Knowledge and Belief

[Tree of Life]

I've heard and seen many say something like "I don't need faith" or "I don't need belief" because "I have knowledge." This is especially prevalent among those who want to disparage religious belief. The motto is usually something like "religions produce beliefs and science produces knowledge."

All knowledge is belief. The only thing that you have is beliefs. Some of your beliefs constitute as knowledge and others do not. But everything that you "know" you also "believe".

Belief is necessary for knowledge but not sufficient. So the question is not whether or not you have beliefs or whether or not you have faith. All of us do. The questions are "what do you believe in", "in what do you place your faith", and "do you have justifications or warrant for your beliefs?"

 

[KnowtheSilence]

All knowledge is belief. The only thing that you have is beliefs. Some of your beliefs constitute as knowledge and others do not. But everything that you "know" you also "believe".

Agreed.

Belief is necessary for knowledge but not sufficient. So the question is not whether or not you have beliefs or whether or not you have faith. All of us do. The questions are "what do you believe in", "in what do you place your faith", and "do you have justifications or warrant for your beliefs?"

I don't classify any of my beliefs as "faith." The word is too murky, and it brings to too many people's minds too many connotations that I don't want.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I've heard and seen many say something like "I don't need faith" or "I don't need belief" because "I have knowledge." This is especially prevalent among those who want to disparage religious belief. The motto is usually something like "religions produce beliefs and science produces knowledge."

All knowledge is belief. The only thing that you have is beliefs. Some of your beliefs constitute as knowledge and others do not. But everything that you "know" you also "believe".

Belief is necessary for knowledge but not sufficient. So the question is not whether or not you have beliefs or whether or not you have faith. All of us do. The questions are "what do you believe in", "in what do you place your faith", and "do you have justifications or warrant for your beliefs?"

I agree with your point on a semantic basis.
However, the problem is that theists have hijacked the words "belief" and "faith". These terms are now loaded. Loaded with the idea that if somebody says today that he "has faith in his doctor's diagnosis", that that person then means that they have no real reason to consider his doctor being capable of forming a correct diagnosis.

In reality off course, the "faith" a person has in his doctor is a completely different animal as opposed to the "faith" someone has in being "saved by christ's resurection/sacrifice" for example.

The first type of "faith" is based on reasonable expectations based on evidence and the knowledge on how doctors obtain their license to practice their profession, the education they have to have and the scientific process by which that knowledge was obtained. It's based on a trackrecord and evidence-based trust.

The type of "faith" that theists have is nothing like that.

And if you pay attention, you'll see that theists abuse this hijacking of the words to pretend as-if all people have "faith" in the "religion" of science. Because they might use the same word. Words however can mean different things in different context.

For this reason, I will traditionally refrain from employing words like "faith". If I say to a theist that "i have faith that the airplane will not crash", most of them won't understand what I really mean. So instead, I'll just say "I trust the airplane won't crash".

To me, those statements are identical. To an average theist, those statements are understood very differently.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am fascinated by the principle of epistemic closure, and also Russel's principle of explosion.

Say, if you know (or claim to know) that naturalism is true, then you know what it deductively entails, ie. that there is no supernatural God. But may naturalists are only agnostics rather that "gnostic strong atheists"*, so how is that consistent?

Also if inconsistency entails and implicit contradiction, then according to the logical "principle of explosion" anything follows from a contradiction such as 2+2=5 follows from "A and not-A".

So, I am a bit lost. I have contradictory beliefs (probably) but I dont believe 2+2=5 either. I think I must have a fallible "database" or something, in that stored beliefs are prone to human error.

Also I believe I possibly know God, but I am at least open to naturalism. But that sounds ok to me. However, is belief "binary" (yes or no, believe or not) but rationality more "fuzzy" (maybe, probably, % weightings)?


*People who believe they know there is no God.

 

[Tree of Life]

So Dogmahunter, in your view "faith" in the religious sense is belief without justification? I'm not sure that the Bible ever promotes such a faith.

 

[Loudmouth]

Say, if you know (or claim to know) that naturalism is true, then you know what it deductively entails, ie. that there is no supernatural God. But may naturalists are only agnostics rather that "gnostic strong atheists"*, so how is that consistent?

