• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Knowledge vs. Belief

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
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?

The end result is the same - it's knowledge to you, because you're certain. If you weren't certain, you'd say it was a belief. I think we're all saying the same thing - just differently.
 

.lava

Veteran Member
IMO belief is like a magnet and knowledge that does not contradict that belief is like little pieces of iron that stick it. or knowledge goes through a filter in your mind and transforms into whatever suits you and make your belief stronger. so people would deny any knowledge that contradicts their belief or translate it according to their belief system so that foundation of their beliefs would remain. though this situation changes when evidence comes before knowledge that follows it. sometimes what we experience can not be explained by our beliefs and we question our beliefs. we search for more or better and this leaves a door open to new knowledge and our belief evolves. a belief without knowledge is more like a weapon without target, it is bigotry. same goes with ending learning process IMO

.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
IMO belief is like a magnet and knowledge that does not contradict that belief is like little pieces of iron that stick it. or knowledge goes through a filter in your mind and transforms into whatever suits you and make your belief stronger. so people would deny any knowledge that contradicts their belief or translate it according to their belief system so that foundation of their beliefs would remain. though this situation changes when evidence comes before knowledge that follows it. sometimes what we experience can not be explained by our beliefs and we question our beliefs. we search for more or better and this leaves a door open to new knowledge and our belief evolves. a belief without knowledge is more like a weapon without target, it is bigotry. same goes with ending learning process IMO

.

Indeed - this is why it is better to base your beliefs off of knowledge, rather than the other way around.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
My thophany, which is, as I've said, a phenomenon subject to scientific inquiry.

Then my only objection is that your standards for "objective evidence" are extremely low.

The fact that science can verify the existence of neurological mystical happenings does not mean science can verify the content or veracity of such happenings.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Then my only objection is that your standards for "objective evidence" are extremely low.

The fact that science can verify the existence of neurological mystical happenings does not mean science can verify the content or veracity of such happenings.
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that the content of my theophany is objective evidence of God. I'm saying that the event of my theophany is an objective foundation for my belief. Further, that belief with an objective foundation can be fairly considered knowledge.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that my theophany is objective evidence of God. I'm saying that the fact my theophany happened is an objective foundation for my belief. Further, that belief with an objective foundation can be fairly considered knowledge.

Anything can be considered "knowledge".
Creationism is "knowledge" and false at the same time.

If you are the only one who has access to this knowledge then it isn`t verifiable nor is it objective to anyone other than your self.

This knowledge being unavailable to anyone else makes it highly suspect.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Anything can be considered "knowledge".
Creationism is "knowledge" and false at the same time.

If you are the only one who has access to this knowledge then it isn`t verifiable nor is it objective to anyone other than your self.

In fact due to this knowledge being unavailable to anyone else makes it highly suspect.
I don't have time to respond to this in the detail it deserves. If I don't get back to it later, remind me.

In the meantime, I'd be grateful if you'd review the thread. I think I've already addressed some of your concerns. :)
 

.lava

Veteran Member
Simply that all views should start with, and be based on, knowledge. Otherwise, only knowledge which supports pre-drawn conclusions/beliefs is absorbed.

thank you for explaining :) how could you find meaning in knowledge without belief? even if you did not have a belief in the begining, your knowledge would provide you one eventually. if not, how could a person keep center neutral, free of belief though he has knowledge?

.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
So...people without knowledge cannot have belief?

Sure beliefs come and go.
So does knowledge.

Should we push aside the uneducated, and their beliefs?
Are they 'unworthy' because they lack a passing grade in science?

If the man beside you claims to believe...you might ask 'why?'
What if his answer lacks your opinion?

What if he believes the same things you claim to be true,
but cannot say why?
 

footprints

Well-Known Member
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?

Within the definitions of knowledge, you have also encapsulated belief. So now there is more than one definition, of belief abounding.

This notwithstanding, belief and knowledge are one in the same, the human brain can work no other way. The brain fundamentally uses scientific method to gain any relationships of associations made. Evidence is taken in by the five body senses, the brain relates to this evidence, rationalises it, forms a hypotheis around it, deliberates on it performing standard deviation and error factor, forms its null and alternative hypothesis, does its statistical analysis, and draws a final conclusion. Many of the actions done by the brain happen so quickly, most will not even realise it is happening. Just as with science, any missing links are filled in by previously known and held knowledge, power of suggestions and speculations to derive the fact from.
 

blackout

Violet.
It really is not important that others know what you know about your own life.

Truly no one will ever know what your feet feel like, in your shoes.

And who cares?

If there are a couple of people who "get you" pretty well,
maybe they have a bunion right where you do,
and they also love loafers...
then that's nice.
It's nice to have a couple of people who connect with your experience/s of life.
A couple people who understand what you're talking about.
Beyond that, it's of little importance.
There is no need to try and "prove" or even explain our experience of life to others.
It is the knowledge of the Individual.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Anything can be considered "knowledge".
That you would say this indicates to me that you're not understanding my argument. Probably my own fault.

I am NOT saying that all beliefs are knowledge. I'm saying that beliefs with a certain solidity to their foundation are knowledge.

Creationism is "knowledge" and false at the same time.
1) Yes, knowledge can be false. I've already said that.
2) I wouldn't consider a belief based on a specific theory of interpretation (in this case Literalism) of a millenia-old text to be knowledge. It's hardly a solid foundation. Thanks for the handy example. :)

If you are the only one who has access to this knowledge then it isn`t verifiable nor is it objective to anyone other than your self.
That's been granted several times.

This knowledge being unavailable to anyone else makes it highly suspect.
Yet again, this thread is epistemology, not proselytization.

Let me try this from another angle, linwood: what are YOUR criteria for declaring a belief to be "knowledge?"
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
It really is not important that others know what you know about your own life.

Truly no one will ever know what your feet feel like, in your shoes.

And who cares?

If there are a couple of people who "get you" pretty well,
maybe they have a bunion right where you do,
and they also love loafers...
then that's nice.
It's nice to have a couple of people who connect with your experience/s of life.
A couple people who understand what you're talking about.
Beyond that, it's of little importance.
There is no need to try and "prove" or even explain our experience of life to others.
It is the knowledge of the Individual.
*sighs*

I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
Let me try this from another angle, linwood: what are YOUR criteria for declaring a belief to be "knowledge?"

A belief should have a strength of evidence which can be independently verified and accepted by unbiased external sources if it is to be deemed knowledge.

Edit:

I`m inclined to say that knowledge should be accessible to anyone/everyone while a belief need not be.
I`m not sure I want to go that far yet though.
 
Top