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!

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #189]

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.

No, I am not.

I am highlighting a critical distinction between belief and knowledge, and questioning the implications of each in terms of rationality and human behavior.

Belief vs. Knowledge
Belief is often seen as an acceptance that something is true or exists, sometimes without definitive evidence. It's a mental attitude that something is the case, often based on trust, intuition, or incomplete information. For example, believing the sun will rise tomorrow may be more about trusting in patterns observed over time rather than having direct evidence of tomorrow's sunrise.

Knowledge, on the other hand, is typically understood as justified true beliefsomething that is not only believed but also backed by evidence and reasoning, making it reliable and dependable. For example, knowing that the sun will rise tomorrow can be based on the understanding of celestial mechanics, which provides strong evidence for this expectation.

Rationality of Belief vs. Knowledge
Rationality in Belief:

Beliefs can guide behavior and decision-making, especially when immediate action is needed without complete information. They can be practical in everyday life where absolute certainty isn't available.
However, beliefs can also be irrational if they are based on faulty logic, misinformation, or emotional biases. For instance, believing in something without evidence or despite contradictory evidence may not be rational.

Rationality in Knowledge:

Knowledge is generally seen as more rational because it is based on evidence, experience, and logical reasoning. It provides a solid foundation for decision-making and understanding the world.
However, the pursuit of knowledge requires a willingness to question, investigate, and revise one's understanding, which can be a more demanding process than holding a belief.

Which is More Beneficial?
Individual/Collective Benefit:

Belief can be beneficial when it provides comfort, motivation, or a framework for living, especially in situations where knowledge is incomplete or unattainable. For example, cultural or religious beliefs can provide meaning and community, even if they aren't grounded in empirical knowledge.
Knowledge, however, is generally more beneficial in terms of making informed decisions, advancing science and technology, and solving complex problems. It allows for progress by building on what is known and correcting what is not.

Conclusion
The rationality and benefit of belief versus knowledge depend on the context and the goals at hand. In situations where quick decisions are necessary, beliefs might be sufficient. However, for deeper understanding and long-term benefits, knowledge tends to be more reliable and rational. Ideally, a balance between belief and knowledge, where beliefs are open to revision in light of new knowledge, may offer the most rational approach to navigating life.

[fredonly]

[Replying to fredonly in post #188]
My argument is that is at least has to be regarded as probable as any other argument presented.

Really? Do you always consider lying and cheating to be equally probable about everything you hear? Subterfuge is not easy to pull off, and the more people who are involved, the more difficult it becomes.

Is that an uneducated opinion or a legitimate claim?

It is an opinion grounded in my critical analysis of conspiracy theories.

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?

No. Cultures invariably have myths that spread and evolve from generation to generation, and the peoples invariably accept them uncritically. It doesn't imply a conspiracy. When Christians make some claim about Jesus or Satan, they aren't lying - they're telling you something they believe, so I see no reason to think their ancestors who were spreading THEIR myths were any different.

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?

No. You're just proposing a vague hypothesis that has no evidence to support it. I suspect (like most conspiracy theories) your hypothesis is rooted in personal bias. There is no evidence for it - it's merely POSSIBLE, so why waste intellectual energy on something that is no more than POSSIBLE? Try to understand your own biases, and avoid letting them color your judgement.

Again, I point out that there is nothing "secret" about the powers that be, as they have been operating across generations very openly.

They aren't conspiring to spread disinformation if they believe what they're spreading is TRUE. It's absurd to suggest they all know what they're spreading is a lie.

What exactly are you talking about? I initially thought you were referring to the birth of Christianity, and possibly the eventual morphing into the Catholic Church. But your reference to "national security" gives me the impression you're talking about the alleged "deep state conspiracy" that so many Trumpists are so fond of.

[fredonly]

[Replying to fredonly in post #189]

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.

No, I am not.

I am highlighting a critical distinction between belief and knowledge, and questioning the implications of each in terms of rationality and human behavior.

