Knowledge vs. Belief

[Storm]

In another thread, I brought up that, while I don't have proof, I claim knowledge on the question of God's existence. It was then argued that this is belief, not knowledge. I disagree, but forebore arguing so as not to hijack.

So, that's the background.

Let's start off with definition of terms:

To believe is simply to accept something as true.

For "knowledge," I'll defer to the dictionary:
–noun1.acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.

2.familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.

3.acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.

4.the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

5.awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.

6.something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.

7.the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.

8.the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.

So, while knowledge is a form of belief, it's more specific. Knowledge necessarily has a foundation, while belief may or may not.

My belief in God is founded, therefore it can fairly be described as knowledge.

Objections?

 

[sandandfoam]

None.
I know God too .

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So, while knowledge is a form of belief, it's more specific. Knowledge necessarily has a foundation, while belief may or may not.

My belief in God is founded, therefore it can fairly be described as knowledge.

Objections?

Knowledge, like evidence, when subjective, is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[MSizer]

...My belief in God is founded, therefore it can fairly be described as knowledge...

Objections?

You'd be hard pressed to find many people who think their belief in god is unfounded. By what criteria do you consider it "founded"?

My argument would be that if it can't be verified by other people, it is not founded, and therefore can't make the jump from belief to knowledge.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

My argument would be that if it can't be verified by other people, it is not founded, and therefore can't make the jump from belief to knowledge.

People can also "know" things that are wrong all the time - even when verified by others.

I think belief is simply the acknowledgement that you think something to be true, but cannot honestly claim to know it. Where the problem comes in, is that many people are unable, or unwilling, to make this acknowledgement.

 

[Storm]

Knowledge, like evidence, when subjective, is in the eye of the beholder.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Rephrase, please?

You'd be hard pressed to find many people who think their belief in god is unfounded. By what criteria do you consider it "founded"?

LOL, true.

I'll rephrase: it's founded on an objectively real event that had objectively real effects.

My argument would be that if it can't be verified by other people, it is not founded, and therefore can't make the jump from belief to knowledge.

This is trickier. The experience can't be shared, but that holds true of many objectively real things, like emotion.

However, the fact that the experience happened is verifiable. As you know, trance states have been mapped. While I don't have a brain scan of my theophany, I did learn to self-induce similar experiences which verified the original.

Does that prove my interpretation of said experience is correct? Of course not, that was never my claim. But it does provide an objectively verifiable catalyst for belief. Hence my claim of knowledge.

People can also "know" things that are wrong all the time - even when verified by others.

Granted. Knowledge can be true or false. The existence of God is as obviously true to me as geocentrism.

Before this thread gets derailed, though, allow me a gentle reminder that the topic is not whether God exists. It's about the nature of knowledge. God serves as a handy example, no more.

I think belief is simply the acknowledgement that you think something to be true, but cannot honestly claim to know it. Where the problem comes in, is that many people are unable, or unwilling, to make this acknowledgement.

I think this is an excellent distinction.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Rephrase, please?

Simply that, when a claim is subjective, a claim of knowledge holds no more weight than a claim of belief - other than for the person making the claim.

 

[sandandfoam]

I think belief is simply the acknowledgement that you think something to be true, but cannot honestly claim to know it. Where the problem comes in, is that many people are unable, or unwilling, to make this acknowledgement.

Humankind and reality?

 

[Storm]

Simply that, when a claim is subjective, a claim of knowledge holds no more weight than a claim of belief - other than for the person making the claim.

Ah, ok. Thank you.

I agree with you. My knowledge is proof of nothing, and no one else has reason to accept it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Humankind and reality?

Peaches and cream?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Ah, ok. Thank you.

I agree with you. My knowledge is proof of nothing, and no one else has reason to accept it.

So what makes it different from a belief? I don't see the difference.

 

[sandandfoam]

Peaches and cream?

Thanks but no. Too much on.
I must throw some protein into my brain vats and fix some holes in my programming

 

[Storm]

So what makes it different from a belief? I don't see the difference.

The strength of its foundation. Or not.

I'm not proselytizing, just engaging in an epistemological exercise.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So what makes it different from a belief? I don't see the difference.

When subjective, the only difference is in the person's claim of certainty. There is no fundamental difference to an outside observer - at least in terms of the strength of the claim.

 

[Thief]

How about...
Knowledge as a collection of ideas such that... experimentation, or an immediate occurrence may demonstrate.
Knowledge could then be observation followed by a careful deduction or induction.
Knowledge would then be dependent first by experience, and then the ability to make certain what may be said of the occurrence.

Belief goes beyond what can be proven.
Not that belief should be set aside for 'lack of proof'.

If you walk into a room and find a coin on the table....someone has been there.
If you find the coin spinning on it's edge...someone is close by.

Science believes in the singularity...that's good.
To say that God did it...is good.
Science however cannot proceed and cannot assist.

There will be no experiments...no laboratory large enough.
There will be no photographs or fingerprints.
No equation to prove God to be real.

Only your reasoning can be used.
Seek and you will find.

 

[Magic Man]

It's such a hard distinction to pin down. To me, the difference between knowledge and belief is the level of certainty. I know that I'm wearing a dress shirt. I believe my dad is also wearing a dress shirt (even though I haven't seen him since last week). If I saw my dad wearing a dress shirt today, I'd know he was wearing one.

But knowledge is subjective. There are people who would claim "I know that God is real", meaning the Christian god. Some of us would say that that's wrong, just as some of us might say that you, love are wrong about your god. (Note: I'm not saying you are, just that there are, I'm sure, some who would say that).

So, maybe it's just that it depends on the level of certainty by the person making the claim.

 

[Storm]

It's such a hard distinction to pin down. To me, the difference between knowledge and belief is the level of certainty. I know that I'm wearing a dress shirt. I believe my dad is also wearing a dress shirt (even though I haven't seen him since last week). If I saw my dad wearing a dress shirt today, I'd know he was wearing one.

But knowledge is subjective. There are people who would claim "I know that God is real", meaning the Christian god. Some of us would say that that's wrong, just as some of us might say that you, love are wrong about your god. (Note: I'm not saying you are, just that there are, I'm sure, some who would say that).

So, maybe it's just that it depends on the level of certainty by the person making the claim.

Thanks for your response. :hug:

If certainty is the only factor, then I definitely know God exists. Just as others know the opposite.

I don't think it's a useful standard, though. By my argument, I know God exists because I've "seen" it. There's a justification.

 

[Magic Man]

Thanks for your response. :hug:

But, of course, love.

If certainty is the only factor, then I definitely know God exists. Just as others know the opposite.

I don't think it's a useful standard, though. By my argument, I know God exists because I've "seen" it. There's a justification.

But your having seen it would be what makes you so certain, right?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I've said it before and I'll say it again...faith is not epistemology.

Also, personal experience yields belief not knowledge, unless it is verifiable. Knowledge isn't knowledge if it's false. A belief can only make the step to knowledge if it is justified and true.

 

[Storm]

But, of course, love.

But your having seen it would be what makes you so certain, right?

Yes, that's my point. It's about the solidity of the foundation.

Regardless of whether I've interpreted my experience correctly, it happened. It's a phenomenon subject to sceintifc inquiry. That the foundation is provable makes it knowledge.

Did that make any sense at all?