dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
How?
-
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!
Believing Vs Knowing
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Kindly explain.
The same way we all do.How?
Truth isn't dependent on others.
I know that I have a different, more idealised, concept of what truth is than most. Truth isn't the words we speak or the ideas in our head. We have to compare the words and ideas to something in order to identify truth. Truth is inherent of frameworks of mind that we build: language, logic, ontology, and epistemology. It is not defined, because it allows for definition. It is not believed, because it uplifts and supports belief. It is fundamental.
That said, I will often be found to say that I believe in truth. I suspect I'm one of only few.
Last edited:
syo
Well-Known Member
I think yes.
I seem to understand now. Truth is that on which all other things are built. And knowing the truth means being it — and so the knower can be one only.
Am I getting it correct?
iam1me
Active Member
There is never a transition, they are one in the same. If you claim to know something, you are merely stating your belief confidently. If you say "I think..." you are asserting a belief humbly. There is never a time when one would claim to know something, but not believe it.
One may change how they phrase a truth-claim based upon their overall confidence, but it is all belief.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I think you may have missed the point. Many time people claim to know something, but when questioned it becomes clear that all that they have is belief. So the question is when does someone know something rather than have just a belief? How can one justify using the word know?
iam1me
Active Member
Oh, I understand your position - it's simply wrong and begging the question. There is no distinction between belief and knowledge. They are synonymous. If you truly believe something, then you know it to be true. And if you know something, you believe it to be true.
Those who wish to draw a distinction between these terms aren't intellectually honest - but instead set out to redefine terms in favor of their beliefs vs other people's beliefs.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Actually there is a difference. And no it is not begging the question, but it is the sort of reply that a person that only has belief would make. On a related note I have seen people claim countless times that a concept was not testable when in reality they did not know how to test that idea. That flaw is called projection.
iam1me
Active Member
When you say such things you merely demonstrate my point. Your purpose in begging the question isn't to reach truth, but to look down on others.
If you were intellectually honest you'd ask: "is there a difference between belief and knowledge?"
You instead ask: "what is the difference between belief and knowledge?" You assume the existence of a difference without being able to substantiate it. In fact, your assumption is contradictory to the meaning of the terms (which are synonymous). Thus, yes, you are begging the question.
Not really related. We aren't discussing the testability of anything.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You really should not use phrases that you do not understand. One of the reasons we have different words is because they have different meanings. It appears by your argumentation that you believe others have the same flaws as you do. Too many people that believe only want to believe and they do not want to know.
And you are quite wrong. Testability is the way that one can see if an idea is knowable or if It is only a belief.
iam1me
Active Member
No one is going around preventing the duplicate words from being introduced and propagated in a language. You hold a very naive view on the nature of language. We have synonyms precisely because different words carry the same meaning. This is especially true of a language like English which is an amalgamation of many tongues and dialects.
Further testimony concerning your desire to thumb your nose down at others. There is no qualitative difference between belief and knowledge. Using one term or the other says nothing about the individual's desire for truth.
If I tell you about a murder I witnessed, but the murder scene were completely cleaned such that I couldn't put forth testable evidence, does my truth-claim concerning the murder then cease to be knowledge for me? Of course not. All that means is that I lose my ability to put forth evidence of the event for others to evaluate save for my testimony.
Thus testability doesn't define knowledge vs belief - it is merely a tool we use in the search for truth.
Furthermore, things you would qualify as belief are typically accompanied by evidence that must be evaluated and debated. Hence there are many different sects of Christianity - because different people read the scriptures and came to different conclusions on various topics through much debate concerning the evidence. Hence if you go over to the Religious Debates section of this website you'd see many such debates concerning the evidence of scripture, history, philosophy, etc.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is true at times. But not in this case. Again you are projecting your inability to know into others.
Please, just because some people earn that treatment does not mean that I do it to all. Face the facts you made a very poor argument. Ironically you are once again guilty of the wrong you accuse others of doing.