Belief vs. Knowledge
Belief is often seen as an acceptance that something is true or exists, sometimes without definitive evidence. It's a mental attitude that something is the case, often based on trust, intuition, or incomplete information. For example, believing the sun will rise tomorrow may be more about trusting in patterns observed over time rather than having direct evidence of tomorrow's sunrise.

Knowledge, on the other hand, is typically understood as justified true beliefsomething that is not only believed but also backed by evidence and reasoning, making it reliable and dependable. For example, knowing that the sun will rise tomorrow can be based on the understanding of celestial mechanics, which provides strong evidence for this expectation.

Glad you agree that to be knowledge, it must also be a belief. I see that I was wrong to think you were conflating certainty with knowledge. I'm fine with your explanation of the behavioral aspect of "knowledge" as you define it. Our only small discrepancy is that you define knowledge a bit more loosely than I. For example, you might infer that Isaac Newton's belief in his theory of gravity constituted knowledge- in spite of the fact that it was later shown to not be completely true (I would not). But I see no reason to split hairs for purposes of discussion.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #192]

My argument is that is at least has to be regarded as probable as any other argument presented.

Really?

Yes.

Do you always consider lying and cheating to be equally probable about everything you hear?

No. That is why I removed the "skullduggery" angle...because it might not be a case of "lying and cheating" that the fiction created was seen to be useful.

Subterfuge is not easy to pull off, and the more people who are involved, the more difficult it becomes.

Unless one's audience was already primed to receive the fiction as true. Both Roman and Jewish mythology supply that and simply build upon the stories already accepted by said audience.

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?

No.

Then you may be committing a double standard re your critique re what you will and will not regard as "Irrational Conspiracy Theory".

Cultures invariably have myths that spread and evolve from generation to generation, and the peoples invariably accept them uncritically.

This is what I am observing as well. People are prepared for ongoing fiction, even if they prefer to believe such is fact.

It doesn't imply a conspiracy. When Christians make some claim about Jesus or Satan, they aren't lying - they're telling you something they believe, so I see no reason to think their ancestors who were spreading THEIR myths were any different.

Would you agree that to spread something around (rumor) as the truth that one believes but does not know is the truth, isn't being truthful in relation to knowledge?

No. You're just proposing a vague hypothesis that has no evidence to support it. I suspect (like most conspiracy theories) your hypothesis is rooted in personal bias. There is no evidence for it - it's merely POSSIBLE, so why waste intellectual energy on something that is no more than POSSIBLE? Try to understand your own biases, and avoid letting them color your judgement.

I have made no judgment. I have simply shown that observing the evidence hasn't shown me that the Story of Jesus isn't a useful fiction created by those who the most enabled (the governing) from those who chose to believe the stories are truth, rather than knowing that the stories are truth (the governed).

Perhaps there is projection in your answer above. Perhaps the truth is that it is not I who is being bias (for I have no belief either way on said possibility) but it is you who is being swayed by bias (re your acceptance and belief in something being true which could possible be simply a useful fiction).

Again, I point out that there is nothing "secret" about the powers that be, as they have been operating across generations very openly.

They aren't conspiring to spread disinformation if they believe what they're spreading is TRUE.

Belief that what is being spread is TRUE doesn't make what is being spread, TRUTH.

One does not have to conspire to spread disinformation. Are you suggesting that something morally good is being achieved by those spreading something around that might be disinformation, even that those doing so do not want to investigate the possibility what they are spreading around might be disinformation?

It's absurd to suggest they all know what they're spreading is a lie.

Do you think that a useful fiction is really a lie? If it ultimately serves a good purpose, then fiction or not, why should we see it as a "lie"?
Further to that, if those who believe a useful fiction is the truth and do so by faith that such is actually true, who are really doing the "lying"? Those who invented the useful fiction or those who have taken it upon themselves to treat the useful fiction as if it were fact/truth?

What exactly are you talking about? I initially thought you were referring to the birth of Christianity, and possibly the eventual morphing into the Catholic Church. But your reference to "national security" gives me the impression you're talking about the alleged "deep state conspiracy" that so many Trumpists are so fond of.

