Knowledge vs. Belief

[Storm]

I decided awhile back to go with a third way of espressing it: I am convinced that there is a God. That seems to work in most situations.

Sure, but it doesn't lead to fun semantic debates.

They're not interchangeable to me. A trance state implies something completely different than a mystical experience to me.

Kindly define your terms, then.

Not in the sense we're talking about it, though. For one, someone else could have seen you drop it. If you had a video camera going, it would have recorded the event, or if your wife was watching, she would be able to verify it. It's the same concept as science. We only take something as fact or a piece of knowledge in science if it's able to be verified by others.

I think you're conflating "proof" with "knowledge."

 

[Storm]

Although, even considering this, even though dropping the toothpaste is knowledge to me, it cannot, technically, be knowledge for anyone else. Of course, if I tell someone I dropped the toothpaste this morning, I'm not making an extraordinary claim, so unless there is some reason to think I was mistaken or lying about it, another person can reasonably claim to also know that I dropped the toothpaste this morning. However, when it comes to extraordinary claims, objective verfication is a more necessary requirement for another person to know my claim is correct.

Yes, exactly.

The buld of ats' post was what I've been saying all along: my theophany resulted in knowledge, not proof. Do you agree with that?

 

[Magic Man]

Kindly define your terms, then.

That would take too much thinking. Basically, the difference to me is that a trance state is not much different than going to sleep. Everyone can be verified going to sleep. Dreams during sleep can only be verified by those who had the dreams, or at least the content of the dreams. Dreams are like mystical experiences to me.

I think you're conflating "proof" with "knowledge."

I don't think so, but I also don't really want to argue about that.

 

[Magic Man]

The buld of ats' post was what I've been saying all along: my theophany resulted in knowledge, not proof. Do you agree with that?

Sure, but that's slightly different than what we were just talking about. As I said before, if you're certain of it, it's knowledge to you.

 

[Storm]

That would take too much thinking. Basically, the difference to me is that a trance state is not much different than going to sleep. Everyone can be verified going to sleep. Dreams during sleep can only be verified by those who had the dreams, or at least the content of the dreams. Dreams are like mystical experiences to me.

....... I don't get it. :sorry1:

I don't think so, but I also don't really want to argue about that.

OUT OF MY THREAD WITH YOU!

Sure, but that's slightly different than what we were just talking about. As I said before, if you're certain of it, it's knowledge to you.

Hmmm. So, you agree with my conclusion, just not my reasons?

 

[Magic Man]

....... I don't get it. :sorry1:

Basically, you can verify that I'm asleep. You can verify the act of sleeping. What you can't verify is my dreams.

OUT OF MY THREAD WITH YOU!

Fine host you are! See if I ever accept your invitation again! :run:

Hmmm. So, you agree with my conclusion, just not my reasons?

I guess so.

 

[Storm]

Basically, you can verify that I'm asleep. You can verify the act of sleeping. What you can't verify is my dreams.

Yeah, I got that. I didn't get how you related that to the definitions of "trance state" and "mystical experience."

Fine host you are! See if I ever accept your invitation again! :run:

:hug:

I guess so.

Well, I'm having a grand old time arguing it anyway. Do you want to continue?

 

[Beaudreaux]

In another thread, I brought up that, while I don't have proof, I claim knowledge on the question of God's existence. It was then argued that this is belief, not knowledge. I disagree, but forebore arguing so as not to hijack.

So, that's the background.

Let's start off with definition of terms:

To believe is simply to accept something as true.

For "knowledge," I'll defer to the dictionary:
–noun1.acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.

2.familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.

3.acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.

4.the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

5.awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.

6.something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.

7.the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.

8.the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.

So, while knowledge is a form of belief, it's more specific. Knowledge necessarily has a foundation, while belief may or may not.

My belief in God is founded, therefore it can fairly be described as knowledge.

Objections?

Great thread, Storm.


In one sense, yes, to "believe" something is to affirm its truth and to "know" something is also to affirm its truth. However one can get to that affirmation in several ways.

1. Inductive Reasoning:
   I believe/know this because I have observed it empirically multiple times and all observations support my belief/knowledge.
2. Evidentiary Reasoning:
   I believe/know that O.J. is guilty of murder because there was physical evidence of past actions that swayed me.
3. Trust in Authority:
   I believe/know this because someone I consider to be an authority tells me it is true.
4. Emotional Belief/Knowledge:
   I believe/know this because I feel it to be true.

I think that the top of that list represents the most trustworthy affirmations of truth (knowledge and facts) and the bottom of the list represents the least trustworthy (beliefs and faith). I suppose I would only object if the foundation of your belief in God did not come from either of the top two roads to knowledge. Where does your foundation come from?

 

[Storm]

Great thread, Storm.


In one sense, yes, to "believe" something is to affirm its truth and to "know" something is also to affirm its truth. However one can get to that affirmation in several ways.

