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]

A fair point. Minimal fact (as i understand it) is the minimum we can take as fact, which is that Paul and the disciples believed the resurrection, and the tomb was found empty. The minimum witness argument would, I suppose, be that what is claimed to be eyewitness is itself part of the 'minimum facts'.

If you see those as anything else, please feel free to say how you see it.

Your critique of the Minimal Facts argument was that apologists take "the resurrection 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." From there you asserted that the Minimal Witnesses argument is doing the same thing. However, the Minimal Witnesses argument does not take the resurrection claim and pretend it is validated by the claim and proceed to dismiss any problems as excusable error. Instead, the Minimal Witnesses argument takes the resurrection claim and provides a naturalistic explanation that doesn't require a resurrection (i.e., Peter and Paul mistakenly believed they had encountered the risen Jesus, etc.) to account for the minimal facts. So, I am trying to understand how the Minimal Witnesses argument could be operating in the same way as the Minimal Facts argument. Any clarification you could provide will be appreciated. Thanks.

[TRANSPONDER]

A fair point. Minimal fact (as i understand it) is the minimum we can take as fact, which is that Paul and the disciples believed the resurrection, and the tomb was found empty. The minimum witness argument would, I suppose, be that what is claimed to be eyewitness is itself part of the 'minimum facts'.

If you see those as anything else, please feel free to say how you see it.

Your critique of the Minimal Facts argument was that apologists take "the resurrection 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." From there you asserted that the Minimal Witnesses argument is doing the same thing. However, the Minimal Witnesses argument does not take the resurrection claim and pretend it is validated by the claim and proceed to dismiss any problems as excusable error. Instead, the Minimal Witnesses argument takes the resurrection claim and provides a naturalistic explanation that doesn't require a resurrection (i.e., Peter and Paul mistakenly believed they had encountered the risen Jesus, etc.) to account for the minimal facts. So, I am trying to understand how the Minimal Witnesses argument could be operating in the same way as the Minimal Facts argument. Any clarification you could provide will be appreciated. Thanks.

Thank you. I just looked them up. Yes, the idea is a naturalistic explanation for the disciples beleiving they saw a resurrection, and the same leading to the rise of Christianity.

I was misled by some apologist arguments that Minimum facts and Minimum witnesses imply what the disciples beleived was real.

I confess I hadn't checked because I don't use the argument.

I don't believe the resurrection is based on anything but a belief the disciples talked themselves into that Jesus' spirit had risen. Which is why I argue that 1 Corinthians has Paul's belated vision of Jesus (arguably imaginary) equated with those of the disciples, Simon apparently being the first (Luke adapting his gospel to include that). Everything including, I suspect, the empty tomb, was invented afterwards when the Christian story - inventors tried to make a spiritual resurrection into a solid body one.

The disciples saw nothing other than in their heads, which is why i son't even consider the minimal facts argument. Minimal witnesses.... well, I do argue how Christianity got going, and some Bible critics recognise that Paul was the first Christian, but I don't often see the idea that it was a spiritual resurrection that was the basis, not a belief that Jesus' body had been seen waking around in actuality.

I gather that this is a maverick idea, and the Authorities generally follow the idea that the disciples saw Jesus walking about after the crucifixion. Which is why i don't bother with these Experts, as I think they are starting from a false assumption - a priori Faith (in the Gospels ) in fact.

Now I used to do that, too, and I saw (after a redaction reduction exercise) that the gospel story works better, as a basically reliable account, if the Big Four (actually five) miracles were faked and so was the resurrection. It is still possible, as i still think the donkey ride and temple bust - up were real events. I could be way wrong . But then I just could not believe that the raising of Lazarus was unknown to the synoptic writers, nor that they left it out because it looked fishy. Not that the Authorities ever found anything smelly about it. I had to conclude that, despite the detail and discussion, it was invented, not reported.

So in the end, for me, the Minimal apologetics are not even really relevant.

[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

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.

If I see all atheists hereabouts liking your post, I will consider it more than just your personal opinion and will delve more into the claims you have made.

more than just liking my post, I should like to see their personal opinion along with mine., as your post was really asking what we thought about it.

You appear to be admitting that your words were more fiction than fact...perhaps useful to you in some way, but not to others...