I am simply referring to a useful fiction re the story of Jesus - biblical stories in general, and how these influence the world in general - perhaps toward a better way forward re life on earth.
There is no need to separate church from state or for that matter culture/social practices as all can be observed practicing the invention of useful fiction.

My initial question had to do with interest in whether or not scholars have included the possibility of the stories being inventions of useful fiction by those who wrote them down, and if so, to present their findings.

One example of a possible/probable useful fiction is
Exodus 31:18
"And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God."

Building on that theme (that the God has fingers which can etch rules into stone) the metaphor would be that Moses etched the symbols into the stones while he was away on the mountain and found it a useful fiction (metaphor) to proclaim that being inspired to do so came through his relationship with his God using metaphor - for better effect on those who were influenced by and followed Moses.

All subsequent Jewish mythology and later Christian mythology follows the same pattern. Mythology = useful fiction.

It may even be that Moses didn't even claim that God had written on the stones, and this idea simply developed over the preceding years. We cannot tell either way, so why believe what is written is actually truth rather than useful fiction?

What I find interesting re that is the connection between the idea of God writing the laws on the tablets and the following;
John Chapter 8

1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

As a possible useful fiction, we have two tablets claimed to have been written by the finger of God and the development of the idea that Jesus was also that same God in human form...Moses wanting to know what the rules were and going up the mountain to find out, and the Pharisees aware of the extensions to those rules (those who broke the rule re adultery should be stoned to death) and the character Jesus in the possible fiction writing twice in the dust (itself a type of stone) and rather than make a judgement simply declared that people should make up their own minds while inserting a new thought into an old paradigm.

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Indeed, it may be a useful fiction, but it is brilliant in how it connects new ideas with old ones.

Stories which provide helpful morals shouldn't have to be true in order for the moral of such stories to be understood and accepted. Useful fiction can suffice/offer the same assistance.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #194]


Yes, but that also means that the old ideas have been superseded by the new ones and we really don't need those old stories anymore. The only reason to keep telling those old stories now is out of sentimentality, failure (I have to recognise) of moral ethics to be taught, never minds learned, or a wish to keep afloat a religion which should have sunk decades ago.

It does not of course make a case for any kind of god, including Deist or sort- god or the Cosmic Mind, for which there is still no decent evidence.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to fredonly in post #0]

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 of where anything exists that is not part of material reality.

If something material does exist outside of this universe, the problem for the materialist is that the material ends at the causality of this universe. This would then make believing that anything material exists outside of this universe contrary to their belief system and according to Sean Carroll space has to be self-regenerating meaning that entropy has to flow in both directions. In other words, it has to be immutable. It has to have the power to produce an infinite number of universes, so it must be omnipotent. It has to be everywhere so that it would be omnipresent. I imagine that it would make an atheist feel better for their god not to have consciousness but god by any other name is still god.

According to Cosmologist Max Tegmark, the implications of a multiverse can even make each human godlike. He may not say it like that but he believes that each decision we make creates a new universe in the multiverse. This means there are many Earth Science guys in the "bulk" according to Tegmark, and I believe Brian Greene also believes that each one is a little different than the others. Looky there I just created another universe. I am on a universe-creating roll today.

This is not a materialistic theory; it is a pantheistic theory. Pantheism proposes the universe or multiverse and everything it contains is god. Tegmark gave his god consciousness. No materialistic theory proposes that matter can exist outside of this universe. There are only theistic theories which include the multiverse theory. The choice is not between materialism and theism it is a question of which god you want to serve.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]

It depends on what you mean by "report" and if you're trying to create a single resurrection out of multiple incompatible accounts.

Fact: Authors of the NT wrote narratives involving resurrections of Jesus.

