Knowing vs Believing

[1137]

I often see the claim that people know spiritual truth, such as that they know God exists. I wonder if these people know the difference between knowledge and belief? It is impossible for and intellectually honest person to claim they know God exist no matter what the reason, it is unlikely that we will ever know. But we can believe. I also wonder if people feel we should debate beliefs or claims of objective knowledge? I won't debate subjective beliefs with someone, but when you're passing those beliefs as objective truth when it is not you should be argued with.

Thoughts?

 

[apophenia]

Generally speaking, I agree with you.

One qualification - if by 'god' someone means an experiential reality, then that can actually be known.

For example, meditators who practice pratyahara (withdrawal from the senses) and 'abide in the luminosity' may use the word god to refer to that. That can only be known - and not demonstrated or proved.

And for many, especially those who identify as practitioners of sanatan dharma, that is precisely what they mean by 'god'. Experience is not belief, but the refutation of the reality of that state is a belief.

 

[1137]

So you're pointing out that knowledge can exist which cannot be shared between people?

 

[apophenia]

So you're pointing out that knowledge can exist which cannot be shared between people?

In that specific case, yes. It can be described, indications as to how to experience it for yourself can be given. And in that particular case, it already exists in everyone - but the recognition of it, and the name used for it, and are another matter, and lead to contention because of the word used, which means something entirely different to a christian or muslim for example.

That is why I don't use that word. It's hard to find an appropriate word though.

Do you know the experience I am referring to ? What would you call it ? Serious question.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

So you're pointing out that knowledge can exist which cannot be shared between people?

I would agree with what APOPHENIA says.

The knowledge of the Supreme, which is realized through vidya, tapas, dhyan, yagna, bhakti and yoga, have been documented and is free for anyone to practice for them selves until realization is achieved. This knowledge is advised in all works of Sanatana Dharma, believing in it is not the advise, the advise is to practice and try it out for ones self, key word is realization.

 

[ChristineES]

I often see the claim that people know spiritual truth, such as that they know God exists. I wonder if these people know the difference between knowledge and belief? It is impossible for and intellectually honest person to claim they know God exist no matter what the reason, it is unlikely that we will ever know. But we can believe. I also wonder if people feel we should debate beliefs or claims of objective knowledge? I won't debate subjective beliefs with someone, but when you're passing those beliefs as objective truth when it is not you should be argued with.

Thoughts?

This is precisely the reason I don't try to convince anyone that there is a God.

 

[Thief]

So finding something well made is not evidence of intelligence?
Paintings, sculpture, architecture, mathematics, theatre, etc etc etc

And more complex items...
animals, plants, microbes, viruses.....are all accidents?

The human psyche and spirit have no 'intended' formation?

Now...go to the mirror....look yourself in the eye....and confess....

'I am nothing but an accident!
My life has no purpose and I am soon to be dust....as if never born.
Man is a complete mystery without cause or resolve.

And by no means is there anything (or Anyone) greater than myself.'


I don't actually think so.

 

[ArcNinja]

I know that the Judaic/Christian god doesn't exist, but I don't claim to know that no god exists.

 

[Willamena]

It is impossible for and intellectually honest person to claim they know God exist no matter what the reason, it is unlikely that we will ever know.

Why so?

 

[Me Myself]

This is precisely the reason I don't try to convince anyone that there is a God.

This. I also agree with apophenia though.

For me, god is plike a sixth sense. It has always been there and it will always be. It is more real than my body because it never leaves me. It doesnt leave me when I am awake or when I am dreaming. Sure, I can assume my body was there when I was dreaming the second I wake up, but its not the same.

God is more real than anything else to me. Te way I see it, by objectivity alone, no one can "know" anything, so while God may be the "thing" I am more sure I know, I will rarely say "I know" unless I am alking to another theist, becaude I know (xD) I wont be able to share the experience to an atheist in a way that he will feel it is "knowledge" anyways.

Not most of the times though. Maybe apophenia and another handful may feel they know what I mean

 

[sandandfoam]

I wonder if these people know the difference between knowledge and belief?

What do you believe is the difference?

 

[Windwalker]

I would agree with what APOPHENIA says.

The knowledge of the Supreme, which is realized through vidya, tapas, dhyan, yagna, bhakti and yoga, have been documented and is free for anyone to practice for them selves until realization is achieved. This knowledge is advised in all works of Sanatana Dharma, believing in it is not the advise, the advise is to practice and try it out for ones self, key word is realization.

I agree with Apophenia, and you as well. Yes, in meditation the question of "God" becomes a moot question. It's really all just a matter of how do we talk about it, what sort of structure do we use to hang our impressions of "that" upon. Realization is the key word, indeed.

To just quickly contribute what helps me in understanding this as a type of knowledge is to understand the difference between Apprehension and Comprehension:

"The words apprehension and comprehension refer to two different mental processes of grasping or taking hold of experience. Apprehension is the ability to understand something by relying on tangible or concrete experience. A simple example is when you touch the fire it will burn your finger. This experience can lead you apprehending that you should not touch fire. Whereas comprehension does not require concrete experience to understand, it is the ability to understand through reliance on conceptual interpretation and symbolic representation. Comprehension means the complete process of understanding, to perceive, interpret and process knowledge. In the examination point of view a comprehension means an exercise characterized by questions based on a short paragraph or text. A comprehension is to test the aptitude of the student.

