Knowledge entails Belief

[iam1me]

Often times in our modern society, those who are anti-religious or non-religious try to undermine religion with word-play. Knowledge, they assert, is qualitatively better than belief - claiming that they "know" things while the religious only "believe" things.

However, this claim is rather silly. There can be no knowledge without belief. In fact, to say "I know X to be true/false" is equivalent to saying "I am confident in my belief that X is true/false." Indeed, it would be rather absurd to claim to "know X is true" while simultaneously claiming that you "do no believe X is true." This are contradictory statements.

More fundamentally, anything you claim to "know" is based upon faith/belief/confidence/trust in whatever has led you to "know" that a claim is true/false. You believe in science? Then you are placing your faith in the scientific community. Think that whatever you recall of previous experiences is knowledge? Then you are placing faith in your ability to faithfully and objectively recall the facts of those situations. Do you know your analysis of the evidence is coherent, comprehensive, and correct? Then you believe in your ability to logically analyze evidence and reach a sound conclusion, etc.

Do we deny the holocaust because didn't experience it first hand? No - we believe in the prolific testimony of those who endured it and survived, the testimony of soldiers who saved these people, and we believe the details given to us by historians, etc.

And there is nothing wrong with any of that - "belief" should not be considered a dirty word. My two cents

 

[Skwim]

Well, it's an original straw man, I'll give you that.

.

 

[lukethethird]

Often times in our modern society, those who are anti-religious or non-religious try to undermine religion with word-play. Knowledge, they assert, is qualitatively better than belief - claiming that they "know" things while the religious only "believe" things.

However, this claim is rather silly. There can be no knowledge without belief. In fact, to say "I know X to be true/false" is equivalent to saying "I am confident in my belief that X is true/false." Indeed, it would be rather absurd to claim to "know X is true" while simultaneously claiming that you "do no believe X is true." This are contradictory statements.

More fundamentally, anything you claim to "know" is based upon faith/belief/confidence/trust in whatever has led you to "know" that a claim is true/false. You believe in science? Then you are placing your faith in the scientific community. Think that whatever you recall of previous experiences is knowledge? Then you are placing faith in your ability to faithfully and objectively recall the facts of those situations. Do you know your analysis of the evidence is coherent, comprehensive, and correct? Then you believe in your ability to logically analyze evidence and reach a sound conclusion, etc.

Do we deny the holocaust because didn't experience it first hand? No - we believe in the prolific testimony of those who endured it and survived, the testimony of soldiers who saved these people, and we believe the details given to us by historians, etc.

And there is nothing wrong with any of that - "belief" should not be considered a dirty word. My two cents

 

[lukethethird]

Often times in our modern society, those who are anti-religious or non-religious try to undermine religion with word-play. Knowledge, they assert, is qualitatively better than belief - claiming that they "know" things while the religious only "believe" things.

However, this claim is rather silly. There can be no knowledge without belief. In fact, to say "I know X to be true/false" is equivalent to saying "I am confident in my belief that X is true/false." Indeed, it would be rather absurd to claim to "know X is true" while simultaneously claiming that you "do no believe X is true." This are contradictory statements.

More fundamentally, anything you claim to "know" is based upon faith/belief/confidence/trust in whatever has led you to "know" that a claim is true/false. You believe in science? Then you are placing your faith in the scientific community. Think that whatever you recall of previous experiences is knowledge? Then you are placing faith in your ability to faithfully and objectively recall the facts of those situations. Do you know your analysis of the evidence is coherent, comprehensive, and correct? Then you believe in your ability to logically analyze evidence and reach a sound conclusion, etc.

Do we deny the holocaust because didn't experience it first hand? No - we believe in the prolific testimony of those who endured it and survived, the testimony of soldiers who saved these people, and we believe the details given to us by historians, etc.

And there is nothing wrong with any of that - "belief" should not be considered a dirty word. My two cents

You got your evidenced based beliefs and you got your faith based beliefs, there's a difference.

 

[siti]

Often times in our modern society, those who are anti-religious or non-religious try to undermine religion with word-play. Knowledge, they assert, is qualitatively better than belief - claiming that they "know" things while the religious only "believe" things.

However, this claim is rather silly. There can be no knowledge without belief. In fact, to say "I know X to be true/false" is equivalent to saying "I am confident in my belief that X is true/false." Indeed, it would be rather absurd to claim to "know X is true" while simultaneously claiming that you "do no believe X is true." This are contradictory statements.

