-
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 vs Know
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
Hermit Philosopher
Selflessly here for you
belief and knowledge are not equals
belief doesn't require knowledge even if belief is part of the knowledge process
"Best" would imply what is the superior of more than two things, so I'm guessing you left out "experience."
"Best" would imply what is the superior of more than two things, so I'm guessing you left out "experience."
experience is a synonym of to know.
i debated on changing the word but decided it was trivial
As far as (one) knows "to the best of (one's) knowledge" is late 14c. Expression God knows is from c. 1400. To know too much (to be allowed to live, escape, etc.) is from 1872. To know better "to have learned from experience" is from 1704.
What are your criteria for "best?"
People believe all sorts of contradictory things. Knowledge -- well evidenced, tested belief -- is pretty much universal.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
To know. I think knowledge is more study than believe in that if you have a strong conviction why would you say you believe if your experiences prove otherwise..... Unless there is no personal evidence.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Both are useful; depends on the circumstance. Knowing is like listening to a marching band. Belief is like listening to a symphony. The marching band is consistent and regimented. The symphony is less limited.
Knowledge I suppose is belief that has shown itself to be repeatably reliable.
Belief is a starting point. Knowledge is where we hope to get to.
Last edited:
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Believing leads to knowing.
You can't skip the believing.
It's a kind of catch 22 for athiests.
They refuse to believe until they know.
You can't get to knowing God from a state of unbelief, however.
AlexanderG
Active Member
It's not a catch 22. I believe in lots of things, and I know lots of things. In both cases I have an epistemological standard that filters out things that are likely real from things that are likely imaginary. I've never heard of a god that meets the standard for "likely real."
I don't need apologists to create fallacious semantic pretzels to convince me of the existence of my wife, or dolphins, or the Pyramids of Giza, or the element Lithium, or quarks. If a god were as evidently real as any of those things, then I would find it trivial to believe that it existed.
Instead, gods appear to be in the same category as ghosts, Santa, leprechauns, and Voldemort, because there is no evidence that indicates they are not merely imaginary. As we atheists always ask, give us some evidence that meets the standard for everything else we believe, and we'll "know" the evidence and be warranted in our "belief."
A few examples of things that are not evidence:
1. "I can imagine something G that would explain X if G existed, therefore X is evidence of G." This is fallacious, and the same reason I don't believe invisible magic turtles cause trees to grow, just because I can see trees growing and it would be sufficiently explained by the turtles. "Look at the trees!"
2. "I intuitively feel that G is true." Ok, well I don't have that intuition. Where does that leave us?
3. "I would be really disappointed and emotionally lost unless G were true." Ok, that doesn't indicate it's actually true, though. Maybe get therapy.
4. "Lots of people also believe G for unevidenced reasons." Again, not an indication that G is true or false. No relation to truth.
5. "I just have faith in G." Anyone can claim to believe anything based solely on faith, even contradictory things. No relation to what is actually true.
In this sense, I think you have it backwards. I believe claims once I know about the facts of reality that indicate the truth of these claims. I believe in abstracted models of reality based on collections of empirical facts, and god is an abstracted model of reality.
Sure with all the various beliefs, religions, gods one can choose to believe in, there is knowledge to be gained.
So why limit yourself to one God?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
You just proved my point, thanks!
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Because I know there's only one God.
Ok course, since that is all you've been exposed to. I OTOH have knowledge of many gods.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Knowledge of gods doesn't equal multiple gods existing.
And I've studied enough about various religions to have that kind of knowledge.
When I say I know there's only one God it's not just a head knowledge. It comes from actually knowing God in a relationship.