You can change the wording any way you wish. The fact remains we have the material contained in the NT which we call the gospels, and they all report upon the same Jesus Christ as being resurrected, and it is from this same material that we have enough facts and evidence to convince scholars that the early followers were truly convinced they had encountered Jesus alive after death. You continue to seem to want to insist there is not much we can know (and I understand why) but we can know what I have just stated, and the fact that we have these reports, along with the fact that these reports have convinced scholars that the early followers were truly convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after death is evidence. Of course, you can attempt to argue that there may be other explanations for this evidence other than a resurrection, but this does not eliminate the fact that the reports are indeed evidence, and the fact that you attempt to give an alternative explanation for this evidence, demonstrates this to be the case, otherwise there would be no need in the alternative explanations. Again, I want to stress the fact that we have enough facts and evidence from the material we have for scholars to claim we can know that the early followers were at the very least reporting what they believed to be fact.

This is a reasonable conjecture, but not a fact per se.

Oh, but it is a fact. When you combine the letters of Paul, with the material addressed to Theophilus, you are already over fifty percent of the NT. If we now add Revelations, which was addressed "To the seven churches which are in Asia" we have an overwhelming majority of the NT which can be demonstrated to be addressed to particular audiences at the time, who would have already been believers. The point being this material was not authored in an attempt to convince the audience of the resurrection since the audience would have already been convinced.

It depends on what you mean by "any sort of Bible." The accepted dates of composition of the texts range from the middle of the first century (the earliest genuine Paulines) to middle of the second century (the Pastoral epistles). Considering the content of Acts, it is likely (reasonable conjecture, not fact) that several Pauline epistles were being circulated together. This is even more likely by the time the Pastorals were written. These documents were written for audiences that likely had collections of texts used for liturgical purposes. Not exactly a canon as such, but could be considered a "sort of Bible."

It is a fact that the authors could not have possibly known about the Bible, since the Bible was not compiled until hundreds of years later. Next, as we have already demonstrated the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT was addressed to particular audiences at the time, who were already believers. So then, even if this material was in circulation, it would have been in circulation among the Churches, which would have already been believers. The point being the material contained in the NT was not derived by one going into a cave coming out proclaiming they had heard from God, and goes on to attempt to convince the world of what God wants the world to know, nor was it one who claims to be in possession of golden tablets which only he could interpret which contains what God wants the world to know. Rather, what is contained in what we call the Gospels, is presented as a historical account of historical events and has nothing to do with convincing the world of what God would have the world to know because the authors would have had no idea that the world would ever read what they had to say. As an example, let us just take a look at the first 4 verses of the first account addressed to Theophilus,

Since many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting to me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in an orderly sequence, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

The first thing I will point out is the fact that the author does not mention God at all. In other words, the author is not suggesting that the information he is communicating came from God. Moreover, the author is not in any way claiming to have been inspired by God to write out this information to Theophilus. Rather, the author is simply communicating to Theophilus, that since others have authored such accounts, he thought it would be good to write out an account for Theophilus.

Next, notice carefully how the author uses the phrase, "accomplished among us". This certainly seems to suggest the author was alive at the time of the events recorded. It does not demonstrate this to be the case, but the phrase "accomplished among us" certainly gives this indication. Moreover, when the author informs Theophilus that he had "investigated everything carefully from the beginning" this certainly gives the idea the author was indeed alive at the time in order to do such an investigation.

Then, the author certainly assures Theophilus, that he can "know the exact truth" which certainly indicates that the author is attempting to give what he believes to be the "exact truth" after what he calls "careful investigation".

Next, the author is addressing one individual. Of course, there are those who want to insist the author may have been using the meaning of the name Theophilus in order to address a wider audience, but this is refuted by the fact that this Theophilus is addressed as "most excellent". Next, the idea that the author was using the meaning of the name, has not been demonstrated in the least. Moreover, whoever this Theophilus may have been, it is clear the author considered him to be a believer, which goes on to demonstrate the author had no intention of addressing the world outside of believers in order to convince the world. In other words, one of the points here is the fact that the authors of what is contained in the NT had no intentions of attempting to persuade the world. Rather, what we have contained in the NT is material addressed to those who already believed, much of which communicates what they are convinced would be, historical events.

