Belief versus knowledge

[Cockadoodledoo]

Let’s say That I write a book containing chapter after chapter of supposedly truth,
And then I ask you to believe it.
I ask you to believe it because, obviously, by yourself you can’t verify the truth.
Wouldn’t it have been better if I had took some other approach,
An approach whereby you didn’t have to rely on your powers of belief?
An approach whereby you had firsthand knowledge of the truth.

For example let’s say you’re an Eskimo in the Artic,
And I give you a book describing the properties of a magnet and claim it’s the truth.
A better approach might be to show you a magnet and some iron filings,
And demonstrate what a magnet can do.

So let’s take another example........the Bible versus a personal miracle.
(A personal miracle may for example be the constant vision of a cross in the sky witnessed by all humanity)
Whereas the Bible supposedly contains truth but can’t be verified & requires belief,
The cross in the sky gives all firsthand knowledge of the truth of God.

So I would say knowledge is superior to belief.
So why then are we not presented with knowledge in this way to verify God’s existence?
Why go to all the trouble of documenting ‘facts’ in the Bible if, at the end of the day, belief is required?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You seem to view Eskimo (a questionable term) with curious condescension.

 

[Sunstone]

In epistemology, belief by itself is not considered knowledge.

For something to be considered knowledge, it must meet at least three tests, so to speak (plus a very technical condition I'll not go into here, for the sake of simplicity):

First, it must be a belief.

Second, it must be a true belief.

Third, it must be justified. That is, one must have a good reason, or "justification", for thinking one's belief is true.

So, knowledge in epistemology is "a justified true belief", and not merely a belief -- or even merely a true belief.

By the common standards of epistemology, some key claims in the Bible that are often enough called, "knowledge" by the faithful, would not in fact be considered "knowledge" to an epistemologist -- even if they happened to be true beliefs, but still were not justified true beliefs.

For instance, the notion God exists most likely would not be considered knowledge by rigorous epistemological standards even if it were a true belief that God exists.

In this case, the 2,300 year old traditions of Western epistemology jive well with the OP.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

I suppose in a way.......
I find it a bit strange that I could spend a year reading the Bible (and not fully understanding it) when a simple cross in the sky for all to see would suffice.

Or is that an unreasonable request?

 

[David T]

Experience is, for me, the highest authority. The touchstone of validity is my own experience. No other person's ideas, and none of my own ideas, are as authoritative as my experience. It is to experience that I must return again and again, to discover a closer approximation to truth as it is in the process of becoming in me. Neither the Bible nor the prophets -- neither Freud nor research -- neither the revelations of God nor man -- can take precedence over my own direct experience. My experience is not authoritative because it is infallible. It is the basis of authority because it can always be checked in new primary ways. In this way its frequent error or fallibility is always open to correction

Carl Rogers.

That's about the best quote I know to cut through the crap.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I suppose in a way.......
I find it a bit strange that I could spend a year reading the Bible (and not fully understanding it) ...

I suspect that the theoretical possibilities would include ...

• you're not very bright,
• you're looking at it through the wrong lens, and/or
• you're the victim of unreasonable expectations.

I'd recommend discounting the first and focusing on the latter two.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

I suspect that the theoretical possibilities would include ...

• you're not very bright,
• you're looking at it through the wrong lens, and/or
• you're the victim of unreasonable expectations.

I'd recommend discounting the first and focusing on the latter two.

I’ve read all the New Testament and a third of the Old Testament,
It’s the longest book I’ve ever partly read.

If you were God do you think you’d take his approach to religious matters and why?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I’ve read all the New Testament and a third of the Old Testament,
It’s the longest book I’ve ever partly read.

And that speaks volumes.

If you were God do you think you’d take his approach to religious matters and why?

If I were God I wouldn't waste my time sparring with juvenile efforts to ridicule the tanakh.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

And that speaks volumes.


If I were God I wouldn't waste my time sparring with juvenile effortts to ridicule the tanakh.

Is it not reasonable to ask questions?
Surely curiosity’s a good thing?
And are there some questions off limits?
And what’s the Tanaka, is it the Old Testament?

 

[Yokefellow]

Whether you are talking about the Bible, Science or 1+1=2... everything starts out as a theory until proven as a fact.

You mention a Magnet...
Jesus rules with an Iron Rod. The Iron Rod *is* a Magnet and represents Electromagnetism.

You mention the Cross...
When One studies the meaning Scripturally, One will find that the Cross represents the Human Chromosome.

The problem is that some folks don't want to know the facts as they are uncomfortable with them. That's the real problem here.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Let’s say That I write a book containing chapter after chapter of supposedly truth,
And then I ask you to believe it.
I ask you to believe it because, obviously, by yourself you can’t verify the truth.
Wouldn’t it have been better if I had took some other approach,
An approach whereby you didn’t have to rely on your powers of belief?
An approach whereby you had firsthand knowledge of the truth.

For example let’s say you’re an Eskimo in the Artic,
And I give you a book describing the properties of a magnet and claim it’s the truth.
A better approach might be to show you a magnet and some iron filings,
And demonstrate what a magnet can do.

So let’s take another example........the Bible versus a personal miracle.
(A personal miracle may for example be the constant vision of a cross in the sky witnessed by all humanity)
Whereas the Bible supposedly contains truth but can’t be verified & requires belief,
The cross in the sky gives all firsthand knowledge of the truth of God.

