believe or know

[lost76]

thanks to those of you who replied to my last thread, now another thought, lol.
is believing the same as knowing...
example: most people believe in which ever god/s they choose, or have perhaps chosen them, but as far as i know, belief only goes so far, and can also be changed by opinion, however, to know that which ever god/s people believe in are there, that can not be changed, because people know they are there.
another example, some one tells you something, you believe it to be true, it might not be, but you believe nonetheless; but the person who tells you was there and bore witness to what ever it is, so they know; now another person who was also there, tells you a different version of the events, they also were there, but because you only have belief, and the 2nd person sounds more credible your belief changes, but the people knowing, know what they have seen, and therefore belief does not change... lol, sorry for the rattling on, i hope you see what i am trying to get at here.
let me know if you believe or know in which ever path you chose, or chose you.
looking forward to seeing your replies, and thanks again once more

 

[dauer]

I tend to contextualize belief as a state, a type of perception or awareness that is closer to intimate knowing than it is to the assertion of the truth of a proposition. For some people belief is just that sort of assertion of truth that I don't see as terribly relevant. I think for most people the former knowing type of belief is a part but not the whole of their faith. My question: what is more protypical? Faith as a subtle, intimate knowing or faith as an intellectual assertion? I believe that the former is more primary to the lived experience of most individuals but that the latter has just the same been given more semantic authority as the language of belief is concerned. But the second type of belief seems of primary concern to a) religions that consider the assertion of a particular belief as truth for the sake of salvation and b) rationalists.

 

[Thomas]

is believing the same as knowing...

No. It's a fundamental mistake to treat belief/faith as a defective or deficient mode of knowledge ... belief/faith can be as rational in its operation of observation and insight as the gathering of knowledge.

Again, knowledge is not an end in itself ... the pursuit of knowledge is the pursuit of meaning, and the meaning of things can and often transcends the empirical data of the observable.

If there were no belief, no faith, there would be no knowledge.

What differs between belief and knowledge is the procedure. In both cases what is seen and the insights deduced from what is seen are accumulated and self-corrected, but without the tools of precision and measurement associated with the empirical sciences.

One could say that beliefs are expressed in proverbs, knowledge in principles (although, obviously, each informs the other).

"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth"
John Paul II, Fides et Ratio 15/09/98.

Thomas

 

[Bhaktajan II]

A common soldier is not privy to the plans set forth by the generals.

A common citisen is not privy to the plans set forth by the tax-collectors.

A common Olympian competitor is not privy to final winner is.

A common student has not seen China ---but knows well about all things Chinese.

A common consumer not aware if they are getting a bargin until after they pay the price.

Knowledge is called "gyana".
Realised-Knowledge is called "vi-gyana".

All knowledge comes by way of the "Descending-Process" ---IOW, the knowledge is passed down to us.

To acquire knowledge other than the "Descending-Process" is to self-discover knowledge that can be Patented ---so Exploration may reveal yet unknown truths/Facts/methods ---both the path is always made upon the shoulders of those who have gone before us.

Knowledge or Intelligence is all based upon "Discrimination" [ability to differentiate] ie:
"This is milk and that is cheese."
Note that there is a subtle difference here between two totally different things.
Simiarly, 2+2 = 4 where as 2 and 2 = 22.

Knowledge or Intelligence is the ability to differentiate.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Example:
My Gurus since time-immemorial advised me, along with scritural reference that I should be a vegetarian.
So . . . Now I am a vegetarian ---so I am not embroiled in the flesh trades ---thus, the book of life will have no foot-notes inregards to future emcumbrances in the bestial kind ---and I can read the daily head-lines and thus confirm the path of "Ahimsa" [non-violence] that I have undertaken as best for world peace.

 

[shawn]

This is related to the discussion:
[youtube]NgYE75gkzkM[/youtube]
Law professor Yochai Benkler explains how collaborative projects like Wikipedia and Linux represent the next stage of human organization. By disrupting traditional economic production, copyright law and established competition, they're paving the way for a new set of economic laws, where empowered individuals are put on a level playing field with industry giants.

 

[path_of_one]

The way I see my own path...

I start with experience- not belief or knowledge. I begin with an openness to experience of whatever-is-out-there (and, incidentally, within).

As I experience, I form beliefs (ideas) that organize the experiences into something that makes sense to me at the time. However, I am always aware that these beliefs are limited by my limitations- both in thought, and also in perception itself. So, my beliefs are open to change as I experience more, have new thoughts, read new things that other people write, etc. I see to never be static. To me, that is stagnation and closes me to growth.

However, at the same time, I am not accepting of all other ideas out there. If it has nothing to do with my own experience, then to me it would be a bit crazy to base my own belief system in something for which I have no relevant personal basis. That said, I don't necessarily consider these non-resonant ideas wrong. They just aren't personally relevant.

In my religious path, this is perfectly acceptable, because it is the process, the journey that is the important thing. It's OK to change, to learn, to grow, to develop. Diversity is OK, too. People don't need to agree on everything in order to gather and practice together. It's a path that emphasizes experience. Our faith is that if we are dedicated to spiritual growth and open ourselves to the Divine, we will embark on the journey we are meant to take. Thus, our faith is meant to be in the journey itself, and the Divine that can be found along the way, not a destination or any particular authority figure. It's a seeking after direct engagement with the Divine, and accepting that how we think about that engagement will change as we experience it.

Following the "forest path," as some call it, is about accepting the path's unevenness, its unexpected vistas, its dappled sunshine. One might climb up a hill onlly to climb back down into the valley once more. The "point" is not to reach the summit or any particular destination, but to find joy in the journey, to find the sacred in every moment and every existence. Knowledge is not seen as the end-point, but a means toward love:

"Grant, O Divine Mystery, your protection
And in protection, strength
And in strength, understanding
And in understanding, knowledge
And in knowledge, the knowledge of justice
And in the knowledge of justice, the love of it
And in the love of it, the love of all existences
And in the love of all existences, the love of You,
O Divine Mystery, and all goodness."
- The Druid's Prayer

That's my current belief about my experience, at any rate... Stay tuned for change... the only constant.