Ive always articulated this in my head as the difference between objective and subjective reality, because that's how Kierkegaard distinguishes them (I'm pretty sure). Objective reality is that which we can measure and must generally agree upon to be a functuoning society, but subjective reality is something that is still real, but can not really be measured or proven to other people, and so it must be chosen whether we believe in it or not. It can still be real, but when judging two people's subjective experiences you can't really put one above another, so you have to choose what you want to believe. This is also why you cant push religious views on other people.
"If I tell you that there is a white truck in my driveway (and it is there), you'd likely believe me. When you see the truck, its different. That is knowing." Along with the knowing is an infinite number of details about the truck, and its surroundings. Do you know Him?
Hello. I like this video a great deal. I am a Christian who is convinced of the existence of God yet have struggled with this very question. My faith has come totally from intellectual thought, observation, and pattern recognition. I have often questioned if i am a true "believer" and not simply someone who has the knowledge of teachings I like.
In my opinion the distinction is simply the degree of belief. When you say "I know" something to be true, you're simply saying "I believe this so strongly and to such a degree, that it would be Earth-shattering for this belief to be undone." Once you realize this, having what you "know" proven wrong isnt that big of a deal. "It's not what you dont know that gets you in trouble...it's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
oh my god, this video answered and cleared so many confusions i have right now. there must be a god if somehow this random youtube video with only a thousand views was recommended to me
uh...no. "Knowledge vs. Beliefs" is a colloquial distinction we use to express the extent to which we think disagreement will be a practical problem. If I say I "know" something, then its a way of saying I can't imagine someone thinking otherwise. But if I say I "believe" something, its a way of saying that I understand how someone else could think otherwise, and that's ok. But beyond this there is no difference between them. They are both just "what we are convinced of for the reasons we find compelling."
@@ericb9804 It’s entirely possible you’re right but in philosophy as far as definitions go there’s no a lot that’s set. There might not even be words for what I’m trying to communicate. The question is can we is more along the lines of can we avoid etymological fallacy, can we avoid equivocation, and can we understand each other.
@@magnificogi1800 Much of traditional philosophy,, particularly metaphysics, comes off as gibberish precisely because its trying to do what you are doing - trying to tell the difference between what is "real" and what is "apparent." Saying that "knowledge" is more "certain," due to repetition of experience, or because belief involves "indirect reasoning," is to beg-the-question, for isn't "repetition of experience" an example of "indirect reasoning?" You are not making progress, but rather rephrasing your confusion. Moreover, the fact that you couch this in term of atheist vs. theist betrays your ulterior motive. I've never heard an atheist say that they live without "belief" in some sense. Its just that, when it comes to the god claim, they are honest that the evidence doesn't seem strong enough to support the conclusion.
@@Gabriel_J33 Ok, but that seems rather ad hoc and question-begging, for in what sense is an "intellectual understanding" not also something we "experience?" I think you are trying to grasp at the idea that you can "believe" something even though it is not "rational," in some sense, i.e. like how one may "believe" in god because they "feel" it, while also acknowledging that there is little that can be called "evidence" to support that conclusion. This is what you mean, right? If so, that's fine, but its just like I said - we can describe the situation as one where a person is convinced of whatever they are for the reasons they find compelling. But there is no clear division between an "intellectual" reason and an "experiential" reason, and even if there were, its unclear what difference that distinction would make to whatever specific example of "knowledge/belief" we are talking about, which is why it is a distinction that hardly seems worth insisting upon, unless you are doing so specifically as a way to defend a conclusion that other people find dubious, which is exactly what is happening here.
![respecting beliefs | why we should do no such thing [cc]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/r_5yUXjXizQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![respecting beliefs | why we should do no such thing [cc]](/img/tr.png)
I just came across this video and instantly had to subscribe and commence a binge on your videos good sir
Ive always articulated this in my head as the difference between objective and subjective reality, because that's how Kierkegaard distinguishes them (I'm pretty sure). Objective reality is that which we can measure and must generally agree upon to be a functuoning society, but subjective reality is something that is still real, but can not really be measured or proven to other people, and so it must be chosen whether we believe in it or not. It can still be real, but when judging two people's subjective experiences you can't really put one above another, so you have to choose what you want to believe. This is also why you cant push religious views on other people.
