Knowledge vs belief

[midniterider]

I have been discussing religion with 'agnostic atheists' elsewhere and they tend to say that knowledge and belief are two different things. But then use knowledge to determine their non-belief? There is apparently some crossover between knowledge and belief that they are fibbin about. 

 

And if I say I'm a theist or I like some kind of woo, they demand evidence (aka knowledge). And then I say, belief is separate from knowledge and the conversation goes downhill.  

 

Thoughts? 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

In simplistic terms, if something can be known (i.e. there is evidence) then belief is not necessary concerning that thing.  It works out fairly neatly in most instances; and people tend to prefer the convenience of being able to compartmentalize. 

 

The problems arise when we know things that do not have adequate evidence.  It is tempting for non-theists to fall into the same traps of convenience that theists do; and we often have the same kinds of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias as our religious counterparts.  

[disillusioned]

It sounds to me like they are conflating belief and faith. This is a mistake, in my opinion.

 

We need to be careful with terminology. On my vocabulary, I believe something if I think it is true. I have faith when I believe without significant evidence. I know when I believe very firmly.

 

Say you tell me that you are wearing black shoes. I don't have any evidence other than your word, so I can believe you or not. Either choice would be an act of faith. If, however, I know you quite well, and I have frequently seen you wearing black shoes, and I have no reason to think you are lying, then less faith is required, and the belief is strengthened on the basis of evidence. If you are in the room with me and I can see your shoes, then I wouldn't hesitate to claim knowledge. But, strictly speaking, I still require faith in the reliability of my senses to make this claim. So, I don't think we can correctly say that knowledge does away with belief. When you know something, you also believe it. It's just that the more evidence you have, the less you have to *try* to believe it.

 

It's very tempting, as an atheist, to claim we should do away with faith. And, some atheists even claim that we should do away with belief. This is impossible, on my view. Problems arise when we form strong beliefs based solely on faith. In other words, problems arise when we claim *knowledge* in the absence of evidence. We can't do away with faith, but we can minimize its role. Notice that this approach leaves room for spirituality, if you want it. I don't think it is problematic to believe in "woo", as long as one doesn't take it too seriously.

[◊ Krowb ◊]

@disillusioned,

 

Always good to see you on the forums.

 

@midniterider,

 

A common definition of knowledge is "justified true belief".  As Disillusioned has pointed out, knowledge is not separate from belief and we need to be careful with how we're using words.  Whether or not a belief is justified is an evidential barrier.  There are no clear cut lines on this topic.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Krowb said:

As Disillusioned has pointed out, knowledge is not separate from belief

I thought disillusioned was making the point that Black Shoes Matter; but perhaps I was mistaken. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Knowledge is subjective.  Determined in the mind, and sometimes agreed upon by many in a group.  And is sometimes determined to not be factual.

[aik]

the title of the topic here is a mistake by itself. 

 

As once I heard from the Scent of a Woman

Well, when the bough breaks, the cradle will fall. And it has fallen here. It has fallen. Makers of Men, Creators of Leaders. Be careful what kind of leaders you’re producing here.” – Lt. Col. Frank Slade

So if the given title is not correct, what will the whole story be you think?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

33 minutes ago, aik said:

the title of the topic here is a mistake by itself. 

 

As once I heard from the Scent of a Woman

Well, when the bough breaks, the cradle will fall. And it has fallen here. It has fallen. Makers of Men, Creators of Leaders. Be careful what kind of leaders you’re producing here.” – Lt. Col. Frank Slade

So if the given title is not correct, what will the whole story be you think?

Perhaps it would be helpful if you explain how and why the title is a mistake, rather than just declaring it to be so.

[aik]

6 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Perhaps it would be helpful if you explain how and why the title is a mistake, rather than just declaring it to be so.

Sure I will. I expected this question. I wanted first to have it, and understand that you are interested in it. 