It is a hypothesis, based on observation and reason. I have confidence in it, but others must judge. Whether 'we need it', even if not true, is a valid argument or not. I argue that atheists say no, but that is up to them.

That is about the honest size of it, I agree.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #19]

I really do not know what you intend to say here. What I do know is that we do in fact have evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and for one to deny such a thing is for one not to be in touch with reality.

What "evidence" do you have for the "resurrection?"
More importantly, how do you define 'evidence?'

Despite some 19th and 2th Century advocates claims to the contrary, there is neither scientific, historic, nor legal evidence for the resurrection. Claiming otherwise might provoke some to cite "losing touch with reality."

There certainly is a mountain of scientific evidence that resurrection from actual death is doubtful if not impossible. Resurrection from the dead lies in the same evidentiary category as "ghosts."

There is evidence from historical accounts that reference a figure called 'Jesus,' and CLAIMS of magic or miracles or ghosts or r'esurrections.'

There is no legal evidence either; that is, no evidence that would be accepted in a Court of Law as "admissible." In addition to "hearsay" objections, we have the problem that that gospels are not contemporaneous accounts. They are instead, anonymous, biased and fantastic.

The only account from an identifiable, contemporaneous source comes from a man who admits it was a mere "vision" that he recounts as fact only after being blind and unconscious for three days with neither food nor drink - a man recounting "events" recorded during an unconscious or delusional state.

NONE of this "evidence" would be admissible "to prove the truth of the matter asserted."

[otseng]

and for one to deny such a thing is for one not to be in touch with reality.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid comments of a personal nature.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[historia]

there is neither scientific, historic, nor legal evidence for the resurrection.

Historical evidence is anything directly related to an event or person of the past.

There is evidence from historical accounts that reference a figure called 'Jesus,' and CLAIMS of magic or miracles or ghosts or r'esurrections.'

In other words, historical evidence.

[Diogenes]

there is neither scientific, historic, nor legal evidence for the resurrection.

Historical evidence is anything directly related to an event or person of the past.

There is evidence from historical accounts that reference a figure called 'Jesus,' and CLAIMS of magic or miracles or ghosts or r'esurrections.'

In other words, historical evidence.

Your edits are misleading. You redacted the text I wrote,

There is evidence from historical accounts that reference a figure called 'Jesus,' and CLAIMS of magic or miracles or ghosts or 'resurrections.'

The central point of my post was that "evidence" needs to be qualified. Evidence, as both courts, historians and scientists agree, must be weighed, evaluated, and frequently ignored completely because it is "inadmissible" or irrelevant, or so weak it should be disregarded altogether.
Such is the case with the "evidence" of the resurrection.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #19]

I really do not know what you intend to say here. What I do know is that we do in fact have evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and for one to deny such a thing is for one not to be in touch with reality.

What "evidence" do you have for the "resurrection?"
More importantly, how do you define 'evidence?'

Despite some 19th and 20th Century advocates claims to the contrary, there is neither scientific, historic, nor legal evidence for the resurrection. Claiming otherwise might provoke some to cite "losing touch with reality."

There certainly is a mountain of scientific evidence that resurrection from actual death is doubtful if not impossible. Resurrection from the dead lies in the same evidentiary category as "ghosts."

There is evidence from historical accounts that reference a figure called 'Jesus,' and CLAIMS of magic or miracles or ghosts or resurrections.'

There is no legal evidence either; that is, no evidence that would be accepted in a Court of Law as "admissible." In addition to "hearsay" objections, we have the problem that that gospels are not contemporaneous accounts. They are instead, anonymous, biased and fantastic.

The only account from an identifiable, contemporaneous source comes from a man who admits it was a mere "vision" that he recounts as fact only after being blind and unconscious for three days with neither food nor drink - a man recounting "events" recorded during an unconscious or delusional state.

NONE of this "evidence" would be admissible "to prove the truth of the matter asserted."

What we have is a written historical claim.The apologists make the point that it is as good as many historical claims that are treated seriously. Also, that it is tantamount to a witness statement by four witnesses, and corroborated by Paul.

That the claim is of a miracle works against it: "Miracles do not happen". But it is not in itself proof tjat a one - off miracle did not happen. Moreover, Paul was a real person, I am sure. And he related the appearance of Jesus to the disciples.