More fundamentally, anything you claim to "know" is based upon faith/belief/confidence/trust in whatever has led you to "know" that a claim is true/false. You believe in science? Then you are placing your faith in the scientific community. Think that whatever you recall of previous experiences is knowledge? Then you are placing faith in your ability to faithfully and objectively recall the facts of those situations. Do you know your analysis of the evidence is coherent, comprehensive, and correct? Then you believe in your ability to logically analyze evidence and reach a sound conclusion, etc.

Do we deny the holocaust because didn't experience it first hand? No - we believe in the prolific testimony of those who endured it and survived, the testimony of soldiers who saved these people, and we believe the details given to us by historians, etc.

And there is nothing wrong with any of that - "belief" should not be considered a dirty word. My two cents

Silly argument - but clever word play...well I suppose what's sauce for the goose...

 

[osgart]

Science is for practical use, and has application in the real world. Belief is not knowledge, its moreso speculation on possibilities that are untested. Some people may hold untouchable beliefs because there is no way of testing those beliefs. But thats about the best you can do with a belief.

Knowledge grasps something factual. To know a factual thing has no need of belief for the fact to be true. The results are verified, consistent and repeatable, and useable.

With belief there is always a risk that the belief is wrong. You can never know for sure if a belief has validity.

Imo religion is always seeking out evidence, and always trying to avoid unsubstantiated claims. But religion seeks things that are extremely difficult to prove with the goals of establishing that there is purpose to life. Science has no such agenda. Science only asks what can be known about reality no matter what it is.

I do think science folks are very heady and philosophical about answering the big questions about existential being. They think with hubris that they have knowledge there, and they do not. Evolution is factual and yet it does not able refute general religious beliefs. It only rules out myths with a high degree of certainty.

 

[iam1me]

Well, it's an original straw man, I'll give you that..

No strawman, just pointing out the obvious.

 

[iam1me]

You got your evidenced based beliefs and you got your faith based beliefs, there's a difference.

You must have faith in the evidence to form a belief upon the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You must have faith in the evidence to form a belief upon the evidence.

Nope, unlike faith, evidence based beliefs produces tangible results. No faith needed.

 

[iam1me]

Science is for practical use, and has application in the real world.

Most religious individuals would say the same of their faith - and religion guides people on matters which science cannot touch upon. Like purpose, morality, etc.

Belief is not knowledge,

Please provide an example of a claim that you know to be true, but do not believe to be true

its moreso speculation on possibilities that are untested. Some people may hold untouchable beliefs because there is no way of testing those beliefs. But thats about the best you can do with a belief.

This depends very much upon the individual and the belief. Again, anything you claim to know in any field of study is a belief. Saying it is a belief does not equate to having no merit.

Knowledge grasps something factual. To know a factual thing has no need of belief for the fact to be true.

To assert that you know something is merely to assert that you are confident in it. Science never proves anything. The only time you are dealing with actual proofs would be in a field like mathematics, where the axioms are things we define to be as they are. In all other cases you are interpreting evidence - and no matter how well the evidence appears to fit, there is always the possibility of the interpretation being superseded.

The results are verified, consistent and repeatable, and useable.

You are describing science specifically. Does that mean you don't consider history to be knowledge? You can't repeat history. You can't repeat it in a controlled environment to verify consistent results. Or you could think of any number of other forms of knowledge: art, language, mathematics, law, etc - these things are not knowledge gleaned from science (though that's not to say science cannot add to these fields, but science is a secondary source).

With belief there is always a risk that the belief is wrong. You can never know for sure if a belief has validity.

Funny how you people like to use this as a selling point for science, but for religion not being able to outright prove things is a criticism. Double standard much?

Imo religion is always seeking out evidence, and always trying to avoid unsubstantiated claims. But religion seeks things that are extremely difficult to prove with the goals of establishing that there is purpose to life.

Different types of knowledge call for different paradigms. Much of religion is based upon history and philosophy - neither of which is the purview of science. Not to say science can't contribute - but it generally isn't the primary source in such fields of study.

Science has no such agenda. Science only asks what can be known about reality no matter what it is.

