knowledge vs faith
- Thread starter granpa
- Start date
Within this context faith would generally mean acceptance of something, with inadequate evidence.
Knowledge, on the other hand, requires sufficient evidence.
Members of religious groups are the ones generally called upon to have faith, it is generally a requirement for their belief system. If they only have faith in things they have sufficient evidence for knowledge, then they have not meet the requirement for faith.
Those with a scientific belief system would say there is a hierarchy of information, with faith at a low level, belief higher, and knowledge still higher.
Those of a religious belief system, would probably say that faith in certain things is more important than knowledge. What knowledge provides is inadequate.
They would also say that what they have faith in, they also believe (have belief in), and what they believe, they accept as true. From this position, all three have equal value, equal importance in their decision making.
If I know that something is true, it means that I have a justified belief about it. This implies that I have objective evidence to support my belief. I cannot see how I could lack faith in something I know to be true.
I think that seperating faith and belief would be splitting hairs. Both are characterized by a lack of objective evidence to support them.
faith:
1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
belief :
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.
knowledge:
2 a (1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1): the fact or condition of being aware of something (2): the range of one's information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge> c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition d: the fact or condition of having information or of being learned <a person of unusual knowledge>
4 a: the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind barchaic : a branch of learning
So now you understand the meanings of each word correctly.
you can't know, you can only believe you know.
what evidence do you have that the world is objective?
what evidence do you have that the world is objective?
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
I like that question.
It certainly seems like one can know one is a good tennis player - have a wealth of evidence to support it - and yet not have faith in oneself as a player. Even when one wins, one feels like it was luck, the other person lost, but you did not win.
FAith it seems to me is a commitment to a belief despite a lack of evidence AND a lack of experience.
Belief should at least be based on some experience, even if it is selectively highlighted and interpreted.
Knowledge is based on evidence that others can verify also.
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
Those definitions have a lot of problems. They do fit everyday usage. But if you look at 1) under knowledge you cannot separate it out from belief. In fact knowledge then would be a subset of belief characterized by gained through experience rather than verified through evidence. That definition is not going to sit well with the scientists here.
I think I see where you are coming from. What evidence would satisfy you ?
You are overlooking something. If, as you accept, knowing means having a belief supported by evidence, then you know you are a good tennis player based on the results of matches, the level you have played at and so. I cannot conceive that you would then doubt you ability. You might have pre-match nerves or something of the kind, but that is a different mater.
Leaving the dictionary aside, in the present context I would define it as a vague awareness or something of the kind.
i know its impossible to know something is true and still not believe it. but dont you think its possible that something could be known to be true but still 'feel' wrong?
Yes. Lots of counter -intuitive are like that. I have little choice but to accept what experiments show to be " true " but I am not comfortable with what is said to be going on at the quantum level. I would like it to be otherwise .and I hope that some day a more " comfortable " explanation can be given. But, for the present, I am stuck with it.
When I grope my girlfriend!
Is that the one to whom you give dried apples ? If so, she must be desperate
She only enjoys my lobsters, brandy and money! That'show I get to grope her.
So you are telling me that Shorty is a liar ? She told me how mewan you are and I believe her. Anyway, if you have to pay for it. you don't deserve it.
Ever since I finished my course of penis-enlargement pills I have to fight the girls off. So all you have to do is reply to what appears to be a bit of spam, spend £500.00, and you'll never look back
Shorty would not lie about to many things however she does tend to exaggerate allot .
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
People are not monads. We can hold contradictory beliefs, let alone beliefs, knowledge and faith(s) that are not logical bedfellows.
We are not aware of all of our beliefs. And just as we can have mixed feelings, we can have mixed thoughts.