That's not the way it works.

Knowledge, in this context, is the facts we have accumulated over time. Our ability to draw conclusions from these facts is also a part of knowledge. Our knowledge of what makes up atoms is a result of facts we have gathered, and hypotheses we have tested.

We don't claim that we "know" naturalism is true. Rather, we know that Rutherford's gold foil experiment produces results consistent with a small and positively charged atomic nuclei, as one example.

Things we do not have evidence for are not put in the "false" category. They are put in the "I don't know" category. That is how one can accept the evidence for naturalistic mechanisms while remaining neutral on the question of whether a specific deity exists or not, be it God or Thor.

Also I believe I possibly know God, but I am at least open to naturalism. But that sounds ok to me. However, is belief "binary" (yes or no, believe or not) but rationality more "fuzzy" (maybe, probably, % weightings)?

First, you are setting up a false dichotomy. Both God and (methodological) Naturalism could be true. They are not mutually exclusive.

Second, if you knew God existed, then you could present the facts that lead to that conclusion just as we can for a positively charged atomic nucleus. This is where belief comes in. Belief is a positive claim held in the absence of knowledge. You have faith that God exists because if you had evidence, then you wouldn't need belief. You would have knowledge.

 

[Tree of Life]

That's not the way it works.

Knowledge, in this context, is the facts we have accumulated over time. Our ability to draw conclusions from these facts is also a part of knowledge. Our knowledge of what makes up atoms is a result of facts we have gathered, and hypotheses we have tested.

Knowledge is much more than facts. There are plenty of facts out there that we have no knowledge of. You say "facts we have accumulated". More must be said. The very question of knowledge deals with how exactly we go about accumulating facts. How do we apprehend them?

Second, if you knew God existed, then you could present the facts that lead to that conclusion just as we can for a positively charged atomic nucleus. This is where belief comes in. Belief is a positive claim held in the absence of knowledge. You have faith that God exists because if you had evidence, then you wouldn't need belief. You would have knowledge.

So you are one of those that pits belief against knowledge. This simply doesn't work. Belief is by no means "positive claims held in the absence of knowledge." Knowledge is belief. It's more than belief but not less. How can you know something if you don't believe that it's true?

For instance, I know that there's gas in the tank of my car. I also believe that there's gas in the tank of my car. How could I possibly know this if I didn't also believe it?

Knowledge is more than belief. It's belief that also happens to be true. But it's more than true belief. When we hold beliefs that are true for good reasons (or justification) then we have knowledge. In sum, knowledge is justified, true belief. But knowledge is still a type of belief.

 

[jayem]

The first type of "faith" is based on reasonable expectations based on evidence and the knowledge on how doctors obtain their license to practice their profession, the education they have to have and the scientific process by which that knowledge was obtained. It's based on a trackrecord and evidence-based trust.

Correct. To be specific, your trust in scientific medicine is based on induction (or a posteriori reasoning.) You examine specific cases, to determine a general principle. I reject the existence of anything supernatural by the same process. For centuries, people have posed supernatural explanations for what they don't comprehend. Yet as knowledge has increased, everything we do understand has proven to be a completely natual phenomenon. So why should I accept supernaturalism as valid for those things we still don't understand? I know about Hume's objection to inductive reasoning. But that doesn't affect negate induction as a powerful and valid intellectual foundation.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Correct. To be specific, your trust in scientific medicine is based on induction (or a posteriori reasoning.) You examine specific cases, to determine a general principle. I reject the existence of anything supernatural by the same process. For centuries, people have posed supernatural explanations for what they don't comprehend. Yet as knowledge has increased, everything we do understand has proven to be a completely natual phenomenon.

Thats contestable, unless you say we still dont understand religious experience, and the cause of the natural world. We have natural understanding yes, but I am not sure that eliminates the supernatural.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thats contestable, unless you say we still dont understand religious experience, and the cause of the natural world. We have natural understanding yes, but I am not sure that eliminates the supernatural.

It eliminates the supernatural as a force that operates in violation of natural laws. There are still religious views that see God acting through nature which really doesn't make any methdological claims. At the end of the day, the gaps in our knowledge that people try to squeeze God into keep getting smaller and smaller. That is the fate of the God who has to act in violation of nature.