That's the ideal, but in practice science is owned by big business and has some very biased individuals with an axe to grind (Dawkins, for instance), as well as its share of frauds. Not that I'm anti-science, I have my Masters in Computer Science. However, I recognize that science is only one form of knowledge - and is not always the appropriate paradigm.

I do think science folks are very heady and philosophical about answering the big questions about existential being. They think with hubris that they have knowledge there, and they do not. Evolution is factual and yet it does not able refute general religious beliefs. It only rules out myths with a high degree of certainty.

Evolution is an interesting topic. There's certainly lots of evidence to be had (and lots of competing ideas about how to put all the pieces together into a coherent whole). That said, the Theory of Evolution cannot be tested as one would typically test things in science. You can't repeat it. You can't create any proposed original life from which everything else came about. Lots of hand waving. I'm not fundamentally opposed to it - I just find it interesting

 

[iam1me]

Nope, unlike faith, evidence based beliefs produces tangible results. No faith needed.

Belief = faith. Use a thesaurus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Belief = faith. Use a thesaurus.

Nope, try again. This is even worse than an equivocation fallacy.

I hope that English is not your first language, otherwise you have no excuse at all for such a gross error.

 

[iam1me]

Nope, try again. This is even worse than an equivocation fallacy.

I hope that English is not your first language, otherwise you have no excuse at all for such a gross error.

I see that not only do you not understand science, you even fail to grasp English or the use of a Thesaurus. I feel sorry for you, so I've put in the work for you.

Here's the link: I found great synonyms for "belief" on the new Thesaurus.com!

And here's a screenshot:

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see that not only do you not understand science, you even fail to grasp English or the use of a Thesaurus. I feel sorry for you, so I've put in the work for you.

Here's the link: I found great synonyms for "belief" on the new Thesaurus.com!

And here's a screenshot:

View attachment 24095

You seriously cannot be this ignorant. I am declaring poe.

 

[iam1me]

You seriously cannot be this ignorant. I am declaring poe.

I'm afraid you are the one being willfully ignorant here - the fact that belief = faith is well established in the English language.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm afraid you are the one being willfully ignorant here - the fact that belief = faith is well established in the English language.

Wrong again.. You don't know how to use a thesaurus and you probably do not know how to use a dictionary either. Or you could be a poe.

Faith does not equal belief. There are multiple definitions and usages for both words. Sometimes they are the same but not always. Seriously why do you think that we have different words if they mean the same thing?

 

[iam1me]

Wrong again.. You don't know how to use a thesaurus and you probably do not know how to use a dictionary either. Or you could be a poe.

Faith does not equal belief. There are multiple definitions and usages for both words. Sometimes they are the same but not always. Seriously why do you think that we have different words if they mean the same thing?

It sounds like you don't know what a synonym is either, poor thing. Let me guess: Common Core?

 

[Skwim]

Belief = faith. Use a thesaurus.

Gee, then using a thesaurus

Faith =

account
adoration
adulation
aggrandizement
apotheosis
approbation
attention
canonization
celebration
confidence
consideration
credit
deference
deification
dignity
distinction
elevation
esteem
exaltation
faith
fame
fealty
glorification
glory
greatness
high standing
homage
immortalization
laud
laurel
lionization
notice
obeisance
popularity
praise
prestige
rank
recognition
renown
reputation
repute
reverence
tribute
trust
veneration
worship
wreath
view
waiting
camp
church
communion
connection
creed
crew
cult
denomination
division
faction
faith
following
group
order
party
persuasion
religion
school
splinter group
team
wing
Etc.
Etc.

SOURCE
​

Kind of water downs "faith" to a meaningless concept doesn't it. But what the heck, thesauri are our first go-to-sources for knowledge.

.

 

[iam1me]

Gee, then using a thesaurus.
...
Kind of water downs "faith" to a meaningless concept doesn't it. But what the heck, thesauri are our first go-to-sources for knowledge.

First off, I'm not sure where you got that list from, cause things like "account" aren't under the provided link. Sounds like you just threw a list of your own making together.

Secondly, you only demonstrate your inability to use a thesaurus. Faith is a valid synonym for belief, and has the same meaning in the context of our discussion.

However, for the sake of argument, please provide the specific definition of "belief" that you think best applies to your usage of the term.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It sounds like you don't know what a synonym is either, poor thing. Let me guess: Common Core?

It is too late at night to try to teach you remedial English.