Believing VS Knowing

[Constantine the Sinner]

Believing that Jesus is real and saying "I believe in my son" who is standing right in front of you - are two very different things. When one says, "I believe in you", they usually mean, "I know you can do it", "I trust your abilities" etc.

Orthodoxy stresses direct experience of the divine, so we have a different perspective than Protestants or Catholics, I guess.

 

[Just_a_Joe]

Orthodoxy stresses direct experience of the divine, so we have a different perspective than Protestants or Catholics, I guess.

I think what's important for you in your faith has nothing to do with such notions as knowing or believing.

Off-topic, may I ask what type of Orthodox church are you part of? I personally respect the Orthodox tradition more than any other among all that call themselves Christian. The oldest running and you guys actually gave everyone the Biblical canon.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I think what's important for you in your faith has nothing to do with such notions as knowing or believing.

Off-topic, may I ask what type of Orthodox church are you part of? I personally respect the Orthodox tradition more than any other among all that call themselves Christian. The oldest running and you guys actually gave everyone the Biblical canon.

Greek, but you have to remember that's not a different "type" of Orthodoxy, that just has to do with your administrative body. We are One Church, we just don't have a central administrative body like the Catholics. Rather than being united by a Pope, we are united by a common deposit of faith. Like the ancient Church, we are decentralized and are a collection of autonomous Churches, but if you are part of one, you are part of the entire Body.

 

[Just_a_Joe]

Greek, but you have to remember that's not a different "type" of Orthodoxy, that just has to do with your administrative body. We are One Church, we just don't have a central administrative body like the Catholics. Rather than being united by a Pope, we are united by a common deposit of faith. Like the ancient Church, we are decentralized and are a collection of autonomous Churches, but if you are part of one, you are part of the entire Body.

Greek! You can't get closer to the source than that. Thank you for explaining. I find the Orthodox teaching to be the most coherent and logical of all the Christian churches. Its depth and richness of spiritual experience is unparalleled, seems to me. I love reading Orthodox books. It humbles my heart. So much truth. Ive been to million types of churches of all denominations and sects, studied the Bible deeply, talked to priests and pastors. Anyways, I'll stop my off-topic post here.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Greek! You can't get closer to the source than that. Thank you for explaining. I find the Orthodox teaching to be the most coherent and logical of all the Christian churches. Its depth and richness of spiritual experience is unparalleled, seems to me. I love reading Orthodox books. It humbles my heart. So much truth. Ive been to million types of churches of all denominations and sects, studied the Bible deeply, talked to priests and pastors. Anyways, I'll stop my off-topic post here.

Well if you want to talk more about Orthodoxy, feel free to post on The Ancient Way board here, or message me.

 

[fhansen]

If Jesus is real, why do Christian's say they believe in him. Shouldn't they say I know him?

How can one believe something they know?

Faith is a gift, a gift that begins a process of coming to know God better and better. It's very difficult to know Him at all because of His infinite superiority; such knowledge, to any great or deep degree, is necessarily a gift. And yet He can reveal Himself to us, and begin to transform us into His image as we desire to become more like Him, and the result is that we know Him better yet.

And so gaining and growing in this knowledge is a process, involving even a struggle of the will, one that is achieved as we increasingly value and desire God above all else. We really don't even want to know Him to the extent that we're attracted to other, created, things before Him, to the extent that we're attracted to sin, and to the extent that we love ourselves more than Him, a state of being known as "pride" that opposes God by its very nature.

Faith, itself, is a gift of knowledge, a taste of knowing or "seeing" God, but as Scripture, speaking of the difference between this life and the next, tells us in 1 Cor 13,

"For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

 

[paul becke]

Believing that Jesus is real and saying "I believe in my son" who is standing right in front of you - are two very different things. When one says, "I believe in you", they usually mean, "I know you can do it", "I trust your abilities" etc.

There are more ways of knowing than you know. Here are two articles explaining how everything we think and/or do is supernatural in its origin :

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...al-debate-science-depend-on-the-supernatural/

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ubiquitous-miracles-of-our-existence/

Even quantum physics makes a mockery of the notion associated with mechanistic reductionist physics - scientism - by the foolish, whereby it is believed that, in due course, i.e. some time in the future, everything about our universe will be able to be understood by man, by our descendants. The reality is that the deeper we penetrate truth, the spiritual realm being the deepest, the more paradoxes repugnant to reason and logic, become manifest. It has long been known by the Christian church that God can and does communicate with us directly via the Holy Spirit, the Third Peron of the Most Holy Trinity, at a kind of psychic level. That cannot be tested in a laboratory, any more than can the impulse of love a young child feels, on seeing their mother when she returns from shopping.