 

You cannot compare things which are not in pair with one another. Knowledge is compared with ignorance, and belief with disbelief or belief in one thing with a belief in another thing. How can a door be compared with its handle? Door vs. its handle! Or how can a car be compared with its wheel? A car vs. wheel.

[aik]

2 hours ago, aik said:

Sure I will. I expected this question. I wanted first to have it, and understand that you are interested in it. 

 

You cannot compare things which are not in pair with one another. Knowledge is compared with ignorance, and belief with disbelief or belief in one thing with a belief in another thing. How can a door be compared with its handle? Door vs. its handle! Or how can a car be compared with its wheel? A car vs. wheel.

Instead of "compare" here I should use "oppose". Please consider that.

[walterpthefirst]

Christian beliefs are not based upon knowledge.

 

Rather, they are based upon an absence of knowledge.

 

Which is why these beliefs are called 'faith'.

 

Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3 and John 20 : 30 & 31 confirm this.

 

 

1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 

2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

 

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 

31 But these are written that you may believe[b] that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

 

You did not see god create the universe and you did not see any of the signs performed by Jesus.

 

But you BELEIVE by FAITH that they did happen.

 

So your Christian beliefs are separate to and opposed to the knowledge you don't have.

 

If you had actual knowledge of these things then your beliefs would agree with and be in harmony with your knowledge.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, aik said:

Sure I will. I expected this question. I wanted first to have it, and understand that you are interested in it. 

 

You cannot compare things which are not in pair with one another. Knowledge is compared with ignorance, and belief with disbelief or belief in one thing with a belief in another thing. How can a door be compared with its handle? Door vs. its handle! Or how can a car be compared with its wheel? A car vs. wheel.

Hmm... perhaps this is a subtlety of the English language, with which native speakers are familiar, but with which you might not be, moy droog.  In this instance, "versus" can mean "as opposed to"; but it can also mean "instead of".  The author is not attempting to compare any one particular belief to any one bit of knowledge.  Rather, he is asking, "What really is the difference between knowledge and belief, once we get into the grey areas?"

[aik]

25 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Christian beliefs are not based upon knowledge.

 

Rather, they are based upon an absence of knowledge.

 

Which is why these beliefs are called 'faith'.

 

Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3 and John 20 : 30 & 31 confirm this.

 

 

1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 

2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

 

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 

31 But these are written that you may believe[b] that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

 

You did not see god create the universe and you did not see any of the signs performed by Jesus.

 

But you BELEIVE by FAITH that they did happen.

 

So your Christian beliefs are separate to and opposed to the knowledge you don't have.

 

If you had actual knowledge of these things then your beliefs would agree with and be in harmony with your knowledge.

 

 

Walter, I am pleased to greet you again. Although to be honest it was not easy to have your post read, but i tried to assume that sometimes a man can be unable to understand simple things and to see what is put right beside him. But anyway you are valuable for the Lord, and I accept it by my faith. And this my faith makes me to honour you as a man, to retain myself from insulting you, and giving some aggressive replies to you. And this is the result of my faith, not the result of my diploma. The faith in Jesus makes me to relate to you with respect, and it is the result of that faith. Because in my mind I have Jesus who died for you in the same way as for me. 

 

Together with you I refuse to have faith not knowing in what I believe. I reject such a faith just like you do, as you say. A child never has in his mind how he was born, but he believes that he was born. This is faith. He has evidences: witnesses, participants (mother), documents. And he based on these evidences believes that he belogs to such and such family, and he was born at a certain moment of time etc. He never saw it, never pointed a timer to have personal knowledge. Can I say that it also refers to you? You believe that you were born based on what?

 

We have the chief witness, i.e. Jesus, a historical person, we have other witnesses, i.e. desciples, we have written documents, which in some time we collected, thoroughly investigated, binded and called the Bible, we have multiple testimonies about the true action of the power of God (miracles, mental changes and improvement, martyres). We have huge bases to consider that the Gospel is true and Jesus is that very Gospel. We have bases to consider that Jesus died and rose again fromt he dead. So if it is so, than me and you are standing before a choice: to accept or to reject. If I accept this, it means that I am responsible for the choice, it means that I have to accept my sinful nature repent and turn to God. If I reject, than I am free of making changes, but it means that I reject all this knowing that it exists. So this is the very wickedness which is told in the Bible. So if I do that I become responsible for my choice, and doesn't matter, believe I or do not. Because Jesus rose from the dead. 

