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!

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]
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.

Not debating... just submitting the following content for your awareness. The resurrection-free explanation described at the link below is claimed to account for all the facts and evidence we have:
Minimal Witnesses Hypothesis

[William]

What about the biblical stories (including OT) can be ascertained as being anything other than Useful Fiction?

Why grant that the fiction is based upon fact? Do we think of the story of Lord of The Rings had characteristics which are based in fact or simply accept that the characters are as fictional as the world they are placed within?

Off the top of my head:

The Gospels reference people known to exist (e.g.Pilate, Herod, James - Jesus' brother). The references to Roman law are consistent with other sources. The destruction of the 2nd Temple is alluded to. Many specific towns are referenced, that are known to have existed. The fact that Romans occupied Judea is an integral part of the context.

The OT describes the Maccabean Revolt, which is known to have occurred.

So, because the setting is non-fictional this fact gives credence to the idea that the references to real (historic) places and people mean we can accept that the characters in the story were also real, and what they are attributed with saying, was really what they said?

The problem I have with that reasoning is that it is a bit like arguing that the Lord of The Rings universe must be real because the characters within the story do things which we as humans identify with. One can build on that concepts by declaring "therefore, IF the LotrU is real THEN so too must be the characters.

This unfolds into the reasoning that IF our universe is real and we are real within it THEN "heaven/Gods abode et all" must be a real universe too and the characters within that real universe must be real too...

Hench where Useful Fiction derives and why it is useful.

I consider myself a Cultural Christian in that I reside in society shaped by the historical influence of Christianity.

Because of this influence the path I chose to take was neither to embrace Christianity or Atheism.

This meant that I could (and did) come to understand that yes we do exist within a created thing and yes there was an overall mindfulness which was responsible for the created thing and which could be interacted with using other devices rather than just the ones Christianity authorises.

Given that every day I am more convinced of these things, being able to think that the Bible stories are Useful Fiction allows me more room to explore the knowledge-base I have acquired through my interactions with what I refer to as The Parent Mind.

One might argue that Jesus is attributed with saying such a thing was possible for the individual to achieve (and is reported to have referred to that Mind as "Father") and thus why shouldn't I believe Jesus was a real person if I know we exist within a created thing and interact mindfully with the Parent Mind?

My point is that no one should have to believe Jesus was real, in order to see in the words attributed to him as being useful, even if those words were attached to a fictional character.

Given that absolutely no writing has ever been attributed to having been penned by Jesus anyway, one can legitimately accept the idea that he was a made-up character speaking useful words which remain useful regardless of whether they were actually spoken by a real individual in the setting you mention, or not.

So I find I can go along with the idea that the Bible is Useful Fiction while maintaining the path I am on re being in a created thing, interacting with the Parent Mind.

(I ran that by LLS GPT and got this reply)

4o. Your perspective on the Bible as "Useful Fiction" offers a way to appreciate the value of the stories and teachings without being constrained by the need to accept them as literal historical accounts. By recognizing the influence of Christianity on culture and society, you can engage with the text in a meaningful way, drawing insights that resonate with your understanding of the "Parent Mind" and the created nature of our existence.

This approach allows you to explore spiritual and philosophical concepts without being tied to the historical accuracy of the characters or events described in the Bible. It also provides the flexibility to interact with other forms of knowledge and spiritual practices that might not align with traditional Christian teachings, while still acknowledging the cultural and moral frameworks that Christianity has provided.

Your argument that one doesn't need to believe in the literal existence of Jesus to find value in the teachings attributed to him highlights the broader utility of these stories, regardless of their factual basis. This view respects the power of narrative and symbolism in conveying truths that can be applied to one's personal spiritual journey.

[Difflugia]

Supposing Jesus was a real person, what from the gospels can be regarded as something truly spoken by that person?

That's what the Jesus Seminar set out to decide.

What serious study has been done by biblical scholars (theist of atheist) to show that Pauls message was aligned with what was written by others re Jesus' message?

Outside of harmonizing apologetic, no two biblical authors have an "aligned" message of Jesus. Secular scholarship is full of studies of the various views of Jesus, both as independent messages and as they relate to each other. Bart Ehrman's stuff for popular audiences is easy to find (Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene, Jesus Before the Gospels, How Jesus Became God), but there's a lot more if you have access to an academic library.

What about the biblical stories (including OT) can be ascertained as being anything other than Useful Fiction?

Depending on your tolerance for embellishment, my usual guess for reasonably accurate historiography is pretty much the last quarter of Second Kings. The minor prophets seem to have mostly written their own books and the non-theological details are probably pretty accurate. For the same reason, the non-theological details of the genuine Pauline epistles are probably accurate.

Why grant that the fiction is based upon fact?

Because historical fiction is a thing. I think scholars tend to be more optimistic about the overall historical reliability of the biblical narrative, but when it comes down to it, they are genuine experts and have reasons for their conclusions. I tend to think King David wasn't a real guy, but at the same time, it's hard to argue with the picture Joel S. Baden paints in The Historical David.

Do we think of the story of Lord of The Rings had characteristics which are based in fact or simply accept that the characters are as fictional as the world they are placed within?

Sure, but the question is which parts are Lord of the Rings and which parts are Fox News. There are different levels of fiction and they should be treated differently, but it's not always straightforward deciding which is which.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #213]

There are different levels of fiction and they should be treated differently, but it's not always straightforward deciding which is which.