That's good enough evidence for many, including unbelievers and Bible critics, and it was for me. Not for the Muslims who frankly invented a conspiracy theory or a dismissive faithclaim, rather, that Jesus didn't die on the cross. I don't give that claim any credit. Nor much to the Didymus theory, as if the disciples didn't know Jesus had a twin brother, who, I suppose, faked the marks of resurrection, which his new incorruptible body would not have had anyway.

Which is where the story starts to come apart under cross - examination. The story of Jesus' magical body, intercepting Cleophas, halfway to Emmaus while also appearing to Mary and the Simon (Luke claims) in Jerusalem, and could walked through locked doors, asks why Jesus would still bear the marks of crucifixion? The elephant in the room is that God faked them so as to Identify that it was Jesus, which is the point John makes, in a story somewhat contradicted by Luke.

But, if we are doing to do the two edged 'natural explanation' apologetic (which saves Bible veracity but wrecks the miraculous and divine claim) then (like the miracles being staged fakes) so was the resurrection' real but not a miracle. The 'evidence' of the witness statement - if one believes it - works better as Arimathea's idea to use the Lazarus trick to save Jesus. Joseph asking for the body can be read as Joseph and Pilate (who was minded to let Jesus off anyway) set up a plot to get a doped Jesus off the cross while still alive and out of the tomb as soon as it was dark. And that, Matthew tells us, is the story the Jews tell in his day. But that bit of evidence is dismissed pr ignoredy by the cherry - picking Faithful and apologists.
And I was once persuaded by that, and even the shroud fits as a real relic - of a faked resurrection.

But that fell apart, too. Paul's story doesn't fit the Gospels. The accounts themselves don't agree. The apologetics get more traction than they should. Dammit, people even accept the Nativities as a real event and they absolutely are not. The excuses made for Mark not having a resurrection account don't wash, and if they did, it would work better if Mark ended with the women running away to report that the tomb was empty.

Of course it is,says Jesus. I was brought out first thing Saturday evening. But Mark isn't going to be told that, or report it if he was.

And even that falls apart for me. Why wouldn't Joseph close the tomb up afterwards so nobody would suspect anything was amiss? That was the little elephant squeaking in the room, ignored by everyone. The tomb had to be empty to let everyone know that there was proof (not just a Claim) that Jesus had risen. Yes, the empty tomb was a claim invented to turn a spirit (in the head) resurrection (which is what Paul at least saw) into a solid body walking out of the tomb, story.

[fredonly]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #238]
I agree with 98% of what you wrote. I have a minor issue with this:

"the empty tomb was a claim invented to turn a spirit (in the head) resurrection (which is what Paul at least saw) into a solid body walking out of the tomb, story."

This seems to imply deceit by Mark. IMO, Mark probably believed in a bodily resurrection, and inferred that this meant Jesus had departed from whence he was buried. He chose to convey this through the narrative he invented.

In 1 Cor, we learn there was some controversy among the Corinthians as to the nature of Jesus resurrection- with some believing it was ghostly, while Paul argued it was a perfected body. An empty tomb story provides a basis to end the controversy. (The very fact of this controversy is also evidence that neither Paul nor the Corinthians knew an empty tomb story).

[historia]

The central point of my post was that "evidence" needs to be qualified.

Okay, but what I'm pointing out above is that you started your post with the sweeping claim that there is no historical evidence for the Resurrection -- and that to say otherwise would call into question someone's sanity -- only to then subsequently talk about the historical evidence!

Seems like you ought to just retract that initial, sweeping claim, and we can chalk that up to a bit of rhetorical flight of fancy.

Evidence, as both courts, historians and scientists agree, must be weighed, evaluated, and frequently ignored completely because it is "inadmissible" or irrelevant, or so weak it should be disregarded altogether.

There are plenty of non-Christian scholars who have written about the historical Jesus and the origins of Christianity. They all have to account for the fact that the early Christians believed Jesus was raised from the dead. To my knowledge, none of these skeptical scholars has ever "ignored completely" the gospels or "disregarded altogether" the Pauline epistles when treating that question. Historians of all stripes recognize that these sources constitute historical evidence that requires serious analysis and explanation.