 

Ultimately even if there will be no GOD at the end, and I was mistaken (of course I am sure in my faith, but for the sake of making a point), even I will see that there is no God, but here and now living upon the faith in Jesus anyway I gain: I have better thoughts, better spiritual state, better attitude with close and far people, better relationships, better peace, better love, better results of my actions, better eveyithing. The only thing which I pay for it is my flesh, which is sinful and evil. 

 

But we know that Jesus rose from the dead. 

 

Think about it.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, aik said:

A child never has in his mind how he was born, but he believes that he was born. This is faith. He has evidences: witnesses, participants (mother), documents. And he based on these evidences believes that he belogs to such and such family, and he was born at a certain moment of time etc. He never saw it, never pointed a timer to have personal knowledge. Can I say that it also refers to you? You believe that you were born based on what?

 

We have the chief witness, i.e. Jesus, a historical person, we have other witnesses, i.e. desciples, we have written documents, which in some time we collected, thoroughly investigated, binded and called the Bible, we have multiple testimonies about the true action of the power of God (miracles, mental changes and improvement, martyres). We have huge bases to consider that the Gospel is true and Jesus is that very Gospel. We have bases to consider that Jesus died and rose again fromt he dead.

There is a fundamental difference, though, in the documentation of a child's birth and the record we have of jesus.  That difference is called "traceability."  The doctor who delivers the baby has a license; and this license has an identifying number on it that is specific and unique for that doctor, alone.  Same with the nursing staff, midwife, and even the pharmacist who provides any medications.  These license numbers can all be traced back to the individual people involved in the birth.  Additionally, there is a unique record of each birth, which lists the exact date and time the birth took place; and gives relevant information about the baby in question, such as weight, length, gender, and background data for both parents (where available).  All of these records are traceable, either through the hospital where the birth took place, or at the local governmental office.

 

"As opposed to" the bible.  We don't actually know who wrote it.  We don't actually know where the stories about jesus came from.  We do know they were all recorded several decades after the purported events took place; not in real time like a baby's birth.  There are no eyewitness accounts, only accounts given many years later.  And not a single historian, Jewish, Roman, or Greek gives us anything about the life of jesus or the events in which he was involved.  The closest we come to anything remotely touching a real, authentic, historical jesus is a couple of dubiously sketchy references to a "christus" who was crucified under authority of Pontius Pilate.

 

This contrast demonstrates that what you have concerning jesus is "belief"; whereas what I have concerning Little Miss Professorette is knowledge.

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, aik said:

Walter, I am pleased to greet you again. Although to be honest it was not easy to have your post read, but i tried to assume that sometimes a man can be unable to understand simple things and to see what is put right beside him. But anyway you are valuable for the Lord, and I accept it by my faith. And this my faith makes me to honour you as a man, to retain myself from insulting you, and giving some aggressive replies to you. And this is the result of my faith, not the result of my diploma. The faith in Jesus makes me to relate to you with respect, and it is the result of that faith. Because in my mind I have Jesus who died for you in the same way as for me. 

 

Atheists are capable of the same behaviour as you, aik.

 

3 hours ago, aik said:

Together with you I refuse to have faith not knowing in what I believe. I reject such a faith just like you do, as you say. A child never has in his mind how he was born, but he believes that he was born. This is faith. He has evidences: witnesses, participants (mother), documents. And he based on these evidences believes that he belogs to such and such family, and he was born at a certain moment of time etc. He never saw it, never pointed a timer to have personal knowledge. Can I say that it also refers to you? You believe that you were born based on what?

 

You are comparing apples and oranges, aik.

