Is faith a reliable way to know truth?

1) The Miller-Urey experiment was flawed. It turns out that the gases he used (a reactive mixture of methane and ammonia) did not exist in large amounts on early Earth. Scientists now believe the primeval atmosphere contained an inert mix of carbon dioxide and nitrogen—a change that made a world of difference.

When Miller repeated the experiment using the correct combo in 1983, the brown broth failed to materialize. Instead, the mix created a colorless brew, containing few amino acids. It seemed to refute a long-cherished icon of evolution—and creationists quickly seized on it as supposed evidence of evolution's wobbly foundations.

But Bada's repeat of the experiment—armed with a new insight—seems likely to turn the tables once again.

Bada discovered that the reactions were producing chemicals called nitrites, which destroy amino acids as quickly as they form. They were also turning the water acidic—which prevents amino acids from forming. Yet primitive Earth would have contained iron and carbonate minerals that neutralized nitrites and acids. So Bada added chemicals to the experiment to duplicate these functions. When he reran it, he still got the same watery liquid as Miller did in 1983, but this time it was chock-full of amino acids.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...up-urey-miller-evolution-experiment-repeated/

2) This does not take into account lipids, which could have sealed the amino acids from the water.

I agree with the philospher Galen Strawson on responsibility:

1. You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
2. In order to be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are—at least in certain crucial mental aspects.
3. But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
4. So you can’t be ultimately responsible for what you do.

However, this does not mean that we shouldn't hold people responsible for their actions pragmatically.

if I'm following you, then the answer would be no, humans are not morally responsible for their actions. But of course, groups of humans can make up systems of consequences for actions.

I thought experiment:
suppose you are marooned on a desert island with a food supply and one other person. the other person is very annoying. If you kill the other person the food supply will last twice as long for you thus increasing your odds of survival.
does it make sense to kill them?

I believe all have faith. The issue is in what do we place our faith. We can earnestly believe what is not true and suffer disastrous consequences.

When an unbeliever (natural man) believes something that is not true, what do you call that belief?

To me, that natural man has "faith" and he or she "believes" a lie with the same "faith" that the believer "believes" what is true.

And a believer can "believe" a lie with the same "faith" that the believer "believes" what is true.

The "faith" is the same. It is the object of what our faith is placed in that is the crucial key.

Exactly.

No, because I still feel that it is wrong to kill someone. Evolution is about survival of the genes, not the individual. The feeling that it is wrong to kill someone comes from my genetics, not from my rational assessment of the situation I'm in. Even though there are specific scenarios where killing would increase survival of the individual, this does not change the fact that in general cooperation is more beneficial to survival of the genes than killing.

I read the articles you linked. Neither "scrutinizes" the evidence for the resurrection. Rather, the Carrier article focuses on a secular legend and the alleged parallels to the gospel accounts. The other article merely suggests a plausible alternate explanation for the burial and resurrection events. While they do cast doubt, that seems to be the extent of their goals. Neither appears to desire to know the truth of the matter.

"... for all men have not faith." 2 Thess 3:2

That was a response to an article that said the disciples think they saw Jesus and that the only possible explanations are that 1) they were lying, 2) they hallucinated, 3) Jesus really resurrected. It then concludes that, because 1) and 2) are probably not true, 3) must be true. Obviously those are not the only possible explanations, and the articles I linked gave some of those other explanations.

No, that is a common misconception. That, and that it is about survival of the individual. It is actually survival of the gene.

"To appreciate this problem, consider the origin of the first DVD and DVD player. DVDs are rich in information, but without the machinery of a DVD player to read the disk, process its information, and convert it into a picture and sound, the disk would be useless. But what if the instructions for building the first DVD player were only found encoded on a DVD? You could never play the DVD to learn how to build a DVD player. So how did the first disk and DVD player system arise? The answer is obvious: a goal directed process -- intelligent design -- is required to produce both the player and the disk at the same time. "

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1551

There is really some kind of blindness required for atheism and for the belief or randomness.

The other issue with evolutionary theory is that there is no absolute in first cause. It's theory. As condemned as some evolutionists make religions of any sort, calling them magical thinking in some instances, the one thing evolutinary theory has yet to accomplish is to answer the where question. The what question. And the why question, as pertains to existence itself.
Where did it start and from what identifiable source and why did it begin?
At least in matters of faith, as opposed to theory, the faithful across the spectrum of beliefs have those answers. Are they a fact? We'll see.

why would you feel it was wrong if you believe there is no moral responsibility?

Because I just do. I also feel as if I have free will, when most likely I don't.

The DVD analogy sounds nice, but that is not how DNA and RNA work.

Also, from https://www-sciencedirect-com.proxy.library.uu.nl/science/article/pii/S1369848612000696 (Possibly behind a paywall):

Although scientists had long known about the abundance of RNA in ribosomes, until the 1990s they had assumed that the RNA was present merely to provide the scaffolding on which the protein enzymes conducted their duties of catalyzing the formation of peptide bonds between successive amino acids in the growing chain. However, in 1992 results from the laboratory of Harry Noller indicated that the RNA component played a much more integral role in catalyzing peptide-bond formation than had been understood earlier.

I thought you were certain you don't have free will.

So, for the record, are you certain or uncertain?


-----------

Renate, allow me to ask you a direct question: Are you seeking truth, regardless of where it leads you, or are you just seeking to debunk Christianity for some reason?

I think there is no free will, but I could be wrong.

I am seeking truth, and I am asking Christians to do the same.