Linguists tend to define comprehension as ‘understanding and deciding’. They define apprehension as ‘understanding and hesitating’. It is thus for sure that comprehension ends in decision whereas apprehension ends in hesitation. Comprehension at time paves the way for discussion too, whereas apprehension paves the way for imagination."​

Read more: Difference Between Apprehension and Comprehension | Difference Between

That "reliance on conceptual interpretation and symbolic representation" very much defines what a belief is, as opposed to apprehension, or realization.

 

[Straw Dog]

One qualification - if by 'god' someone means an experiential reality, then that can actually be known.

For example, meditators who practice pratyahara (withdrawal from the senses) and 'abide in the luminosity' may use the word god to refer to that. That can only be known - and not demonstrated or proved.

And for many, especially those who identify as practitioners of sanatan dharma, that is precisely what they mean by 'god'. Experience is not belief, but the refutation of the reality of that state is a belief.

I agree that "god" may work well as a symbolic representation of mystical experience. However, I do think its a mistake to claim a perfect understanding of reality or label the experiences as literally "god" or "Cosmic Consciousness" as if something was apprehended outside of imagination and intuition. Even our imaginations are constructed by data originally collected by sensory-perception, so chances are subsequent interpretations of mystical experiences are more mundane and human than we probably realize. It's probably best not to label the experience if someone doesn't know the difference between literalism and metaphor. "God" works well as a metaphor for that which transcends all comprehension.

 

[Me Myself]

Who can really "know" anything anyways?

 

[sandandfoam]

Who can really "know" anything anyways?

That's my understanding too.
I believe that we can feel things with certainty but I believe that knowledge is always provisional

 

[bobhikes]

I often see the claim that people know spiritual truth, such as that they know God exists. I wonder if these people know the difference between knowledge and belief? It is impossible for and intellectually honest person to claim they know God exist no matter what the reason, it is unlikely that we will ever know. But we can believe. I also wonder if people feel we should debate beliefs or claims of objective knowledge? I won't debate subjective beliefs with someone, but when you're passing those beliefs as objective truth when it is not you should be argued with.

Thoughts?

No ones said it yet.

Define objective truth. For me everything is subjective. If everything is subjective knowledge is just a stronger more defined belief accepted by the masses.

 

[Windwalker]

I agree that "god" may work well as a symbolic representation of mystical experience. However, I do think its a mistake to claim a perfect understanding of reality or label the experiences as literally "god" or "Cosmic Consciousness" as if something was apprehended outside of imagination and intuition. Even our imaginations are constructed by data originally collected by sensory-perception, so chances are subsequent interpretations of mystical experiences are more mundane and human than we probably realize. It's probably best not to label the experience if someone doesn't know the difference between literalism and metaphor. "God" works well as a metaphor for that which transcends all comprehension.

Much of this is true, but I would not necessarily limit all subtle-level mystical experience to "data originally collected by sensory-perception." There is certainly that, but there is also the archetypes which according to Jungian psychology is from the collective unconscious. I seriously do not doubt there is far more the how reality works than our measly analytical minds can penetrate. There is information transmitted to us in ways we don't understand, behavioral information transmitted through genes for one thing without the benefit of role modeling.

For one to say they have experienced "God" or Buddha Mind, or Cosmic Consciousness, that is largely beyond the imagination, or any sort of subtle forms the mind produces through culture, or from the collective unconscious. Though that wholly transcendent is included in subtle form, it itself is experienced as formlessness. So there is no data. It is emptiness, in that all form is an illusion, a simple expressions of that which is beyond form.

So what you say is true in part, but only to a certain point.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I often see the claim that people know spiritual truth, such as that they know God exists. I wonder if these people know the difference between knowledge and belief? It is impossible for and intellectually honest person to claim they know God exist no matter what the reason, it is unlikely that we will ever know. But we can believe. I also wonder if people feel we should debate beliefs or claims of objective knowledge? I won't debate subjective beliefs with someone, but when you're passing those beliefs as objective truth when it is not you should be argued with.

Thoughts?

I've never been able to find any real difference between belief and knowledge. In fact, I've come to see those who do believe in such a difference as almost magical thinkers. They seem to think that if we 'know' something, then that thing is true to the God of the Cosmos. But if we only 'believe' a thing, then there's a chance that it could be contrary to God's absolute knowledge.

But only an actual prophet of God could know what is absolutely true, I think. And I don't really believe in such prophets.

The difference between believing something and knowing something is simply a higher psychological certainty in the person making the latter claim-- as least so far as I can see.

 

[Koldo]

I often see the claim that people know spiritual truth, such as that they know God exists. I wonder if these people know the difference between knowledge and belief? It is impossible for and intellectually honest person to claim they know God exist no matter what the reason, it is unlikely that we will ever know. But we can believe. I also wonder if people feel we should debate beliefs or claims of objective knowledge? I won't debate subjective beliefs with someone, but when you're passing those beliefs as objective truth when it is not you should be argued with.

Thoughts?

Do you know who are your ( biological ) parents?

It is a serious question. If yes, then how did you gain this knowledge?

 

[Me Myself]

That's my understanding too.
I believe that we can feel things with certainty but I believe that knowledge is always provisional

Pretty much. If you awake now and have a completely different life than the one you now "know" did you ever "knew" about this life?

How do you "know" when you know something?

Evidence has this problem in which either it is cyclical ( you have a system of beliefs each supporting each other into a (sometimes more elaborate than oer times) loop) or it ends up with some kind of base belief that supports all others, but if nothing supports this base belief then you cannot say it is knowledge either because you have no evidence for it.

I mean its natural, ere is nothing wrong with that, but lets not pretend we can know which things we know and which we only believe. We have levels of certainty, and ultimately, we know nothing.