 

The evidence you speak of is natural evidence derived from the natural world.  But I quoted John 20 : 30 and 31, which alludes to supernatural evidence and where people are asked to believe without even seeing such evidence.  

 

This was my very point to you.

 

You do not have direct knowledge of, nor did you witness the supernatural events described in the bible - yet you believe WITHOUT EVIDENCE and BY FAITH that they happened.  You have no knowledge of them and therefore your faith in them is opposed to your knowledge, because you have no knowledge.

 

Which is exactly what Hebrews 11 : 1 -3 describes... faith / belief without evidence or knowledge.

 

 

3 hours ago, aik said:

We have the chief witness, i.e. Jesus, a historical person, we have other witnesses, i.e. desciples, we have written documents, which in some time we collected, thoroughly investigated, binded and called the Bible, we have multiple testimonies about the true action of the power of God (miracles, mental changes and improvement, martyres). We have huge bases to consider that the Gospel is true and Jesus is that very Gospel. We have bases to consider that Jesus died and rose again fromt he dead. So if it is so, than me and you are standing before a choice: to accept or to reject. If I accept this, it means that I am responsible for the choice, it means that I have to accept my sinful nature repent and turn to God. If I reject, than I am free of making changes, but it means that I reject all this knowing that it exists. So this is the very wickedness which is told in the Bible. So if I do that I become responsible for my choice, and doesn't matter, believe I or do not. Because Jesus rose from the dead. 

 

The bible cannot qualify as objective evidence aik because, as I have just pointed out, you have no knowledge or evidence of the events described in it.

 

Instead, you believe that they are true and that they happened, WITHOUT EVIDENCE and BY FAITH.

 

The things that you believe by faith and for which you have no evidence do not qualify as objective evidence because your faith is personal to you and only you.

 

Why should anyone else believe in things that you did not witness, have no knowledge of and have no evidence for?

 

3 hours ago, aik said:

Ultimately even if there will be no GOD at the end, and I was mistaken (of course I am sure in my faith, but for the sake of making a point), even I will see that there is no God, but here and now living upon the faith in Jesus anyway I gain: I have better thoughts, better spiritual state, better attitude with close and far people, better relationships, better peace, better love, better results of my actions, better eveyithing. The only thing which I pay for it is my flesh, which is sinful and evil. 

 

I disagree. 

 

There are atheists that are just as moral, just as kind, just as good and just as loving as you are.  

 

Some of them are members of this forum.

 

3 hours ago, aik said:

But we know that Jesus rose from the dead. 

 

No, you don't know that.

 

That's a misuse of the word 'know'.   

 

In reality you believe by faith that Jesus rose from the dead. 

 

You did not witness the event, you only read about it and there is no objective evidence for the event ever occurring. 

 

You believe it without having any objective evidence of it.

 

3 hours ago, aik said:

Think about it.

 

 

No. 

 

You think about the absence of evidence you have for Jesus' resurrection.  

 

 

[aik]

39 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Atheists are capable of the same behaviour as you, aik.

You speak about capability, I speake about the reason. 

 

39 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

There are atheists that are just as moral, just as kind, just as good and just as loving as you are.  

You speak about capability, I speak about the reason.

 

39 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

No, you don't know that.

We know that. We know better what the knowledge means than those who DO NOT KNOW.

 

Walter, a bit later I am going to answer to Professor. Please read that also.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

14 minutes ago, aik said:

You speak about capability, I speak about the reason.

The reason I treat people with cordial respect (usually) is because it feels right and proper to do so; and it's how I want to be treated.  It's not because some cosmic watchdog is compelling me.

[midniterider]

9 hours ago, aik said:

Sure I will. I expected this question. I wanted first to have it, and understand that you are interested in it. 

 

You cannot compare things which are not in pair with one another. Knowledge is compared with ignorance, and belief with disbelief or belief in one thing with a belief in another thing. How can a door be compared with its handle? Door vs. its handle! Or how can a car be compared with its wheel? A car vs. wheel.