 

[Loudmouth]

Knowledge is much more than facts. There are plenty of facts out there that we have no knowledge of. You say "facts we have accumulated". More must be said. The very question of knowledge deals with how exactly we go about accumulating facts. How do we apprehend them?

I gave the example of the Rutherford's gold foil experiment that gave us knowledge about atomic nuclei. Rutherford didn't directly observe atomic nuclei, but he was able to gain knowledge of what atomic nuclei were like by using observed facts and hypothesis testing.

No one has to believe by faith that the nucleus of an atom is small and positively charged. They can repeat the same experiments and gather their own facts. They can test the same hypotheses. Not so for the Resurrection and other claims made in the Bible. Those have to be taken on faith. They have to be believed.

So you are one of those that pits belief against knowledge. This simply doesn't work. Belief is by no means "positive claims held in the absence of knowledge." Knowledge is belief.

No, it isn't, as I demonstrated above.

For instance, I know that there's gas in the tank of my car. I also believe that there's gas in the tank of my car. How could I possibly know this if I didn't also believe it?

You don't have to believe. Your fuel guage gives you knowledge, and there are further experiments you can do to determine if there is gas in your car. This example fails.

Knowledge is more than belief. It's belief that also happens to be true.

The difference is that knowledge can be SHOWN to be true (within reasonable doubt). Belief is just assumed to be true.

 

[bhsmte]

Agreed.


I don't classify any of my beliefs as "faith." The word is too murky, and it brings to too many people's minds too many connotations that I don't want.

I tend to agree with you.

Faith is a very murky term and people use it differently. To me, if you need faith, it means you lack trust and or evidence the thing you have faith in is true and or will happen.

What I believe in, varies in confidence based on the evidence I have for each belief.

I believe very strongly, the sun will come up tomorrow, because of the evidence. I believe strongly, but less so, that my car will start tomorrow morning. I believe the TOE is true, because of the verifiable, objective evidence.

With faith, well, I have faith I will win lotto some day and the Cubs will win the world series in the next 10 years.

 

[Tree of Life]

Let's look at how "belief" is commonly defined in english dictionaries.

Oxford English - belief: An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

Merriam-Webster - belief: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

Cambridge - belief: the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true.

I'm not seeing how knowledge is not a type of belief. Could you explain?

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's look at how "belief" is commonly defined in english dictionaries.

Oxford English - belief: An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

Merriam-Webster - belief: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

Cambridge - belief: the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true.

I'm not seeing how knowledge is not a type of belief. Could you explain?

"Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. It can also be defined as belief that is not based on proof,"
Faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In this thread, we are talking about faith based beliefs vs. knowledge.

 

[Tree of Life]

"Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. It can also be defined as belief that is not based on proof,"
Faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In this thread, we are talking about faith based beliefs vs. knowledge.

Ummmm. As the author of the thread I am interested in showing how knowledge is just one type of belief. Faith and knowledge are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ummmm. As the author of the thread I am interested in showing how knowledge is just one type of belief. Faith and knowledge are not mutually exclusive.

Then it is nothing other than a semantic argument which isn't that interesting. In the end, you are saying that knowledge is knowledge.

 

[Tree of Life]

Then it is nothing other than a semantic argument which isn't that interesting. In the end, you are saying that knowledge is knowledge.

All knowledge is belief, but not all belief is knowledge.

Christian faith isn't a vacuous belief without justification or correspondence to reality. Christian faith is belief that corresponds to reality and has justifications just like other knowledge.

 

[bhsmte]

All knowledge is belief, but not all belief is knowledge.

Christian faith isn't a vacuous belief without justification or correspondence to reality. Christian faith is belief that corresponds to reality and has justifications just like other knowledge.

Your opinion and being a Christian, not surprising you equate the Christian faith to being supported with reality.

Now, show us the objective evidence that the faith can be equated to reality.

 

[Loudmouth]

Christian faith isn't a vacuous belief without justification or correspondence to reality. Christian faith is belief that corresponds to reality and has justifications just like other knowledge.

Then show us the evidence that supports the claims made by christians.

 

[Tree of Life]

Then show us the evidence that supports the claims made by christians.

Christians make all sorts of claims. Which ones are you referring to?