Actually yes, since eyewitness testimony is the weakest form of testimony allowed in a trial. You have a very limited knowledge since it is not testable.
A bad example does not refute an argument. It only demonstrates a lack of understanding. And I am aware of the various types of evidence for Christianity, none of them are very reliable.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Let me answer this with examples. Most people, who believe in evolution, do so without knowing how it works in all its details. What is taught in elementary school is not graduate level science. The belief of the students depends on a prestige affect, where faith in the experts, is what fuels their belief, more than their own working knowledge. Repeating the party line is not the same as knowing it. If a parent figure tells you something you will believe due to the prestige of their age and position; they should know.
Knowing evolution would require one start from semi-scratch and derive the theory by themselves, through observations and/or experiments. Knowing requires hands on experience, that goes beyond learning by root or assuming something it correct via social prestige. College offers lab work ,so one can go from theory to hands on experience; faith (prestige) to knowledge.
In terms of evolution, Evolution only discusses how life, once formed, changes over time. It does not address how life formed from scratch. Darwin never went there. What is the selective advantage, if we start with nothing? Selective advantage assumed we stats with something. The initial formation of life is the subject of a separate area of science called abiogenesis.
The bible addresses how life formed from scratch; hand of God, but it does not spend too much time discussing how life changes with time. The bible discusses a theory of abiogenesis and not evolution. Although, the story of Noah's Ark suggests that people who wrote the bible knew how reproduction can be used to re-propagate life, in the cases of a global disaster. This practical solution works based on a theory of evolution; breed after its kind as long as you start with a first. This was based on practical knowledge; animal husbandry. Noah was never told to pick which exact pairs of animals. He was was only told to pick two of each, randomly, Natural selection will do the rest in the future.
Belief and faith is what fuels the debate between Creation and Evolution, since if one has knowledge of these two things, one would realize, evolution does not address the creation of life. Only the bible poses a theory for this. Forming life from scratch, via the science of abiogenesis, has never been done in the lab. This means that abiogenesis has never fully transitioned from belief to knowledge. The debate between Creation and Evolution is arguing apples to oranges, due to lack to knowledge. Once we use apples to apples; Abiogenesis to Creation, both are based on belief, since neither are based on lab proof.
As another example , the Russian-Trump collusion narrative was all based on belief, since it turned out to be false. Most people on the left, had a very strong belief, that they assumed was based on knowledge, that was possessed by their leadership; prestige affect used as knowledge. It turned out this hands on knowledge, was an illusion that was dependent on prestige, in conjunction with repetitive propaganda programming. There was never any real knowledge, so it could never go beyond belief, even though one was assured watching CNN would impart the needed hands on knowledge needed to transcend belief.
Those who took the time to investigate, apart from prestige, propaganda and programing, went from belief to knowing, what turned out to the true. You cannot just assume your chosen experts, know what they say they know. You have to be do it yourself to achieve knowledge. The way I do this is to find experts, in the field, who have discovered contradicting evidence. This may not give a nee theory, but it helps break the prestige induction affect, that uses firmware, that prevents access to new knowledge.
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
Here. This, from Scribespark, may help.
"The key difference between knowledge and belief is in how each is justified.
Knowledge: a reasonable claim to knowledge must be:
logical: limited to evidence–based reasoning that is both true and valid
falsifiable: a way exists to prove whether or not it’s correct
precise: not made of arbitrary parts
Belief: a belief need only be
consistent with the psychological state of the claimant
1. Does it have to be logical?
Knowledge: Must it be logical? Yes.
All knowledge must be logical—by making claims that are true, valid and sound.
In other words, knowledge is limited to the rigorous process of evidence and reason. Belief is not.
Belief: Must it be logical? No. Beliefs can be, but there's no rule that says beliefs must be logical.
2. Can it be proven false?
Knowledge: Can it be proven false? Yes.
The cultural claim, "Ottawa is the capital of Canada" is the kind of claim that can be proven or disproven by checking an official map of Canada. Scientific claims and mathematical claims also fall into this kind of falsifability.
