Does Knowledge Obviate Faith?

[StrontiDog]

I propose that the simple definition of Faith is: Belief without knowledge.

 

Assumption 1: It is impossible to have faith in that which is known to be true.

 

Assumption 2: It is equally impossible to be wrong about something that is known to be true.

 

Discussion: Many people of all Faiths, claim that they Know that God, or Allah, or Karma, or (insert Deity or deities of your choice) exists. So if they truly Know, does that mean they do not have Faith?

 

The Difference between Faith and Knowledge, an example you can reproduce at home: I can see a pen sitting next to my keyboard. I just picked it up, I can feel it, hear it (it clicks), I can actually smell the ink at the tip and I just literally tasted the ink. I just wrote “This pen is real” on a sticky pad (which I can both see and feel the indentations on the paper.)

 

I am convinced that this pen is real, it exists. I have KNOWLEDGE of the existence of this pen. I cannot be wrong about this thing’s reality. It is impossible that it does not exist. But that only works for me.

 

You may believe in the existence of this pen, it’s certainly a reasonable claim. But you do not Know that it exists. If you do believe in it, you are taking it on Faith. You could be wrong. I could be lying, delusional or just trying to make a point.

 

You could certainly argue that I have Faith that my senses are not deceiving me, and I will grant you that one. But I still call my concept of the existence of this pen: Knowledge.

 

I cannot have the same concept of its existence as someone who simply believes my account.

 

I invite any and all comments on this subject, but would especially appreciate specific, simple scenarios where something that is KNOWN, by the definition I provided, would not be true.

 

Examples of Faith that turned out to be true would be of no value. Most of the things we accept on Faith are, in fact, true.

 

I would ask that we exclude hallucinations, intentional tricks or insanity from the definition of Knowledge. I’m sure some people have entire conversations with the space monkeys who live in their toasters, but for these purposes, I would ask that were the Knowledgeable Party to produce the pen (or a space monkey, for that matter), you’d be able to agree—with some experimentation—that it was as real as the claimant Knows it to be. At which point, you would no longer have whatever level of Faith you had, because you too, would then Know.

 

Enjoy!

 

Bill Wolfe

[waitforufo]

I would ask that we exclude hallucinations, intentional tricks or insanity from the definition of Knowledge. I’m sure some people have entire conversations with the space monkeys who live in their toasters, but for these purposes, I would ask that were the Knowledgeable Party to produce the pen (or a space monkey, for that matter), you’d be able to agree—with some experimentation—that it was as real as the claimant Knows it to be. At which point, you would no longer have whatever level of Faith you had, because you too, would then Know.

 

Okay, I’ll bite, but I’m not sure this passes the above test.

 

When I was a child and I lost something my mother would tell me to say a prayer to St. Anthony and I would find it. For Catholics, St. Anthony is the patron saint of lost things. We have a saint for everything. There is even a silly little rote prayer/rhyme I was taught to say. It goes like this.

 

“Dear St. Anthony quick come round, there is something that’s lost and must be found. “

 

You are supposed to say this three times and then mention the item lost.

 

Now as a man nearly 50, this all seems rather silly. My intellect tells me that following this ritual must unblock some aspect of my subconscious that is keeping me from finding this lost item. My faith however tells me that this prayer works. When I say this prayer, I say it out loud in a rather silly childish sing song way thinking I can’t really be doing this. Almost immediately afterwards I find the lost item. Often times it is someplace I know I looked and right out in the open. Like someone put it there for me to find. I feel stupid admitting this.

 

My 24 year old son, who since 15 has claimed to have no faith at all, now claims to believe in nothing but St. Anthony. He says that stupid prayer works. He says it also helps if you skip while you say it. And to think I had to endure years of his eye rolling every time I said it.

 

I know, it’s idiotic, but that’s faith.

[StrontiDog]

I know, it’s idiotic, but that’s faith.

 

Allright, irrational. . .maybe. . .but because I haven't tried this experiment, perhaps it's not idiotic. It sounds like your son does not accept anything that doesn't seem to work.

 

Can anybody else say they've tried this experiment and found it to be false?

 

If it really does work--and you'd have to try it to say it doesn't--does that mean it's real?

 

Sorry, can't bring myself to do it.

 

Any takers?

 

Bill Wolfe

[JohnB]

Strontidog, using your definition I don't think that knowledge neccessarily destroys faith.

 

One could describe a belief system as a belief in how the world works. We can't actually know that it works in that way, but we believe it does. Those who believe in a "God" can say they "know" He/She/It exists, but they only have "faith" in His/Her/It's plan for the Universe. (Assuming your faith requires there to actually be a plan.)

