Faith: Belief vs. Knowing

[radarmark]

Luecy7, forgive me, I am a bit slow. I understand neither of your remarks. I understood that you used "faith" as synonymous with "knowledge". And the "faith in another person" being capable of being false (not true or factual in reality). If that is wrong, please let me know how you use the three terms.

From the above, you should be able to see that I do not comprehend (understand) your use of "faith". Ipso facto, the statement is true.

What am I missing?

 

[Eva]

Can a person of faith know the true path? Or do they believe it is the true path? I find that these words are often mixed up, are there a difference?

I personally don't believe the general population know right from wrong in science. There are always scientists arguing from both sides of a dispute. And reading a report about the population growth of a certain rodent in a specific area won't give me the knowledge to know that it is true. I can learn the different markers and signs that there is a population growth and I can trust that the scientist is telling the whole truth, and I can believe that they made all necessary experiments and made the the propper conclusions based on this. But I don't believe that I can know that they didn't miss a vital fact.

But Faith don't work like this, and since I have next to no experience with faith I wish to learn.

You are right, to the knowing about life the scientific explanations do not contribute anything.

The truth is not irrational, but it doesn’t start from the mental vision of reality. It starts from the heart-knowing, the direct clear observation of the reality of life, and our sensitivity to it. A certain kind of intuition, as William said. There are things that we believe in, in our heart, that are different than the beliefs that people train their minds to hold, different than religious dogmas and opinions. If you start from what you deeply believe is true, the business of the mind is to accept it and not reject it, and not overlay it with mental junk.

Those are the things that determine the life of one’s own, the people around and our place in the world. And we all share them, regardless of religious background etc. Maybe you will need to search your heart to come clear about it, but I am sure you will agree with me. These are things like: “There is love. Everyone is capable of loving. All people are sensitive, regardless of their act. God is good. Doing right by others is the way to live”. These things are undeniable for the heart.

Deep acceptance of the knowing of the heart supports a life of love. It is a life-determining factor to hold onto the faith in it regardless of the difficulties and apparent contradictions to it. It is easy to lose faith in people, in life, in the universe laws, and in God’s care when a person doesn’t live rightly and whose experience of oneself and others is bad as a consequence. But taking responsibility for our love and morality puts us in a different position. It is a moral issue.

True faith is not blind, and it is not mere belief. It is closer to trust in the goodness of all. A true man or woman of faith is true to the goodness of what God made. The true path is the life of love and to the extend that a person lives love, the person lives faith.

 

[luecy7]

I understood that you used "faith" as synonymous with "knowledge".

Where did I say or imply that?!

And the "faith in another person" being capable of being false (not true or factual in reality).

Claiming to have or place faith, and having or placing faith, are entirely different actions, whether the claim is true or not.

Claiming to "love, cherish...", and loving, cherishing, etc..., and believing the claim, and having faith in the person, are entirely different actions, whether the claim is true or not.

If that is wrong, please let me know how you use the three terms.

Whether or not you held the belief that your wife would "love, cherish...", and after you had the knowledge that she wanted to leave and spend time with a woman, and even today, you could still have faith in her, being positively involved in her life... unless of course she really doesn't want to ever see you again.

From the above, you should be able to see that I do not comprehend (understand) your use of "faith". Ipso facto, the statement is true.

False.

You: "I have no way of getting to the moon. It is too subjective."
Me: False
You: "I don't know how to get to the moon. Ipso facto, it was a true statement."

What am I missing?

I don't know, what are you missing?

 

[radarmark]

I yield, your use of terms is quite beyoind my poor capabilities.
Panta Rhei!
(Everything Flows!)

 

[salishan]

it may be telling that , during neuroscience brain-scans
when the person who is the scan's subject is
talking about what she or he "knows" , versus when
talking about what she or he "believes"
the exact same top-front region of the human brain
lights-up

"knowledge" & "belief"
both constitute theories about how the world (how life) works
& both are (subjective) expressions of certitude , (Seattlegal's
"i know/believe the light will turn on when i throw the switch" observation)

but the former is based upon hard-headed experience
(seen it for myself)
where the latter is based upon childlike magic-optimism
(Daddy showed me how)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

u can throw the words "faith" & "trust" into the mix

i "know" i will go to heaven when i die
i "believe" i will go to heaven when i die
i "have faith" i will go to heaven when i die
i "trust" i will go to heaven when i die

each verb points to an underlying "theory of things" , plus
an implicit expression of certitude
(lighting up this same top-front region of the brain)

u are talking about a theory of subjectivity , here

& , while philosophers parse words ("terms") for subtleties & nuances
(by contrast) in u'r everyday palaver , words (like these) get used informally
most often as synonyms , one replaceable with the other (as these words do here)

but the only "theory of subjectivity" which is ultimately going to work
is one embedded in the neurophysiology of a single brain
(its perceptions of its own body & its perceptions of its outer environment)

what is important is not the word-itself , but
its core-meaning
(personal certitude in something which may or may-not be true)

the rest (the subliminal aura of each word) stems merely from
difference in emotional investment
differing formulas of hormones which (in minutely different ways) reinforce each word's core-meaning

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

whereas
what Luecy7 is talking about
("faith" or "trust" in another person)
there is no "theory of things" , here

what Luecy7 is talking about is a (an implied) social contract
between one individual & another

here , the hormones involved are primary
(not marginal to the neurophysiological perceptions)
& whatever part of the brain is (neurally) being lit-up , it is
not the top-front region

"faith" & "trust" (here with Luecy7) have a totally different core-meaning
(one having to do with emotional fidelity , in u'r conduct toward another)
an honest & responsive interaction with u'r fellow creature
(an "intersubjective" contract)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

& this "intersubjective" aspect (Luecy7's reading) of "faith" & "trust"
may just ring truer (if u think about it) to
the Biblical sense of these two words

 

[radarmark]

Salishan,

Thanks for the translation. I think it works. Two cross-currents here. Mine being philosoiphical and logical (in the sense of logic as a discipline, not rationality). Luecy7's being spiritual and emotional (in the sense of intersubjective, not irrationality). I will ponder.