 

My main thought for this thread was that there are people who call themselves agnostic atheists, and who are very strict in their separation of the ideas of belief and knowledge...though a seeming contradiction is that their belief is determined by their knowledge. 

 

These people will want to see my evidence (knowledge) for my belief...two ideas they themselves have said are different things. So I tell them that these two words belief and knowledge are separate things and they get irritated.

They presuppose that knowledge necessarily determines one's belief (edit) while I don't.

 

This is just a nitpick. It's not important. 

[aik]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

There is a fundamental difference, though, in the documentation of a child's birth and the record we have of jesus.  That difference is called "traceability."  The doctor who delivers the baby has a license; and this license has an identifying number on it that is specific and unique for that doctor, alone.  Same with the nursing staff, midwife, and even the pharmacist who provides any medications.  These license numbers can all be traced back to the individual people involved in the birth.  Additionally, there is a unique record of each birth, which lists the exact date and time the birth took place; and gives relevant information about the baby in question, such as weight, length, gender, and background data for both parents (where available).  All of these records are traceable, either through the hospital where the birth took place, or at the local governmental office.

 

"As opposed to" the bible.  We don't actually know who wrote it.  We don't actually know where the stories about jesus came from.  We do know they were all recorded several decades after the purported events took place; not in real time like a baby's birth.  There are no eyewitness accounts, only accounts given many years later.  And not a single historian, Jewish, Roman, or Greek gives us anything about the life of jesus or the events in which he was involved.  The closest we come to anything remotely touching a real, authentic, historical jesus is a couple of dubiously sketchy references to a "christus" who was crucified under authority of Pontius Pilate.

 

This contrast demonstrates that what you have concerning jesus is "belief"; whereas what I have concerning Little Miss Professorette is knowledge.

 

 

 

Ms. Professorette is very nice. ))) Babies are one of the best gifts to us.

 

 

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

There is a fundamental difference, though, in the documentation of a child's birth and the record we have of jesus.  That difference is called "traceability."  The doctor who delivers the baby has a license; and this license has an identifying number on it that is specific and unique for that doctor, alone.  Same with the nursing staff, midwife, and even the pharmacist who provides any medications.  These license numbers can all be traced back to the individual people involved in the birth.  Additionally, there is a unique record of each birth, which lists the exact date and time the birth took place; and gives relevant information about the baby in question, such as weight, length, gender, and background data for both parents (where available).  All of these records are traceable, either through the hospital where the birth took place, or at the local governmental office.

I agree with you here in general.

 

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

We don't actually know who wrote it. 

I agree that you don't know it.

 

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

We don't actually know where the stories about jesus came from. 

I agree that you don't know it. 

 

If you knew, you would have faith. To get a bread one should go to a bread store or a bread master (baker), not to a wine. 

 

I watched a debate between Ehrman and Wallace. The great one. And the best argument of Bart Ehrman was "We don't know". But there is something that we know. The problem of Bart was not his special knowledge. Though he is a great specialist, however his attitude to his knowledge leads him to darkness. The attitude to the knowledge. It means: 'what are you going to do with an information you have in your hand?'. 

 

Let us stay a bit here. Bart and Daniel both have the same information in their hands. They both agree with it. Bart says that he refuses acknowledge trustworthiness of that information just because we do not have the authographs (originally handwritten texts by an author himself). Daniel makes a huge work and takes out pearls out of the sand. He even does experiments and gets the very strong bases for considering the manuscprits as trustworthy, because he additionally checked it out. And you please think, which attitude is wiser. Yes, we do not  have hard evidence, but we have a strong base to consider trustworthy the soft evidence that we have. Can we base our life on it? Yes we can. Everyone of us does multiple times it every day in his life, even not knowing about it. 

 

To exclude misrepresenting my point here. My point is that what really matters is our attitude to what we have. We can patiently investigate, check, try, get results, have confidence etc. or we can say "I reject it". because it does not fit with my intentions. Bart has become a skeptic not because of the information he has, but because of his attitude to it. As a result Bart says "we don't know...", Dan says "we have...".

