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!

[fredonly]

[Replying to fredonly in post #176]

I do not have a problem with the basic concept of what you have written. But how does matter exist outside of this universe and yet still hold to Einstien's theory of relativity or are you saying that relativity is incorrect?

I was discussing LOGICAL possibility. It is logically possible that multiple universes exist (each is outside the others). It is logically possible that relativity is false. This doesn't imply it's necessarily reasonable to believe these things,and that is my point - we should refrain from claiming something is impossible if we can't prove it to be so (we rarely can). Instead we should be prepared to justify our beliefs, and that depends on basing it on a set of (assumed) facts and valid reasoning, to defend those assumed facts if challenged.

In case you meant to direct this at me:

[Replying to Difflugia in post #177]

'Claiming only one side has a "burden of proof" entails treating his own view as the default - not requiring justification. That makes no sense." fredonly I thought you liked this quote.

So where is your evidence for matter outside of this universe?

I don't believe anything exists outside the universe (as typically defined), but it's more than a bare possibility that a multiverse exists. I prefer to reference the totality of material reality (which would encompass a multiverse), and deal with the question where anything exists that is not part of material reality.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #176]

I do not have a problem with the basic concept of what you have written. But how does matter exist outside of this universe and yet still hold to Einstien's theory of relativity or are you saying that relativity is incorrect?

I was discussing LOGICAL possibility. It is logically possible that multiple universes exist (each is outside the others). It is logically possible that relativity is false. This doesn't imply it's necessarily reasonable to believe these things,and that is my point - we should refrain from claiming something is impossible if we can't prove it to be so (we rarely can). Instead we should be prepared to justify our beliefs, and that depends on basing it on a set of (assumed) facts and valid reasoning, to defend those assumed facts if challenged.

Why create beliefs in the first place?

Why not simply remain open to those possibilities the evidence points to? That way, one has no need to defend a belief.

[William]

[Replying to Goose in post #109]

Although it's worth noting his research noted above suggests its a majority view within the majority view that Jesus did rise from the dead in some sense. That position certainly has a much stronger scholarly support than the fringe position that Jesus wasnt a real guy.

Has there ever being any serious study into the possibility skullduggery was involved in formulating the story?

That Jesus (as presented in the bible) wasn't a real guy, but a rather useful fiction to those in positions which made such a fiction possible to create?

Has such a possibility being investigated in order to cross it off the list of possibilities before assuming "supernaturalism"?

[fredonly]

Why create beliefs in the first place?

Why not simply remain open to those possibilities the evidence points to? That way, one has no need to defend a belief.

It's impossible to get through life without having beliefs. We believe the sun will rise tomorrow, that we need to eat, and that we need to get to work in order to receive a paycheck that we believe we will receive.

You could refrain from expressing beliefs, and thus avoid having anything to defend, but you'd have some anyway. If you can't express and defend them, you're more likely to have irrational beliefs.

[fredonly]

Has there ever being any serious study into the possibility skullduggery was involved in formulating the story?

That Jesus (as presented in the bible) wasn't a real guy, but a rather useful fiction to those in positions which made such a fiction possible to create?

It's been studied, but there's no evidence of skullduggery. Some propose it, and then fit facts to it - using the methodologies of irrational conspiracy theoriests. The discernible facts are consistent with there being sincere believers (which doesn't imply thei beliefs were true, nor does it mean they refrained from imbelleshment).

[William]

Why create beliefs in the first place?

Why not simply remain open to those possibilities the evidence points to? That way, one has no need to defend a belief.

It's impossible to get through life without having beliefs. We believe the sun will rise tomorrow, that we need to eat, and that we need to get to work in order to receive a paycheck that we believe we will receive.

Here you are conflating belief with knowledge. These are separate entities.

We know the sun will rise tomorrow, that knowwe need to eat, and that we need to get to work in order to receive a paycheck that we know we will receive.

You could refrain from expressing beliefs, and thus avoid having anything to defend, but you'd have some anyway. If you can't express and defend them, you're more likely to have irrational beliefs.

What is rational about having beliefs?
What is rational about having knowledge?

Which rational is more likely beneficial to the individual/collective human/humanity - belief or knowledge?

[William]

Has there ever being any serious study into the possibility skullduggery was involved in formulating the story?

That Jesus (as presented in the bible) wasn't a real guy, but a rather useful fiction to those in positions which made such a fiction possible to create?