The above brings me to the question as to why it is so important for those opposed to seem to want to insist that the author was not addressing an individual, when there is no evidence at all that this would not be the case? The answer is the fact that those opposed understand it does not bode well for their case to have someone address an individual, in order for this individual, "to know the exact truth". No, we cannot have this in the least, and therefore, we must come up with the idea of using the meaning of the name in order to address a wider audience in order to persuade the masses. However, and again, the fact remains, whoever this Theophilus may have been, it is clear the author identifies him as one who was already convinced. In other words, the intent of the author was not to convince the unbeliever.

Finally, it is comical that you seem to be insisting the "pastoral epistles" were authored in the second century which means that Paul could not have authored these letters. This has not been demonstrated in the least, and as far as I know the only evidence given that this would be the case is because it is believed that the structure of the Church would not have been developed as such when Paul was writing. If this is all the evidence we have, then it is extremely weak, and we do indeed have evidence that Paul was indeed the author. Moreover, there is a very good reason for those opposed to want to insist Paul may not have been the author, and that is because the author just so happens to mention, "only Luke is left with me" which would be very good evidence that Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, even staying with Paul while under arrest. But again, the fact of the matter is, it has not been demonstrated in the least that Paul was not the author of the pastoral epistles.

Before we continue, I want to stress the fact that I am not insisting that the author who addresses Theophilus is reporting the truth. However, I would need some sort of facts and evidence in support of the idea that this author was communicating falsehood. I mean, we cannot assume the author is reporting the truth, but we also cannot assume the author is communicating falsely.

"Most all" is strong, but at least a majority as long as you don't try to smuggle in any more qualifiers, like a physical encounter or that "alive" necessarily meant "alive in the flesh." The academic consensus is that the early followers of Jesus believed that they encountered Jesus in some form.

First, I would like to point out that I am not even insisting the scholars are correct. Next, no one is making the argument as to what sort of experience it may have been. Rather, the point is, the scholars are using the material we have in the NT, and coming to the conclusion based upon this information that the early followers were truly convinced in what they report. The whole point here is the fact that this demonstrates the NT is evidence of something. Again, you are certainly free to give what you believe to be an alternative explanation for the facts and evidence we have, but the fact that you understand that you must and have to give some sort of alternative explanation for these facts and evidence, demonstrates there are facts and evidence which demand some sort of alternative explanation. Otherwise, all one would have to do is to continue to insist we have no evidence at all. So then, either we have evidence of a resurrection, or we do not and there is no reason to come up with alternative explanations. I can tell you this, I have heard many, many alternative explanations for the facts and evidence we have, and I have of yet to hear any which would explain all the facts and evidence. I can go on to tell you this as well. Making the argument that the resurrection is the most unlikely explanation does not explain the facts and evidence we have.

This isn't a fact. The evidence is extremely poor

Oh really? Well, let us see. We have already discussed the fact that the author begins by explaining that the events were "accomplished among us" and goes on to communicate that he had "investigated everything from the beginning" as if he were alive to do so. So then, what evidence do we have that this would not be the case?

Next, we know for a fact that Paul had traveling companions. The author of the second account addressed to Theophilus, just so happens to begin to use the words "we" and "us' when describing the events, as if he is there to witness the events he records. My friend, I do not have to use my imagination in order to understand that this would be evidence of the author's presence. What I would have to do is to use my imagination in order to believe this would not be the case. Then, we have Paul who acknowledges those who are present with him on his journeys, and he just so happens to mention Luke as being a companion on more than one occasion. In fact, in one of the pastoral epistles, Paul tells Timothy in a letter which was clearly authored while Paul was under arrest that, "only Luke is left with me". Where does the author of the second account to Theophilus end this account? That would be with Paul being under arrest for some 2 years. Why would the author end this account with Paul being under arrest, when we know this was not the end for Paul? Could it be the fact that the author is there with Paul, and there is no more for the author to report? In other words, Theophilus is now up to date?

Let us go on to think about the fact that if this author was indeed with Paul during a 2-year arrest, this would give this author ample time to sit down in order to write, not one, but two long and detailed letters to Theophilus.

