A****** is a bad word?

[lightgigantic]

Of course. The issue in theist discussion is that some theories are given credence, while others are dismissed.
But accepting a particular theory of perception will shape the knowledge that we gain by using this theory, and had we not used that theory, we would poissibly gain some different knowledge.

can you give an example of what you are explaining?

 

[greenberg]

It is a broad topic. I'll address it briefly and then we'll see what to do further -

It has been my experience, for example, that in order to believe in God the way Christians do, it is necessary to beforehand hold these statements to be true:

"I have a self that is eternal, unchangeable, coherent, consistent, independent from the selves of other people and objects, and has particular inherent and persistent qualities that distinguish my self from other people's selves."

"All worldly phenomena possess selfhood; they can be objectively understood and adequately described by words."

"Truth is arrived at by means of consensus. Personal interpretation must bow to consensus."

"We must act in accord with the truth, even if this means misery for us."

- Roughly, statements like these suggest a belief system that is a blend of common sense realism (naive realism) and objectivism.

Now, if one holds those above statements to be true, then "believing in God" will not be difficult. Moreover, it will seem like what the Bible and Christian say, is true.
The knowledge acquired this way would be different than the knowledge acquired by someone not holding those above statements to be true. That is, for example, someone with a constructivist/relativist outlook, will not come to the conclusion that "God exists" or "after death, some will go to hell and some to heaven and this will be it".

 

[lightgigantic]

I see

I was kind of thinking of something a bit different - it seems you are talking more about the prerequisites for knowledge as opposed to knowledge, per se