 

[Just_a_Joe]

There are more ways of knowing than you know. Here are two articles explaining how everything we think and/or do is supernatural in its origin :

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...al-debate-science-depend-on-the-supernatural/

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ubiquitous-miracles-of-our-existence/

Even quantum physics makes a mockery of the notion associated with mechanistic reductionist physics - scientism - by the foolish, whereby it is believed that, in due course, i.e. some time in the future, everything about our universe will be able to be understood by man, by our descendants. The reality is that the deeper we penetrate truth, the spiritual realm being the deepest, the more paradoxes repugnant to reason and logic, become manifest. It has long been known by the Christian church that God can and does communicate with us directly via the Holy Spirit, the Third Peron of the Most Holy Trinity, at a kind of psychic level. That cannot be tested in a laboratory, any more than can the impulse of love a young child feels, on seeing their mother when she returns from shopping.

I have a degree in theoretical physics.

All those interesting thoughts are great, and probably are worthy of a discussion on their own. However, it doesn't change the fact that in the English language the two words have distinct meanings, which should not be confused or misused. Otherwise nobody knows what anybody says anymore.

Knowing is knowing. Believing is believing. Faith or believing in no way indicates a mistake. Nevertheless, it is not the same thing as knowing. Not to be confused. It's a matter of accuracy and clarity.

2+2=4. F=m*a. Convention. If we say 2 means 3 and 4 means square root of 2 or m means velocity and a means distance, then we're simply breaking all conventions and preventing us to be understood correctly.

If there is a need to introduce a new meaning, or to extend the existing, it is a better practice to use other terms or even create a new one. For example, metaphysical perception, extrasensory cognition, whatever. I am no expert in this subject, and so giving the above examples very arbitrarily.

 

[believeume]

Faith is a gift, a gift that begins a process of coming to know God better and better. It's very difficult to know Him at all because of His infinite superiority; such knowledge, to any great or deep degree, is necessarily a gift. And yet He can reveal Himself to us, and begin to transform us into His image as we desire to become more like Him, and the result is that we know Him better yet.

And so gaining and growing in this knowledge is a process, involving even a struggle of the will, one that is achieved as we increasingly value and desire God above all else. We really don't even want to know Him to the extent that we're attracted to other, created, things before Him, to the extent that we're attracted to sin, and to the extent that we love ourselves more than Him, a state of being known as "pride" that opposes God by its very nature.

Faith, itself, is a gift of knowledge, a taste of knowing or "seeing" God, but as Scripture, speaking of the difference between this life and the next, tells us in 1 Cor 13,

"For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

Usually when someone speaks of a friend to you, they say " Do you know them" Even though the person speaking of the friend can't possibly know his friend perfectly in depth, they still talk that way.

This is the heart of my question.

Jesus said in John, "I call you friends"

Shouldn't you say "I know Jesus, whom is my friend"

 

[paul becke]

I have a degree in theoretical physics.

All those interesting thoughts are great, and probably are worthy of a discussion on their own. However, it doesn't change the fact that in the English language the two words have distinct meanings, which should not be confused or misused. Otherwise nobody knows what anybody says anymore.

Knowing is knowing. Believing is believing. Faith or believing in no way indicates a mistake. Nevertheless, it is not the same thing as knowing. Not to be confused. It's a matter of accuracy and clarity.

2+2=4. F=m*a. Convention. If we say 2 means 3 and 4 means square root of 2 or m means velocity and a means distance, then we're simply breaking all conventions and preventing us to be understood correctly.

If there is a need to introduce a new meaning, or to extend the existing, it is a better practice to use other terms or even create a new one. For example, metaphysical perception, extrasensory cognition, whatever. I am no expert in this subject, and so giving the above examples very arbitrarily.

"Nevertheless, it is not the same thing as knowing. Not to be confused. It's a matter of accuracy and clarity."

No. Read what I said again : the deepest truths are not accessible to the worldly analytical intelligence - hence the mysteries of quantum physics and the mysteries of the Christian faith.

I'm sure you would much prefer things to be just as neat as neat can be - as in classical mechanistic physics, but it just ain't so at deeper levels. Willing something to be otherwise won't cause it to be so. Knowledge and faith (belief and commitment thereto) on both the religious and the secular level, form the continuum I indicated.

To his closest friends and Apostles, Jesus showed something of the divine majesty of his power, such as calming the wind and the waves, so yes, they knew Jesus was God. But sticking with that knowledge, the commitment to it under threat of torture and/or death required faith. In John, Mary Magdalene and, of course, Mary, the mother of Jesus, their faith in their knowledge, in what they knew to be true, remained solid, whereas the other disciples held back in fear and confusion.

 

[Uber Genius]

If Jesus is real, why do Christian's say they believe in him. Shouldn't they say I know him?