1. Inductive Reasoning:
   I believe/know this because I have observed it empirically multiple times and all observations support my belief/knowledge.
2. Evidentiary Reasoning:
   I believe/know that O.J. is guilty of murder because there was physical evidence of past actions that swayed me.
3. Trust in Authority:
   I believe/know this because someone I consider to be an authority tells me it is true.
4. Emotional Belief/Knowledge:
   I believe/know this because I feel it to be true.

I think that the top of that list represents the most trustworthy affirmations of truth (knowledge and facts) and the bottom of the list represents the least trustworthy (beliefs and faith). I suppose I would only object if the foundation of your belief in God did not come from either of the top two roads to knowledge. Where does your foundation come from?

From what you've posted here, I think 2. I think I could make a case for 1, but that would be confirmation bias. 3 isn't even in play. 4... I'm not so sure of. It's a factor, true, but I don't know I'd call it the foundation.

 

[Thief]

In another thread, I brought up that, while I don't have proof, I claim knowledge on the question of God's existence. It was then argued that this is belief, not knowledge. I disagree, but forebore arguing so as not to hijack.

So, that's the background.

Let's start off with definition of terms:

To believe is simply to accept something as true.

For "knowledge," I'll defer to the dictionary:
–noun1.acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.

2.familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.

3.acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.

4.the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

5.awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.

6.something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.

7.the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.

8.the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.

So, while knowledge is a form of belief, it's more specific. Knowledge necessarily has a foundation, while belief may or may not.

My belief in God is founded, therefore it can fairly be described as knowledge.

Objections?

I don't see the experience or experiment that supports 'belief'.
That you 'know' several definitions for 'knowledge' does not show you have such.

Perhaps a definition for 'belief' would help.

 

[Magic Man]

Yeah, I got that. I didn't get how you related that to the definitions of "trance state" and "mystical experience."

A trance state to me is like sleeping, while a mystical experience is like the dream.

Well, I'm having a grand old time arguing it anyway. Do you want to continue?

I'm not even sure what we would continue arguing.

 

[sandandfoam]

I was thinking some more about this thread, along the lines of my relationship to reality, God, knowledge and belief.

Truth is I know nothing.
I believe in reality and God. In everyday language I claim to know both but I don't. I believe I have experience of both but I don't know.
I don't think I can believe any claims to real knowledge of either because such knowledge would presuppose a "God's eye view"

 

[Jollybear]

Belief without knowledge is walking in darkness and hoping you are going in the right direction. Knowledge without belief is having the light, but not walking in its direction.

That’s my take on it. And I agree with the opening thread, I have a knowledge of God.

One who has not experienced God, cannot have a knowledge of God, they simply have belief in him. Those who have an experience of him, either by apparitions, or hearing an audible voice, or sensing his presence, they have knowledge of him. But interpretations OF an experience are belief, but the experience ITSELF is NOT belief, it is KNOWLEDGE.

 

[MSizer]

Belief without knowledge is walking in darkness and hoping you are going in the right direction. Knowledge without belief is having the light, but not walking in its direction.

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what it means to have light but not walk in its direction.

That’s my take on it. And I agree with the opening thread, I have a knowledge of God.

One who has not experienced God, cannot have a knowledge of God, they simply have belief in him. Those who have an experience of him, either by apparitions, or hearing an audible voice, or sensing his presence, they have knowledge of him. But interpretations OF an experience are belief, but the experience ITSELF is NOT belief, it is KNOWLEDGE.

So experience is knowledge? So then listening to music is knowledge? And so is the pain I feel when I stub my toe on a bed post? Those are examples of knowledge? Not IMO.

 

[Walkntune]

[/size][/font]

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what it means to have light but not walk in its direction.



So experience is knowledge? So then listening to music is knowledge? And so is the pain I feel when I stub my toe on a bed post? Those are examples of knowledge? Not IMO.

Experience is the best kind of knowledge for by learning any other way is just learning by someone else's experience!

 

[Willamena]

I was thinking some more about this thread, along the lines of my relationship to reality, God, knowledge and belief.

Truth is I know nothing.
I believe in reality and God. In everyday language I claim to know both but I don't. I believe I have experience of both but I don't know.
I don't think I can believe any claims to real knowledge of either because such knowledge would presuppose a "God's eye view"

I look at it the other way around. I "know nothing"; but everything I believe I have experience of is experience of everything I have --there is nothing more to it than that --therefore "to know" is uncertainty.

 

[Storm]

A trance state to me is like sleeping, while a mystical experience is like the dream.

Yes, I comprehend the similie. It's just not effective in telling me what you think mystical experiences are.

 

[Sunstone]

How?

What objective system can verify the effect of interacting neural chemicals within an individuals mind while at the same time verifying the interpretation and effect they would or could have on the individual having them?

In effect "objectifying" them.

This isn`t possible.

Are you seriously asserting that no more than one person in the world can have a mystical experience? Or that two separate people cannot both have a mystical experience?

 

[Falvlun]

Are you seriously asserting that no more than one person in the world can have a mystical experience? Or that two separate people cannot both have a mystical experience?

But how would you ever know that they were the exact same mystical experience?

 

[Storm]

But how would you ever know that they were the exact same mystical experience?

What two experiences are ever exactly the same? That's not a reasonable standard.