 

So in which place do you see yourself here? 

[aik]

7 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

My main thought for this thread was that there are people who call themselves agnostic atheists, and who are very strict in their separation of the ideas of belief and knowledge...though a seeming contradiction is that their belief is determined by their knowledge. 

 

These people will want to see my evidence (knowledge) for my belief...two ideas they themselves have said are different things. So I tell them that these two words belief and knowledge are separate things and they get irritated.

They presuppose that knowledge necessarily determines one's belief.

 

This is just a nitpick. It's not important. 

I respect your opinion. no problem. But I do not agree that "their belief is determined by their knowledge". It is a mistake to think so. And this is what iam talking about with the Professor here. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

32 minutes ago, aik said:

 

If you knew, you would have faith. 

You are putting the cart in front of the horse here, moy droog.  Scripture says that we "know" by faith.  Walt has already made this point.  I would have to have faith first, then I could know.

 

46 minutes ago, aik said:

Bart and Daniel both have the same information in their hands. They both agree with it. Bart says that he refuses acknowledge trustworthiness of that information just because we do not have the authographs (originally handwritten texts by an author himself).

We have a historical record of Siddhartha Gautama's life, written by historians who were also alive during the time.  We have the actual Dharma written by Siddhartha himself after he became the Buddha.  There is no mystery here.  Events happened that people thought were important enough to record.

 

But, with jesus... well.  Nothing.  So either nothing happened that was important enough to be recorded; or nothing happened.  There is the slim possibility that something important happened but nobody wrote it down; but that doesn't seem to be the kind of inspiration we would expect from an omniscient and omnipotent god. 

[midniterider]

45 minutes ago, aik said:

I respect your opinion. no problem. But I do not agree that "their belief is determined by their knowledge". It is a mistake to think so. And this is what iam talking about with the Professor here. 

 

No problem. I just reserve the right to believe whatever I want for whatever reason I want.

[freshstart]

6 hours ago, aik said:

I have better thoughts, better spiritual state, better attitude with close and far people, better relationships, better peace, better love, better results of my actions, better eveyithing.

Funny, my thougths exactly after leaving Christianity!

6 hours ago, aik said:

But we know that Jesus rose from the dead. 

Nope we don't know that. Some people believe that, but no one knows. See the difference between belief and knowledge?

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, aik said:

You speak about capability, I speake about the reason. 

 

Which you believe in by faith and without objective evidence.

 

2 hours ago, aik said:

 

You speak about capability, I speak about the reason.

 

Which you believe in by faith and without objective evidence.

 

2 hours ago, aik said:

We know that. We know better what the knowledge means than those who DO NOT KNOW.

 

No, you do not know that Jesus rose from the dead.  

 

You believe that by faith and without objective evidence.  

 

You did not witness the event and you can present no objective evidence to support it.

 

Therefore, without having witnessed the event and having no objective evidence for it, you have no knowledge of the event.

 

Instead, you believe that it happened without knowledge.

 

2 hours ago, aik said:

Walter, a bit later I am going to answer to Professor. Please read that also.

 

Well, until then, try this.

 

 

Acts 17 : 32 - 34.

 

32 When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” 

33 At that, Paul left the Council. 

34 Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.

 

 

 

So aik, did either Dionysius or Damaris actually see Jesus rise from the dead with their own eyes?

 

Or did they believe the testimony of someone else who also didn't see him rise with their own eyes and so believe by faith and without objective evidence?

 

Just as you did?

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, aik said:

I respect your opinion. no problem. But I do not agree that "their belief is determined by their knowledge". It is a mistake to think so. And this is what iam talking about with the Professor here. 

 

Christian belief is not determined by knowledge.

 

Christians believe things by faith and in the absence of evidence, just as the bible asks them to.

 

Having no knowledge of or objective evidence for the Jesus' resurrection is no impediment to them believing it happened.