How can one believe something they know?

This is a classical philosophical discussion in epistemology.

Beliefs are just things we hold to be true.

Knowledge is a subset of beliefs that we can justify with evidence and arguments.

There are however some beliefs we can know without evidence and argument, namely things like these are my fingers typing this response not someone else's fingers. The reality of an external world, other minds (People), the reality of the past, and continuity of how the world works being the same in the future as it was in the past.

Those are called properly basic beliefs that also count as knowledge despite proof.

For more research on religious epistemology see
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-epistemology/

Now another issue is how do we know that the criterion for knowledge is correct (how do we judge the evidence) given there must be a criterion for the criterion.

According to Chisholm, epistemology consists of Socratic inquiry into the questions “What can we know?” and “What are the criteria of knowledge?” He thought that a puzzle faces anyone who attempts to answer these questions. It appears that to answer the first question, one needs a criterion to distinguish between things that are known and things that are not known. That is, one needs an answer to the second question. But to have an answer to the second question, he thought, one needs a list of the things one knows so that one can identify the features that distinguish knowledge from its opposite. That is, one needs an answer to the first question.

This problem is discussed in a book entitled, "The problem of the criterion." It may be out on google books.

Next one has the issue of whether they can choose to believe something. I'm a involuntarist but others think and argue that one can choose for more see:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/

Hope this helps.

 

[paul becke]

This is a classical philosophical discussion in epistemology.

Beliefs are just things we hold to be true.

Knowledge is a subset of beliefs that we can justify with evidence and arguments.

There are however some beliefs we can know without evidence and argument, namely things like these are my fingers typing this response not someone else's fingers. The reality of an external world, other minds (People), the reality of the past, and continuity of how the world works being the same in the future as it was in the past.

Those are called properly basic beliefs that also count as knowledge despite proof.

For more research on religious epistemology see
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-epistemology/

Now another issue is how do we know that the criterion for knowledge is correct (how do we judge the evidence) given there must be a criterion for the criterion.

According to Chisholm, epistemology consists of Socratic inquiry into the questions “What can we know?” and “What are the criteria of knowledge?” He thought that a puzzle faces anyone who attempts to answer these questions. It appears that to answer the first question, one needs a criterion to distinguish between things that are known and things that are not known. That is, one needs an answer to the second question. But to have an answer to the second question, he thought, one needs a list of the things one knows so that one can identify the features that distinguish knowledge from its opposite. That is, one needs an answer to the first question.

This problem is discussed in a book entitled, "The problem of the criterion." It may be out on google books.

Next one has the issue of whether they can choose to believe something. I'm a involuntarist but others think and argue that one can choose for more see:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/

Hope this helps.

Thank you for that, Uber Genius.

 

[RDKirk]

Impossible. Unless you have seen real life Jesus, there is no way to know he is real. It would have to be believing.

How could you be sure you know He is real even if you'd seen Him in the flesh?

How many things have you seen that are not real? How do you know?

 

[Yekcidmij]

If Jesus is real, why do Christian's say they believe in him. Shouldn't they say I know him?

How can one believe something they know?

How could someone know something but not really believe it?

I could say that I know that my bed is comfortable, but it seems inconsistent to say that I don't believe that my bed is comfortable.

One common definition of knowledge is that it's justified true belief. Another definition (the one I prefer) would be that knowledge is warranted true belief. Either way, you can't know something you don't truly believe and belief in something is not, in itself, sufficient criteria to claim knowledge.

 

[Hawkins]

If Jesus is real, why do Christian's say they believe in him. Shouldn't they say I know him?

How can one believe something they know?

I know the earth is revolving around the sun. However in the end it's just my belief as it's never made evident to me.

Believing in Jesus in the end is a faith. Yet we can claim to know Jesus as a 'fact of consensus'.

 

[Uber Genius]

I know the earth is revolving around the sun. However in the end it's just my belief as it's never made evident to me.

Believing in Jesus in the end is a faith. Yet we can claim to know Jesus as a 'fact of consensus'.

Here you are using "faith" the way the New Atheists want us to define it, namely unwarranted belief. Or belief in something in which there is no evidence!

But that is not how the NT authors used "pistos" or the church fathers used "fidelis."

Many have given their lives so we would be equipped in every occasion to give an account of the hope that is in us.

An account of his historicity.
An account of the uniqueness of his claims amongst other religions.
An account of the best explanation of our desire for meaning and purpose.
An account of the best explanation of moral objectivity.
An account of how we got here, both the universe and life.

These are but a fraction of the evidence available.

Far from "it is just my belief," it is what everyone interested in knowing how the real external world works SHOULD BELIEVE, given the evidence.