Logically, if a claim cannot be proven false, then it cannot be meaningfully true either.
This is the test:
Bob claims to know X about the world.
Is there a way to prove or disprove that X is true?
If not, then Bob cannot meaningfully state that he "knows X"—it is only his personal belief, opinion, or feeling.
Belief: Claims based on psychological states (such as beliefs) cannot be disproven.
A person expressing a claim about how they feel cannot be internally wrong. Even if his statement doesn't line up with previous statements, it's possible that the person has since changed his mind.
3. How precise does it have to be?
Knowledge: a reasonable claim to knowledge must be:
logical: limited to evidence–based reasoning that is both true and valid
falsifiable: a way exists to prove whether or not it’s correct
precise: not made of arbitrary parts
Belief: a belief need only be
consistent with the psychological state of the claimant
1. Does it have to be logical?
Knowledge: Must it be logical? Yes.
All knowledge must be logical—by making claims that are true, valid and sound.
In other words, knowledge is limited to the rigorous process of evidence and reason. Belief is not.
Belief: Must it be logical? No. Beliefs can be, but there's no rule that says beliefs must be logical.
2. Can it be proven false?
Knowledge: Can it be proven false? Yes.
The cultural claim, "Ottawa is the capital of Canada" is the kind of claim that can be proven or disproven by checking an official map of Canada. Scientific claims and mathematical claims also fall into this kind of falsifability.
Logically, if a claim cannot be proven false, then it cannot be meaningfully true either.
This is the test:
Bob claims to know X about the world.
Is there a way to prove or disprove that X is true?
If not, then Bob cannot meaningfully state that he "knows X"—it is only his personal belief, opinion, or feeling.
Belief: Claims based on psychological states (such as beliefs) cannot be disproven.
A person expressing a claim about how they feel cannot be internally wrong. Even if his statement doesn't line up with previous statements, it's possible that the person has since changed his mind.
3. How precise does it have to be?
- Knowledge: Must it be precise? Yes.
- For truth–claims to be considered knowledge, they must be precise in a meaningful way so as to enable their falsifiability.
- Belief: Must it be precise? No.
- Beliefs can be vague statements or predictions about the world.
- source
Last edited:
iam1me
Active Member
No one is doing it here either. Hence belief and knowledge are synonyms. Feel free to check a thesaurus: I found great synonyms for "belief" on the new Thesaurus.com!
What we DO have are anti-religious philosophers who have created their own definitions for belief and knowledge - done with the intent of distinguish their truth-claims as superior to the truth-claims of religion.
Platitudes and non-sense. You've put forth nothing to undermine my argument save for an extremely naive view on language - which I've already addressed.
You contradict yourself. "Very limited knowledge" is still knowledge, and you call it this while noting it isn't testable.
Knowledge of something is merely the acceptance of truth-claims. Testability is a matter of testing truth claims. Testability can lead to the acceptance or rejection off truth-claims, but it is not a quality of knowledge itself.
If you want to say testability is a desirable quality of knowledge/belief, I would agree - but there is no innate requirement that knowledge/belief be testable.
You can disagree with Christianity and religion in general, and you can say that you'd like more reliable evidence. That doesn't change the fact that there is evidence and that one can intelligently debate these topics and come to informed beliefs as a result.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Too much nonsense. I am sorry that you cannot understand the difference between knowledge and belief. @Skwim went into more detail in his post. When you understand your errors then perhaps we can have a discussion.
iam1me
Active Member
Putting a philosophy on what you think knowledge and belief are or should be isn't an argument about what they are. The terms are synonymous and can be used interchangeably. Anti-religious philosophers try to invent distinctions between the terms in an attempt to qualify their truth-claims as superior to those of religious truth-claims - and they typically do so attacking a straw-man of religion. The qualities you present for knowledge and belief above are no different. These qualities aren't part of the meaning of the words themselves, but the qualities certain philosophers would attribute to them within the context of their philosophies.
iam1me
Active Member
I'm sorry you can't substantiate your views