Now, let us consider the fact that the author of the second account addressed to Theophilus begins this account reporting in what the apostles in Jerusalem are doing. However, when the journeys of Paul begin, for some strange reason we do not hear about what the apostles in Jerusalem are doing, but rather the focus is solely upon the activities of Paul, with the author using the words, "we" and "us" to describe the events, and we do not hear about the other apostles until, or unless, Paul comes in contact with them. Can you imagine why this may be? Sure, you can! You see, if the author was indeed traveling with Paul, he could not possibly report upon what the other apostles were doing, until, or unless Paul was to come in contact with them.

We then must acknowledge the fact that those much closer in time attribute the accounts to Theophilus to Luke. Again, this does not demonstrate this to be the case, but since we cannot assume these folks to be reporting factually, we also cannot assume they are in error.

My friend, this evidence of the author's presence with Paul is very strong, which is why those opposed understand they must and have to give an alternative explanation which is why they come up with the idea that the author may have been using a literary device. Of course, it has not been demonstrated in the least that this would be the case, but this would not explain how, and why the author begins to focus solely upon the activities of Paul once Paul's journeys begin.

Now, I am not insisting the author was present, but the evidence certainly suggest this to be the case, and I have no evidence this would not be the case, other than the author may have been using some sort of literary device. I am not one to look at the odds, but you certainly are. So then, what are the odds this author was using a literary device? I am here to tell you; they are not very good. It is one thing for one to believe there may be other explanations for the facts and evidence we have that the author traveled with Paul. It is quite another for one to insist the evidence is weak. As demonstrated above, for one to insist the evidence is weak, is for one to believe what they would rather believe.

and the counterevidence strong enough that the "author who addressed Theophilus" didn't know Paul or any first-generation Christians.

Yeah? Well then, go ahead and give us this evidence.

This is true as you've written it. We need "some sort of explanation." I think the explanation is that a bunch of religious zealots wrote allegorical fiction about their demigod hero.

The thing is, I have no problem with the conclusions you come to, and I do not insist you have no reasons for the conclusions you have. However, you certainly seem to have a problem with my conclusions, but the problem is you cannot demonstrate I have no reasons to come to the conclusions I have.

You haven't demonstrated that the reports were intended to be historical.

I do not have to demonstrate this to be the case, because I am not insisting this to be the case. I am insisting there are reasons to believe this to be the case, and I have explained one of the reasons above in the fact that this is the way in which it is presented to Theophilus. Now, this does not demonstrate the intent was to be historical, but it is evidence, and what I would need is some sort of evidence to the contrary. We cannot assume the intent was historical, but we also cannot assume it was not. But again, I am not insisting that the intent was to be historical. However, if you are insisting the intent was not historical, then the burden lies upon you. In other words, you have not demonstrated the intent would not be historical. As long as neither of us is insisting upon what we believe, then we are free from the burden of proof, and can go on to give the reasons we hold to a certain position. It is only when one insists the position they hold must and has to be the correct position that they own the burden of proof.

You can't rightly insist that the reasons to believe the reports overcome their inherent implausibility.

I am not insisting anything other than there are reasons to hold the position I have. I can tell you though, you cannot rightly insist that the "inherent implausibility" is the answer to every, and all equations.

If you mean the difference between entirely true or entirely false, I agree. Some of the reported details are pretty implausible, though, and there are a lot of explanations that are much, much more likely than a resurrection.

No one is arguing that the resurrection is the more likely explanation. We agree that it is the least likely, but the odds do not lead to the truth. We are not concerned as to whether there are other explanations which would be more likely, but rather an explanation which would explain the facts and evidence we have. When one sits down in order to examine these other explanations you claim to be more likely, and come to understand there is no way these other explanations can possibly explain all the facts we have, we come to understand that these other explanations are not just unlikely, they are next to impossible. In other words, no matter the explanation you end up with the extraordinary.

Jesus was a real guy and crucified by Pilate? Sure, that's plausible. On the balance, I don't think even that much is true, but if we had a way to travel back in time and check, I wouldn't bet more than a few dollars either way. Walking on water? Water to wine? Raising Lazarus from the dead? Being resurrected from the dead? I'd bet the farm that none of those happened in a historical sense and I'd bet a substantial amount that the stories about them were intended to be fiction as genre.

