidence.

Semantic games, now? If the results do match the evidence, then what did your statement mean that I quoted?

3. I said that relativity limits materialism because it links time and space and, therefore, the constants of nature together. If you do not think this is true, do you have a scientific law refuting this position? And if you do, how is it consistent with relativity?

I don't even know what you think this means. I'm sure the problem is that I lack your deep understanding of relativity, but you'll have to explain what this has to do with the scientific method.

I'm the one that made them up, so I know that they're materialistic.

That's funny! That is exactly what I said. If you made them up, then they are a figment of your imagination.

Like gods, the concept is a figment of my imagination. If Jesus bucks are real, though, they're material. We have no evidence for them, so the odds approach zero, but they're still just as possible as leprechauns and Yahwehs.

Cosmologists have been experimentally probing universal origins for decades, producing empirical data and evidence. Here is just one example.

What? The Big Bang does not address the creation of the universe, only its evolution after it was created. String theory initially explained the fine-tuning of the universe, not its creation. However, higher dimensions were added because of the need for infinite universes to overcome its probability issues.

You're just playing semantics again. Remember, you're trying to explain why a bog-standard statistical experiment with dice is invalid. If that has something to do with string theory or infinite universes, you'll have to show your work.

100% (or 1.0, or however we want to represent it) is made up of an infinity of equally likely possibilities that are made up.

No, one has proved an infinite number of possibilities. There are only two: supernatural intelligence and materialistic mechanisms.

(I assume you meant "no one.")

Now, this might be interesting. How do you distinguish which made-up explanations lie inside or outside of what's possible? If your worldview precludes "anything is possible," gods might be nonstarters. Nobody has ever proved anything supernatural, let alone a supernatural intelligence. Does that mean that's not a possibility?

Or are you just trying to play word games again?

However, an excellent case could be made for the impossibility of anything material existing outside this universe. Therefore, your probability statement would have to lean heavily towards the supernatural as being the most probable.

If you can argue that something is impossible, then I suspect that it won't go well for theism no matter how carefully you try to word it. Most theistic apologetic arguments absolutely rely on anything being possible. I'll be curious to see how things work out for you once we start eliminating things from that set.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #166]

I don't even know what you think this means.

Q: (to 4o) What does the following mean?

3. I said that relativity limits materialism because it links time and space and, therefore, the constants of nature together. If you do not think this is true, do you have a scientific law refuting this position? And if you do, how is it consistent with relativity?

4o. The statement you provided is discussing the implications of Einstein's theory of relativity on materialism, particularly focusing on how relativity connects time, space, and the constants of nature. Let's break it down:

Relativity Limits Materialism: This suggests that the theory of relativity, which fundamentally connects time and space into a single continuum (spacetime), imposes limitations on a purely materialistic view of the universe. Materialism typically refers to the belief that everything that exists is material or physical, and that all phenomena (including consciousness) can be explained by interactions of matter.

Links Time and Space and, Therefore, the Constants of Nature Together: In relativity, time and space are not separate entities but are interwoven into spacetime. This linkage means that the constants of nature (such as the speed of light, gravitational constant, etc.) are also intertwined with spacetime. These constants govern the behavior of physical phenomena, and their relationship is defined within the framework of spacetime.

Scientific Law Refuting This Position: The statement challenges the reader to provide a scientific law that contradicts the idea that relativity limits materialism by linking time, space, and natural constants. It implies that any such law would need to be consistent with relativity, which is a well-established theory in modern physics.

Consistency with Relativity: The requirement that any refutation must be consistent with relativity underscores the robustness of relativity as a scientific theory. It has been extensively tested and confirmed through experiments, so any new theory or law that contradicts this relationship would need to not only explain the same phenomena but do so in a way that aligns with or extends relativity.

In essence, the argument is that relativity, by connecting time, space, and natural constants, imposes constraints on a purely materialistic understanding of the universe. Any scientific challenge to this idea must also be consistent with the well-established principles of relativity, which adds a significant hurdle to refuting the position.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #166]

However, an excellent case could be made for the impossibility of anything material existing outside this universe. Therefore, your probability statement would have to lean heavily towards the supernatural as being the most probable.

If you can argue that something is impossible, then I suspect that it won't go well for theism no matter how carefully you try to word it. Most theistic apologetic arguments absolutely rely on anything being possible. I'll be curious to see how things work out for you once we start eliminating things from that set.

I agree with you here Difflugia, in as much as I see no reason why anything has to be outside of the nature of the physical but then when folk either side of the argument agree that consciousness/mindfulness is to be regarded as a non-physical thing (happening within a physical thing) the temptation to call mindfulness "supernatural" sock-puppets its way to the surface...with further complications added to the mix as in some mindfulness is natural and some is supernatural and on it goes.

I think along the line that if mindfulness is involved and this universe was created, then we should regard that creative mindfulness as "Natural" (because it came before and is the reason for) and therein either think of the creation as an extension of that natural mindfulness.
I understand that many Christians have a problem with that idea, yet they do not have any notable reason as to why we should refer to such a creative mindfulness as "supernatural" other than to differentiate mindfulness from matter.

There appears to be no good reason offered as to why we have to accept that a natural enough mindfulness which created the nature of the universe need be thought of as somehow "supernatural". There is mud in the water re that idea, imo.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #166]

If you can argue that something is impossible, then I suspect that it won't go well for theism no matter how carefully you try to word it. Most theistic apologetic arguments absolutely rely on anything being possible. I'll be curious to see how things work out for you once we start eliminating things from that set.

You keep returning to your belief about the impossibility of the supernatural, but you have yet to prove that it is impossible. What has been proved impossible repeatedly is matter existing outside this universe. Material cannot exist apart from being contained in this universe. Before you could logically say that the supernatural is impossible, you would first have to establish that something material or even something that was not God existed outside of this universe, which is impossible.

[TRANSPONDER]

After all they reject evolution, which we use all the time (breeding) but prayer which cannot be 'used' to do anything and they know it well, is considered a doctrinal tenet of faith.

I have to smile at this. They reject evolution, instead believing in a 6 day creation and Noah putting all the animals on a boat.
Things that are obviously on the order of magical fairy tales are accepted while solid, infinitely detailed and congruent evidence from astronomy, geology, radiochemistry and biology is rejected. That's 'faith.' And, sadly, it is faith supported by pseudoscience and the huckster ramblings of people like Ken Ham and his dinosaur theme parks... remind me, why did the dinosaurs miss the ark?

[edit] Oops! I was wrong, According to AIG dinosaurs WERE on the ark.

...we can conclude that the universe is only a few thousand years old (perhaps just 6,000), and not millions of years old (see also "Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days?"). Thus, dinosaurs lived within the past few thousand years.
....
Therefore, dinosaurs (land vertebrates) were represented on the Ark.

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/ ... noahs-ark/

Indeed. Back when I started this lark in the 80's I assumed the Flood was argued to be the extinction of dinosaurs. it was obvious: 'Observation' one might say. I was astounded to hear that Creationism put dinosaurs on the Ark. The explanations mystified me - Bible apologists would find a way to dismiss having nostrils if it suited them. I believe the reason was tat dinosaur tracks had been found in the supposed fle ood - levels, so they had to survive...only to vanish in a century or so, just as the the other critters had to hyper-evolve from Baryma (basic Kinds) to all species in the same time. And also geology had to happen in that time, with all the animals hanging on as the bit of Pandgaea aquaplaned under the pow'r of Faith to their present position with the appropriate types of animals on board.
In fact Creationism has appeared to simply take evolution theory and deep time geology, but cram it all into the time between the Flood and records showing the species we now know.