It's been studied, but there's no evidence of skullduggery.

Why would we expect evidence of skullduggery, if the fiction was produced intelligently and purposefully designed to influence support for those who created the fiction?

Some propose it, and then fit facts to it - using the methodologies of irrational conspiracy theorists.

We don't need supposed "irrational conspiracy theorist's" to understand that we exist within a controlled environment which has been developed throughout the ages by those in controlling positions which enable this to occur. Such is common in-yer-face knowledge.

[fredonly]

Why would we expect evidence of skullduggery, if the fiction was produced intelligently and purposefully designed to influence support for those who created the fiction?

Consider what this shows: that the existing evidence is consistent with there being skullduggery. The evidence is consistent with a myriad of possibilities, so consistency doesn't make skullduggery more probable than the others.

We don't need supposed "irrational conspiracy theorist's" to understand that we exist within a controlled environment which has been developed throughout the ages by those in controlling positions which enable this to occur. Such is common in-yer-face knowledge

That is exactly an irrational conspiracy theory. Who's doing the controlling? Can you provide names, and the evidence that shows their involvement? Or os it some secret society who's members are all perfectly loyal- across generations, while never even leaking direct evidence by accident?

What evidence is better explained by the theory than all other possibilities?

[fredonly]

Here you are conflating belief with knowledge. These are separate entities.

No, they aren't. Knowledge= justified true belief (and the justification is adequate to establish this truth). If you know X, then you necessarily believe x.

You're confusing certainty with knowledge.

What is rational about having beliefs?

A belief is rational if it can be justified with valid logic (properly basic beliefs are an exception)

Which rational is more likely beneficial to the individual/collective human/humanity - belief or knowledge?

Generally, justified, true beliefs is preferred- they have a better chance of being true than faith and hunches (for example). True knowledge is rarely attainable. We can be certain about the conclusion of deductive arguments, but most of things we believe are the product of abductive reasoning - inferring the best explanation to the subset of facts at our disposal.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #188]

Why would we expect evidence of skullduggery, if the fiction was produced intelligently and purposefully designed to influence support for those who created the fiction?

Consider what this shows: that the existing evidence is consistent with there being skullduggery. The evidence is consistent with a myriad of possibilities, so consistency doesn't make skullduggery more probable than the others.

Not that I argued such. My argument is that is at least has to be regarded as probable as any other argument presented.

We don't need supposed "irrational conspiracy theorist's" to understand that we exist within a controlled environment which has been developed throughout the ages by those in controlling positions which enable this to occur. Such is common in-yer-face knowledge

That is exactly an irrational conspiracy theory.

Is that an uneducated opinion or a legitimate claim?

I would say that an example of an "irrational conspiracy theory" would be along the lines that a supernatural evil entity called "Satan" controls the world.
Would you agree?

Who's doing the controlling?

It is more "what" than "who". What was doing the controlling during the period the Jesus Story is set in? Whatever that was, it is conceivable that the same thing is still influencing the minds of the masses in today's world.

Can you provide names, and the evidence that shows their involvement?

Re the observation that the biblical story of Jesus could be a fabrication of skullduggery, I would name it as it names itself (primarily) "Roman" and "Jewish".
However, given that "skullduggery" is associated with underhand, unscrupulous, or dishonest behaviour or activities - if it makes it easier for you to drop the "conspiracy" undertones, I am happy to drop the "skulduggery" from the sentence;

"Has there ever being any serious study into the possibility a fictional set of events was involved in formulating the story?"

That way we can examine the idea that a useful fiction created by Romans and Jews need not be attributed to foul play.

Does that help you at all?

Or is it some secret society who's members are all perfectly loyal- across generations, while never even leaking direct evidence by accident?

Again, I point out that there is nothing "secret" about the powers that be, as they have been operating across generations very openly. Any belief that these things have been hidden from the awareness of the general populace, could (and do - in my observations) signify that there are those making up said populace have been and continue to be willing to hide their full awareness of that, from themselves.

Not to say that there are no secrets kept from the governed by the governing...such as anything kept under "official secrets acts" but these have more to do with keeping secrets from the general populace than being acts of supposed "secret societies" - although it is naturally hard to decern if such secrets being kept are done so for reasons involving skulduggery, or benevolence.

The usual reasons given by the governing to the governed, is that such secrets are kept as a matter of "National Security".

I myself don't know, and thus don't believe (either way).