My friend, if Jesus did in fact rise from the dead, you are betting way more than the farm! If you are willing to make this wager, simply based upon the odds then I have no problem with that in the least, but please do not insist that the rest of us should follow suit.

They're evidence of some things, but poor evidence that the details as written were historical events.

We have discussed this above, and I have given reasons to believe the accounts to at least be presented as historical. What I need is some sort of facts and evidence to support the idea that the authors did not intend to write what they at least believed to be historical.

Considering the style, we can't simply assume the reports are true, either. Some of the events are so implausible, though, that it's extraordinarily unlikely that they're true. This isn't an assumption. There are no verified resurrections, supernatural or otherwise, so as a statistical matter, none of the resurrections reported in the New Testament are at all likely to have happened.

Your whole argument seems to be based upon the likelihoods, and no one is making the argument that the resurrection is the more likely. If the likelihoods is your whole argument, then we have no argument, but you have a very weak argument.

In the course of our discussions, I've given you several.

The only one I have seen is the likelihoods.

Christians now believe without direct evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead. A pretty easy answer is that Christians of antiquity weren't any less credulous than Christians are now.

GOOD GRIEF! We have enough evidence to convince scholars that the early followers were convinced in what they report. I am just telling you, that is pretty strong evidence. Moreover, none of these scholars seem to have an explanation for the facts we have. Next, the early followers were not simply believing what they were told by others, but were proclaiming what they claimed to have seen with their own eyes, and the scholars tell us we have enough evidence to know they were convinced in what they saw, not by what they were told.

That's simply a conclusion. If that's really what she claimed, I think she's overstating the evidence. If she's actually a relevant scholar, she probably knows things that I don't, though. If that's true, I'd like to see the rest of her evidence rather than just take your word for her word.

You are free to hold any opinion you wish. Please look her up because I can assure you that she is a very credible scholar who is not Christian.

"They had encountered the risen Jesus" and "they must have [seen] something" are both far cries from "they talked to Jesus in the flesh after his death." Maybe that's what she meant, but I've read enough scholars to have seen nearly identical language with the understanding that it includes the possibility of mystical or visionary experiences.

Again, I am not arguing over what type of experience it may have been. The argument is, even if the NT is not reliable, we have enough evidence contained in this material to convince scholars that we can know these early followers were convinced in what they report with no known explanation. If the scholars are not correct, then we are left with those who made these claims with no known explanation.

I don't deny the things we actually can know, but there are far fewer of those than what you claim we can know.

What you need to do is to demonstrate something I have said we can know, which we cannot know. My guess is, as we move along, the things you admit we can know will continue to shrink.

[fredonly]

[Replying to fredonly in post #192]

Subterfuge is not easy to pull off, and the more people who are involved, the more difficult it becomes.

Unless one's audience was already primed to receive the fiction as true. Both Roman and Jewish mythology supply that and simply build upon the stories already accepted by said audience.

Everyone at the time was primed to believe the nonsense, and that's my point: it didn't require inventing a complete fiction to spread it. That's why I think the earliest Christians were more than likely sincere, but they uncritically accepted what they heard.

Then you may be committing a double standard re your critique re what you will and will not regard as "Irrational Conspiracy Theory".

If you think that, then show me where I've been inconsistent. What's irrational about these conspiracy theories is that they are rooted in a biased speculation, and then proceed to treat facts that are consistent with the hypothesis as proof, while rationalizing contrary evidence. It's a corrupted form of abductive reasoning: whereby an explanatory hypothesis is proposed to explain some set of facts, and it's then shown to be a better fit for those facts than alternative explanations. Conspiracy theorists don't tend to consider alternative explanations, or if they do - it's just to make a hasty dismissal.

Would you agree that to spread something around (rumor) as the truth that one believes but does not know is the truth, isn't being truthful in relation to knowledge?

"Truthful in relation to knowledge"?! I don't know what that means, but what I'm saying is that they aren't lying - they are saying things they believe to be true. That's why I say they were probably sincere.

