so the people who crucified the protagonist jesus, do you suppose they believed what they were doing was right?
so jesus asked god to forgive them because they didn't know what they were doing.
so is it better to believe and not know?
or
is it better to question and know having believed?
I'd say it's better to know. Belief leaves you open to challenge because you accept something is true but because you don't know, someone can challenge your foundation that rocks your acceptance.
So, for example, if you had believed you can fly for years and someone points out the function of gravity, you have some cognitive dissonance in what's true what you always believed. So, saying "I believe" is like walking on egg shells and get's people wound up regardless how strong their belief is.
Knowledge, on the other hand, doesn't seem to hit us that personal. For example, we know we can't fly because of gravity. So if someone challenged us to that knowledge that we can fly, we can a. show them b. clarify it c. show them objective proof d. tell them to jump. We'd have less doubt if any and its easier to stand our grounds than it would if we just accept something is true but when asked to prove it or explain it, they pull back (only spiritual people know; if you had faith; if you had practice; and so forth).
Presumably, people who saw jesus crucified well had knowledge of it. No one could challenge it because they were witnessed to it. Since christian had not witness jesus' crucifixion, they feel they have belief and faith. Though we can also say we have knowledge because of our experiences. But that's a touch and go because unlike mathematics we can disprove others interpretation of experiences and that would make the cards fall on everything else; this has more internal consequences, though.