So I would say knowledge is superior to belief.
So why then are we not presented with knowledge in this way to verify God’s existence?
Why go to all the trouble of documenting ‘facts’ in the Bible if, at the end of the day, belief is required?

A belief in itself is fine but a belief in order for it to be valid will need substance to back it up.

I'm sure most of us heard about fisherman tales, about how they had caught the biggest fish. Heh. It would help immensely for the believability department for the fisherman to actually have the biggest fish.

 

[Desert Snake]

It helps to actually know what the words mean, contextually.

Know is personal; in other words, what we believe we know, informs our beliefs.

Belief, can be evidenced, or not.

In religious usage, belief is not specific, to personal knowing; so the personal belief, may or may not be evidenced. Thusly, the belief, is the important aspect, not whether the person believes they know, or not.

'Know', being personal, is not apt for description of the religious belief, either in a religious sense, or a practical sense.

/
In non religious usage:
Know, being personal, for example, you can personally 'know', many, things, is not good for presenting your beliefs, because what you are really presenting, is your belief; in other words, what you believe you know.

 

[Yokefellow]

Why go to all the trouble of documenting ‘facts’ in the Bible if, at the end of the day, belief is required?

Again, you can prove the existence of God all day long and some folks simple choose not to believe. Even if God himself came to talk to these people.

Some people are simply in denial and refuse to wake up.

Some people know God exists, yet claim otherwise due to Mental Illness or perhaps for money and/or secret agenda.

The Bible is written in a language that has to be understood by anyone in any timeline. Thus, One can't expect it to be written in a fashion we are used to seeing.

Actually, the Bible is written in a Holographic Language that the military uses called 'Spread Spectrum'. That in itself is proof the Bible was written by a Superior Intellect.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

And that speaks volumes.


If I were God I wouldn't waste my time sparring with juvenile effortts to ridicule the tanakh.

I Just want to make one more point......

Let’s say the Eskimo read the book on magnetism (see opening post),
And asked to see a magnet and iron filings,
But I said to him......
I’m not going to waste my time showing you one of those magnets!
In a way, isn’t that me being juvenile?

 

[Yokefellow]

In a way, isn’t that me being juvenile?

Not if you're dealing with a 'Troll' or 'Boy who cried wolf' type of person.

If One is genuinely seeking knowledge and Wisdom, then you would have no problem teaching.

 

[Yokefellow]

By the way...

Ezekiel 1:27
"And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about"

Amber is where we get the word Electron.

Ezekiel was seeing Electrons as 'Eyes round about'.

God is teaching electromagnetism to us in a way that can be understood by anyone at any time in any language. Quite an accomplishment!

 

[PureX]

Let’s say That I write a book containing chapter after chapter of supposedly truth,
And then I ask you to believe it.
I ask you to believe it because, obviously, by yourself you can’t verify the truth.
Wouldn’t it have been better if I had took some other approach,
An approach whereby you didn’t have to rely on your powers of belief?
An approach whereby you had firsthand knowledge of the truth.

For example let’s say you’re an Eskimo in the Artic,
And I give you a book describing the properties of a magnet and claim it’s the truth.
A better approach might be to show you a magnet and some iron filings,
And demonstrate what a magnet can do.

So let’s take another example........the Bible versus a personal miracle.
(A personal miracle may for example be the constant vision of a cross in the sky witnessed by all humanity)
Whereas the Bible supposedly contains truth but can’t be verified & requires belief,
The cross in the sky gives all firsthand knowledge of the truth of God.

So I would say knowledge is superior to belief.
So why then are we not presented with knowledge in this way to verify God’s existence?
Why go to all the trouble of documenting ‘facts’ in the Bible if, at the end of the day, belief is required?

There are several problems, here. The "cross in the sky" could always be a magician's trick, or some similar falsely understood or misrepresented "truth". Also, humans beings are not capable of experiencing truth, as a whole, and partial bits of truth are only "relatively truthful". Meaning that they are only true relative to other presumed and relative bits of truth. (We generally call these facts.) So, neither hearing the "truth" from others, nor experiencing the "truth" ourselves, is going to assure us of having gain "the truth". Because the truth is, we humans cannot access the whole truth, and partial truths are only partially true; relative to the perspective of validation.

 

[Desert Snake]

Contextual to the thread: Most of the time, a belief in God, means that the person personally believes they know, that God exists, via whatever.

Sometimes, people who do not personally believe that they know, that God exists, will predicate their theism with 'agnostic theist', or such. This informs others that they personally either do not believe they know, that God exists, or, they believe that it cannot be known, whether a god exists.

 

[George-ananda]

So I would say knowledge is superior to belief.
So why then are we not presented with knowledge in this way to verify God’s existence?
Why go to all the trouble of documenting ‘facts’ in the Bible if, at the end of the day, belief is required?

Why document any history from the past (Biblical or non-Biblical) if belief is required? Because people want to tell people things and we now have to use our own intelligence and reason to form our judgment on what we are told. I believe there are truths and errors in the Bible in my judgment.

On a broader note, I believe we are in the process of each personally expanding our understanding. The joy of an intellectual being is in growing and expanding understanding.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Is it not reasonable to ask questions?

I suspect that would depend on the question.

Surely curiosity’s a good thing?

Surely.

And are there some questions off limits?

Of course.

And what’s the Tanaka, is it the Old Testament?

You clearly have much to learn, grasshopper.