"If I tell you that there is a white truck in my driveway (and it is there), you'd likely believe me. When you see the truck, its different. That is knowing." Along with the knowing is an infinite number of details about the truck, and its surroundings. Do you know Him?
Hello. I like this video a great deal. I am a Christian who is convinced of the existence of God yet have struggled with this very question. My faith has come totally from intellectual thought, observation, and pattern recognition. I have often questioned if i am a true "believer" and not simply someone who has the knowledge of teachings I like.
In my opinion the distinction is simply the degree of belief. When you say "I know" something to be true, you're simply saying "I believe this so strongly and to such a degree, that it would be Earth-shattering for this belief to be undone." Once you realize this, having what you "know" proven wrong isnt that big of a deal.
"It's not what you dont know that gets you in trouble...it's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
very curious as to what they symbols means, might be something i see in my internal landscape
I’m the one with knowledge they just believe everything they hear about me. So they have their pitchforks and torches out like I’m the problem.
oh my god, this video answered and cleared so many confusions i have right now. there must be a god if somehow this random youtube video with only a thousand views was recommended to me
You worship an algorithm then
@@specifiedspoons5370what if you didn't search for anything related to religion or God and it shows up...?
@@DesireeX-v5z that’s like going to the grocery store and being confounded that they have your favorite kind of salad dressing. Made by man, for man.
@@specifiedspoons5370 you didn't answer my question... and if you did I wasn't satisfied.
uh...no. "Knowledge vs. Beliefs" is a colloquial distinction we use to express the extent to which we think disagreement will be a practical problem. If I say I "know" something, then its a way of saying I can't imagine someone thinking otherwise. But if I say I "believe" something, its a way of saying that I understand how someone else could think otherwise, and that's ok. But beyond this there is no difference between them. They are both just "what we are convinced of for the reasons we find compelling."
@@ericb9804 It’s entirely possible you’re right but in philosophy as far as definitions go there’s no a lot that’s set. There might not even be words for what I’m trying to communicate. The question is can we is more along the lines of can we avoid etymological fallacy, can we avoid equivocation, and can we understand each other.
@@ericb9804 The etymology fallacy might have more to do with historical debate type stuff.
@@magnificogi1800 Much of traditional philosophy,, particularly metaphysics, comes off as gibberish precisely because its trying to do what you are doing - trying to tell the difference between what is "real" and what is "apparent." Saying that "knowledge" is more "certain," due to repetition of experience, or because belief involves "indirect reasoning," is to beg-the-question, for isn't "repetition of experience" an example of "indirect reasoning?" You are not making progress, but rather rephrasing your confusion.
Moreover, the fact that you couch this in term of atheist vs. theist betrays your ulterior motive. I've never heard an atheist say that they live without "belief" in some sense. Its just that, when it comes to the god claim, they are honest that the evidence doesn't seem strong enough to support the conclusion.
I completely disagree, knowing is an intellectual understanding whereas believing is an experiential one to keep it simple
@@Gabriel_J33 Ok, but that seems rather ad hoc and question-begging, for in what sense is an "intellectual understanding" not also something we "experience?"
I think you are trying to grasp at the idea that you can "believe" something even though it is not "rational," in some sense, i.e. like how one may "believe" in god because they "feel" it, while also acknowledging that there is little that can be called "evidence" to support that conclusion. This is what you mean, right?
If so, that's fine, but its just like I said - we can describe the situation as one where a person is convinced of whatever they are for the reasons they find compelling. But there is no clear division between an "intellectual" reason and an "experiential" reason, and even if there were, its unclear what difference that distinction would make to whatever specific example of "knowledge/belief" we are talking about, which is why it is a distinction that hardly seems worth insisting upon, unless you are doing so specifically as a way to defend a conclusion that other people find dubious, which is exactly what is happening here.