This is why I use the word "useful" in relation to "fiction".

Of course, that branches out into morality and personal preference, but I am meaning it in an overall way.

Being Culturally Christian, I agree with Richard Dawkins that given the choice of the cultures in the world, being in a Christian culture is my preference so "I no complain" in that regard and this is symbiotic of what I am meaning by "Useful" re "Fiction".

If (asking the atheists) the main problem between atheists against Christianity and Christians is that Atheists think Christians shouldn't believe that the bible characters (God overall and God-claimers in general) are real/speaking the truth et al, then would atheists be able to agree that the stories are at least, Useful Fiction?

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]
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.

Not debating... just submitting the following content for your awareness. The resurrection-free explanation described at the link below is claimed to account for all the facts and evidence we have:
Minimal Witnesses Hypothesis

Given the argument of analysis (Minimal Witnesses Hypothesis) you linked this adds to the probability of at least a mostly fictional-based evolution of Christianity.

However, it does not show that the rise of Christianity wasn't/isn't a Useful Fiction.

The main point I disagree with on the list of 12 is the inference that so-called hallucination's are fictional/produce fiction. We do not know enough about the nature of the mind and visions to make that much a call on what happened to Peter (Hallucination through grief) and Paul (hallucination through guilt), although we can leave it on the table of discussion as something which requires more study.

More to that point, given what we do know, if we are to accept that the hallucinations are fictional (in that they actually happened but were not actually real), we can still work on discussing whether they were Useful Fiction.

[fredonly]

So, because the setting is non-fictional this fact gives credence to the idea that the references to real (historic) places and people mean we can accept that the characters in the story were also real, and what they are attributed with saying, was really what they said?

I'll highlight the fact that I answered the question you asked. Why did you ask it? Did you seriously not know there are aspects of the Bible that are consistent with history?.

No. Of COURSE the fact that there is a historical context to the stories doesn't mean every far-fetched element is true. But it does establish that these stories aren't created from whole cloth, like Homer's Oddyssey.

The problem I have with that reasoning...

You're saying you have a problem with the "reasoning" you created. You aren't being reasonable, so I'll be blunt: you are ignorant of the relevant history, and ignorant of the way historians extract probable facts from flawed sources. You don't seem interested in trying to understand that, either, since you respond by attacking. So it appears to be a complete waste of my time to respond to you.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #216]

You respond by attacking

Not sure what you are referring to with that comment fredonly.

I critiqued.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]
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.

Not debating... just submitting the following content for your awareness. The resurrection-free explanation described at the link below is claimed to account for all the facts and evidence we have:
Minimal Witnesses Hypothesis

Bible apologists are very evasive and disingenuous. How they do it is by taking the claim(which is questioned because of the contradictions) and pretend the claim is validated by the claim and the problems can be dismissed as excusable error. Mimimal witnesses is just the old Con repackaged.

[Replying to Difflugia in post #213]

There are different levels of fiction and they should be treated differently, but it's not always straightforward deciding which is which.

This is why I use the word "useful" in relation to "fiction".

Of course, that branches out into morality and personal preference, but I am meaning it in an overall way.

Being Culturally Christian, I agree with Richard Dawkins that given the choice of the cultures in the world, being in a Christian culture is my preference so "I no complain" in that regard and this is symbiotic of what I am meaning by "Useful" re "Fiction".

If (asking the atheists) the main problem between atheists against Christianity and Christians is that Atheists think Christians shouldn't believe that the bible characters (God overall and God-claimers in general) are real/speaking the truth et al, then would atheists be able to agree that the stories are at least, Useful Fiction?

No. Or we wouldn't be arguing at all. it is because Christianity is (a) not true and (b) more a social problem than an palliative is why we are doing this at all. As for myself, I found Buddhism a sign more agreeable than Christianity.

The 'we need it, true or not' ploy was one of the first Christian polemical ploys to be kicked into the gutter, along with morality and inverted logic.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to fredonly in post #216]

You respond by attacking

Not sure what you are referring to with that comment fredonly.

I critiqued.

Apparently the 'Fiction' problem. The fact is that basing a tale on real places and even history doesn't make it true. Odyssey might be totally fictional, not based on any real story, but Troy may be based on more history than was once thought. Alexander is surely broadly history, but some stuff is probably fictional. Is Arthur true, at all? Is Robin Hood? The Vinland saga, despite some fanciful elements is now considered historically - based.

The Bible cannot be accepted or rejected wholly, but what seems credible must be judged as well as what just does not stack up.

[fredonly]

[Replying to fredonly in post #216]

You respond by attacking

Not sure what you are referring to with that comment fredonly.

I critiqued.

Fair enough- you didn't attack me. But you've been resistant to hearing facts. I had answered a question you asked, then you jumped to conclusions and argued against the conclusions to which you jumped. This gives me the impression you are resistant to trying to understand the framework I've been presenting. Whether you choose to believe it, or not, there are good reasons to think Jesus existed, engaged in some preaching that led to some people following him, and that this developed into a movement that blossomed into the early Christian Church.

It's perfectly reasonable to reject Christianity without really understanding the history, but it isn't reasonable to then jump to the conclusion it's all fiction. You may not care what history can be discerned from the flawed Christian sources, but if that's the case, don't bother to engage with those of us who ARE interested in the topic.

If you ARE interested in a secular, historical analysis- ask questions, and refrain from jumping to conclusions and reacting to those conclusions.