• 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!

Belief and Knowledge

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
Yes. Just as "to believe" is used non-literally.

We often say, "I know," when what we really mean is that we are certain.

Edit: And there are other non-literal uses of "to know," including "I believe you."
What is the literal meaning of "I know" then?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
What does it matter if what we consider knowledge is true or not?

If we can never "know that we know" then we can never know that something is knowledge. We can only say that something is knowledge.
You're treating this as an all-or-nothing thing. Just because perfect certainty is beyond our reach doesn't mean that practical certainty isn't useful.

Knowledge is whatever is believed to be knowledge because we can't distinguish between knowledge and what is believed to be knowledge.
Well, no. That which is believed to be knowledge may or may not be knowledge. You're contradicting yourself: "we can't know whether it's knowledge, therefore we know that it's knowledge"? Hopefully you recognize that this makes no sense at all.

If this is sufficient, then it really is knowledge as long as someone believes their fact is justified and true.
By "sufficient", I'm talking about practical purposes. This still leaves a margin of error.
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
Belief is confidence and theory. Knowledge is wisdom and certainty.
I like the distinctions, especially between confidence and certainty.

But I'm not sure where wisdom necessarily fits in.

"It is knowledge that a tomato is a fruit. It is wisdom to not put one in a fruit salad. "
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
You're treating this as an all-or-nothing thing. Just because perfect certainty is beyond our reach doesn't mean that practical certainty isn't useful.
Then perfect truth can't be required. Only practical truth.

Well, no. That which is believed to be knowledge may or may not be knowledge. You're contradicting yourself: "we can't know whether it's knowledge, therefore we know that it's knowledge"? Hopefully you recognize that this makes no sense at all.
No, I'm saying it's a tautology: knowledge = that which is believed to be knowledge.

I think you want to make a distinction between them, but there's no practical distinction that can be made. There's only a theoretical distinction, hence my original assertion that there's two senses of knowledge.

By "sufficient", I'm talking about practical purposes. This still leaves a margin of error.
So it is sufficient to call something knowledge if it is believed to be justified and true, but the designation as knowledge is conditional on it actually being true?
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
It's often difficult to separate semantics from ideas in many conversations.

I don't know whether I know or believe this, but it certainly seems to happen a lot.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Then perfect truth can't be required. Only practical truth.
"Required" in what sense?

We don't use perfect truth in any real-world setting, but it's certainly within our abilities to define "knowledge" in terms of "perfect truth".

No, I'm saying it's a tautology: knowledge = that which is believed to be knowledge.
The tautology would be "knowledge = knowledge". Add anything else and it's no longer a tautology.

I think you want to make a distinction between them, but there's no practical distinction that can be made. There's only a theoretical distinction, hence my original assertion that there's two senses of knowledge.
"We can't tell the difference between two things" does not imply "they're the same thing."

So it is sufficient to call something knowledge if it is believed to be justified and true, but the designation as knowledge is conditional on it actually being true?
"Sufficient" depends on the circumstances. You can call anything "knowledge"; you might be wrong. The better supported your judgement, the lower the likelihood that you'll be wrong. How low a likelihood you need is situationally dependent.
 

Seven headed beast

Awaited One
Knowledge is the information that allows an individual to know a certain thing and to eventually come to understanding, Which is the attribute of encompassing everything you know about a subject and being able to realize what it's limitations and capabilities are.

Where belief is the idea of wanting to be knowledgeable of a specific notion and ideal and the desire to think you can control it, without having any in-depth knowledge or understanding.

I know I can fly a kite is not the same as believing I can fly a kite.

Belief is desire
Knowing is capability

You can not find true understanding merely by believing

You can find understanding with knowledge.

I do believe in the Architect of the Universe, because I know that He is real, which would make belief a lesser aspect of knowledge. it helps to believe that you can do something but is not required to have knowledge or understanding
 
Top