Panta Rhei!
(Everything Flows!)

 

[Lunitik]

It is not at all surprising that knowledge and belief come from the same area in the brain, and it is not surprising it lights up the right hemisphere - actually it is quite telling, because it is the imagination hemisphere, the creativity hemisphere.

This is why I differentiate between knowing and knowledge though. Knowledge is someone elses, you are recalling something from your memory and trying to express it - you are creating an explanation for what you think you know, but it remains an imagination.

Knowing is different, for instance, will you have to create a theory about the fact you exist? If you wanted to explain this, you will again trigger the creativity centers in the brain, but this stops being a knowing, now it is a communication of something known - in communication you have to consider how to express it, you will create an explanation, thus the right hemisphere is used.

 

[Lunitik]

What is interesting however is that even the brain itself is split in two, it is a duality of right and left, creativity and logic. However, when they have done these tests on a meditator, they have found something interesting: the entire brain fires in the meditative state. Not only this, but over the course of just 3 months of meditation, they found considerable difference in the way the brain was wired. The brain simply becomes more integrated, no more is it a duality...

This seems to be the very nature of enlightenment, that oneness is simply a perceiving of integration. Such people will use far more than the average 10% of the brain...

 

[luecy7]

whereas
what Luecy7 is talking about
("faith" or "trust" in another person)
there is no "theory of things" , here

what Luecy7 is talking about is a (an implied) social contract
between one individual & another

No. I do not view faith as a social contract. I believe that was Radar's example.

here , the hormones involved are primary
(not marginal to the neurophysiological perceptions)
& whatever part of the brain is (neurally) being lit-up , it is
not the top-front region

"faith" & "trust" (here with Luecy7) have a totally different core-meaning
(one having to do with emotional fidelity , in u'r conduct toward another)
an honest & responsive interaction with u'r fellow creature

No. I do not view faith, nor love, nor trust, nor honesty, as an emotion, nor an emotional fidelity.

& this "intersubjective" aspect (Luecy7's reading) of "faith" & "trust"

may just ring truer (if u think about it) to
the Biblical sense of these two words

If you said "interobjective", then it wouldn't be a falsely applied insult. Why do you say Biblical: Have you not read the Koran?

 

[luecy7]

I yield, your use of terms is quite beyoind my poor capabilities.
Panta Rhei!
(Everything Flows!)

I suggest you are best to draw your terms by asking yourself what you view as the behavior from others. Draw your definition of faith by asking yourself what it means for others to have faith in you, (or their light switch), even if others are not placing faith in you, (or their light switch). But then to actualize it and see it, compare with your own behavior, be thinking it, and be doing it. Not the see by seeing or knowing a term, but the seeing by thinking and doing it.

In my view faith is like a sport, but not a sport of terms, and not a sport of opposing will. For example, while someone has had the audacity to call this website, 'interfaith', I see very little to zero faith in strangers exchanging terms via an anonymous term-exchanging forum. Do you? Do those individuals also call it 'faith' to exchange terms with their wives, parents, and children, in the same manner? No. I have met a few strangers, and to a degree they did place a little bit of faith in me, and I do believe they have some faith in those who are closer to them, as well as the faith of others in them.

 

[radarmark]

I still do not grok. Your use of faith is not as I see it. I can believe based on (IMO) faith. I understand that my faith can be misplaced. But it is a faith in lots of things besides myself or others.

Like I said, I have tried and failed to comprehend your usage.

 

[luecy7]

I still do not grok. Your use of faith is not as I see it. I can believe based on (IMO) faith. I understand that my faith can be misplaced. But it is a faith in lots of things besides myself or others.

Like I said, I have tried and failed to comprehend your usage.

Does your wife have faith in you?

 

[whitewater]

I believe you can know truth and the right path to live this life. In fact truth is found in the person of Jesus Christ.

John 8:31-32

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

“Truth” here has reference not only to the facts surrounding Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God but also to the teaching that he brought. A genuinely saved and obedient follower of the Lord Jesus will know divine truth. This divine truth comes not merely by intellectual assent but saving commitment to Christ.
Jesus claimed that he and the words he spoke were truth. John 17:17,”Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.”

In John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

In his famous book Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis makes this statement, "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg--or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us.

Jesus could only have been one of four things: a legend, a liar, a lunatic--or Lord and God. There is so much historical and archeological evidence to support his existence that every reputable historian agrees he was not just a legend. If Jesus were a liar, why would he die for his claim, when he could easily have avoided such a cruel death with a few choice words? And, if he were a lunatic, how did he engage in intelligent debates with his opponents or handle the stress of his betrayal and crucifixion while continuing to show a deep love for his antagonists? Christ said he was Lord and God. The evidence supports that claim.

 

[iBrian]

Jesus could only have been one of four things: a legend, a liar, a lunatic--or Lord and God. There is so much historical and archeological evidence to support his existence that every reputable historian agrees he was not just a legend.

No there isn't. That's specifically why belief in Jesus is a matter of "faith". All we have to confirm his existence is a very small set of clearly propagandist texts.

 

[luecy7]

All we have to confirm his existence is a very small set of clearly propagandist texts.

Good description of this website. Technically, it is all that anyone here has to confirm the existence of someone else posting on a website like this; that is, unless they have at least a little bit of faith in another. Words are words regardless of the year that they were written in. The interactions that would confirm and inform about another, can occur in a space-time frame.