No. You're just proposing a vague hypothesis that has no evidence to support it. I suspect (like most conspiracy theories) your hypothesis is rooted in personal bias. There is no evidence for it - it's merely POSSIBLE, so why waste intellectual energy on something that is no more than POSSIBLE? Try to understand your own biases, and avoid letting them color your judgement.

I have made no judgment. I have simply shown that observing the evidence hasn't shown me that the Story of Jesus isn't a useful fiction created by those who the most enabled (the governing) from those who chose to believe the stories are truth, rather than knowing that the stories are truth (the governed).

If you aren't judging it, then why are you even bringing it up? It's possible Jesus was an alien - and you can't show that he wasn't. Does that make it worth entertaining? I don't think so.

Perhaps there is projection in your answer above. Perhaps the truth is that it is not I who is being bias (for I have no belief either way on said possibility) but it is you who is being swayed by bias (re your acceptance and belief in something being true which could possible be simply a useful fiction).

I became agnostic in high school (graduating in 1972). In the mid 1980s, I began reading the claims of "Jesus Mythicists". They seemed perfectly plausible when I read them, so if you asked me at the time if I believed a man named Jesus had even existed - I would have said either "probably not" or "no way to know". Then in the 1990s, I was browsing a book store, and saw a book by Bart Ehrman - which I bought and read. It gave me a peek into the way historians evaluate historical data to make their best guesses at what happened in the past. Over time, I read more of his books, and books by other critical scholars, books on general historical methodologies, and books on epistemology and critical thinking. At the same time, I also began reading books about Christian Apologetics (particularly William Lane Craig), which often exposed some poor reasoning by some atheists. I know everyone is biased, but I've at least made an effort to try to set aside my biases and instead focus on what the evidence demonstrates.

Belief that what is being spread is TRUE doesn't make what is being spread, TRUTH....One does not have to conspire to spread disinformation. Are you suggesting that something morally good is being achieved by those spreading something around that might be disinformation, even that those doing so do not want to investigate the possibility what they are spreading around might be disinformation?...Do you think that a useful fiction is really a lie? If it ultimately serves a good purpose, then fiction or not, why should we see it as a "lie"? Further to that, if those who believe a useful fiction is the truth and do so by faith that such is actually true, who are really doing the "lying"? Those who invented the useful fiction or those who have taken it upon themselves to treat the useful fiction as if it were fact/truth?

You have a valid viewpoint, but it's not a fruitful approach to debating with Christians. Maybe you don't care, and that's your privilege. Personally, I like to debate them.

My initial question had to do with interest in whether or not scholars have included the possibility of the stories being inventions of useful fiction by those who wrote them down, and if so, to present their findings.

Scholars have absolutely shown than many of the narratives in the Bible are legendary, and/or mythologized history. But it's impossible to nail down who invented them and what led to the invention. Hebrew mythology was derived from Babylonian, and we don't know much about that - so the absolute origins are lost to history. Sure, there are "useful fictions", but there' more to the dynamic than that - it doesn't explain everything.

[William]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #197]

The early followers were not simply believing what they were told by others, but were proclaiming what they claimed to have seen with their own eyes, and the scholars tell us we have enough evidence to know they were convinced in what they saw, not by what they were told.

This still does not show anyone that the stories were not fiction. For example we know that fictions can and are written in a factual style because this adds to the overall reader experience.

A more modern example of this idea that a handful of people claiming to be witnesses to so-called factual events which eventually gained millions of followers, is the LDS (Mormon) religion.

So what else do scholars use to show that the biblical stories are reported factual events rather than useful fiction? How do they show support for the belief that the stories are true events other than pointing out that there were claims made by a handful of - possibly fictional characters who are described as being convinced in what they saw? What allows the scholars to deduce that these things are not the product of Roman and Jewish fiction/story-tellers?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #195]

It does not of course make a case for any kind of god, including Deist or sort- god or the Cosmic Mind, for which there is still no decent evidence.

Define "decent evidence" that I might understand what it is you are claiming here.