 

I have strong spiritual beliefs and a strong confidence in the scientific method. So far, nothing that science has discovered has refuted any part of what I believe. If anything it has confirmed it's possibility of correctness.

 

Faith is in trouble if in part it contains the concept that something is "unknowable". This is a definitive statement and if the thing declared "unknowable" becomes "known", then the faith is misplaced.

 

Please note that I am not Christian, so my beliefs are not required to explain their miracles. That is for them to deal with.

 

To give a simple "Supernatural" example. I don't believe that ghosts are an "unknowable" phenomenon. I believe that they are a natural phenomenon using currently unknown energy that follows currently unknown laws. Given time we will understand this energy and the laws it follows.

[Mr Skeptic]

I submit that nothing about the real world can be truly Known. At some point we're dealing with assumptions, very reasonable assumptions to be sure, but assumptions nonetheless. You assume that what you see is real, you assume that it is consistent and repeatable and objective, so that if someone claims to have a real pen you can demand to look at it. These assumptions we take on by faith, and from them we construct what we call reality.

[StrontiDog]

I submit that nothing about the real world can be truly Known.

 

In many ways, I agree. But what about the pen? How could it possibly not exist? For me, of course, the idiot who actually tasted the ink.

 

I believe that the things we truly Know (note the Capital K?), are very few and far between. And we misuse the word, quite a bit. I mean, just like the speed of light. Unless you've measured it, with instruments that you've calibrated, yourself. etc., do you really Know it, or are you just pretty dang sure that someone would have called 'Them' on it, were it not true? You're taking that number, on faith. And at the risk of being repetitive, you're probably right. But it is POSSIBLE that you are wrong. It is not possible if you truly Knew something.

 

And I didn't say that knowledge destroys faith, I submit that these are two separate concepts of existence (or Truth, if you will). Once you Know something to be true, you cannot go back to simply believing it to be true.

 

And I think they may be mutually exclusive. Since this is the Philosophy/Religion Forum, if God came up to you and introduced Himself--doing whatever He'd have to do to convince you that He was who He claimed, your Faith would be obviated, but not destroyed. You would now Know that God was real, even if you still couldn't quite figure out what He is.

 

Your concept of God would be fundamentally different than that of someone who never had the 'meeting' that you did. They can't be the same.

 

So if Folks claim they Know that God is real, do they have no faith? Which may well put them in the same boat as many of us are?

 

Throw this at some of your religious friends and family and watch the fireworks get cranked-up. It's a hoot.

 

Bill Wolfe

[Mr Skeptic]

I believe that the things we truly Know (note the Capital K?), are very few and far between. And we misuse the word, quite a bit. I mean, just like the speed of light. Unless you've measured it, with instruments that you've calibrated, yourself. etc., do you really Know it, or are you just pretty dang sure that someone would have called 'Them' on it, were it not true? You're taking that number, on faith. And at the risk of being repetitive, you're probably right. But it is POSSIBLE that you are wrong. It is not possible if you truly Knew something.

 

Well, the speed of light is actually one of the few things we do Know. It is 299,792,458 meters per second, exactly. And I have in fact measured it myself (albeit with huge error margins), but that is not the reason that I can say that I Know the speed of light. The reason is because we have defined the meter via the speed of light. So what I don't Know is not the speed of light, but rather whether it is constant, and also exactly what a meter and second are.

 

But again you are talking about having personally verified something, as if seeing it with your own eyes actually verified it. No, you assume that seeing it with your own eyes is verification. And as reasonable an assumption as that may be, it is still nevertheless an assumption.

[moth]

I submit that nothing about the real world can be truly Known. .

 

now that we know this, is it still true?

[ponderer]

I know God exists, but I must have faith in his intentions.

[chilehed]

I propose that the simple definition of Faith is: Belief without knowledge...

If you start out by misdefining terms then the rest of what you do is useless.

[Dekan]

If you start out by misdefining terms then the rest of what you do is useless.

 

Doesn't "Faith" mean: believing in something, even though you know it isn't really true.

[ponderer]

Doesn't "Faith" mean: believing in something, even though you know it isn't really true.

 

When you call 911 do you have faith in the arrival of help?

[chilehed]

Doesn't "Faith" mean: believing in something, even though you know it isn't really true.

Not at all. What you've described is called "credulity".

 

A short version of the definition of faith, as used in Christendom (Catholicism in particular) is "an act of the will by which one adheres to another who is known". If you like I can discuss the meaning of the Hebrew.

 

The definition you proposed is one that arose during the so-called "Enlightenment". It has no similarity to the historical meaning of the term in English, being a distortion that was propped up as a straw man by people like Bertrand Russel.

Edited August 12, 2011 by chilehed