Knowing Vs. Believing

The distinction between knowing and believing first hit me, incidentally, after watching the crappy movie, Constantine, over the summer. There is a part in the movie where the protagonist, who knows he is going to hell, talks with an angel about why. The angel lists things that God wants in his applicants into heaven, one of them being that he wants 'belief'. Constantine- who has been to hell before- retorts "I believe, for Christ's sake!" to which the angel Gabriel says: "no, you know! There's a difference" or something to that effect.

My complaint, and perhaps it is merely linguistic, is that I have heard many a religious folk say that they know that God exists. Or that some thing or another is proof of God. This thread is where I would like to discuss that oppinion. I think that this is an issue that can be freely discussed within the religious community as well as the more philosophical as it is really debating whether we can actually know something. But anyway, back to my intitial thoughts.

It seems to me that no one could ever know the existance of God because to know would make it so much easier to get to heaven. The fact that one does not know is what makes temptation the potent power that it is. To not know, means that you debate on the subject, you are still subject to sin, and that your strife will be rewarded. To me, to know means that if you stray from God's path, you are... I can't think of anything besides dumb. If, for instance, I knew that God existed, I guarantee that I would be the most virtuous person that anyone would ever meet. I would be helping the elderly, reading to children, practicing at the church, etc. I would not sleep until the day that I died and so I would be welcomed into the bosom of God.

If I knew the existance of God, why on earth would I sin? It cannot be for earthly temptations. Why would I care? I most certainly could not be for afterworldly promises. What is the reason, if not doubt?

To know something inherently means that you do not doubt it, and that is the distinction between hope, and belief. To believe in something means that there is doubt in your mind, but you side with the object of your belief anyway.

Does anyone else see a hypocracy in people who claim to know that God exists? Or am I making a mountain of a mole hill?

Originally Posted by Hyleaus

It seems to me that no one could ever know the existance of God because to know would make it so much easier to get to heaven. The fact that one does not know is what makes temptation the potent power that it is. To not know, means that you debate on the subject, you are still subject to sin, and that your strife will be rewarded. To me, to know means that if you stray from God's path, you are... I can't think of anything besides dumb. If, for instance, I knew that God existed, I guarantee that I would be the most virtuous person that anyone would ever meet. I would be helping the elderly, reading to children, practicing at the church, etc. I would not sleep until the day that I died and so I would be welcomed into the bosom of God.

You are confusing various levels of knowledge. One can know God exists, but to less than an absolute certitude.

And yes, to sin when completely sure that God exists is rather stupid. But it is not impossible. To illustrate from a common story, the fallen angels sinned even though they were directly in God's presence constantly. But to have that perfect knowledge, and as the angels did, a perfect will, is to make an irrevocable decision. This is why the angels that fell cannot be redeemed-- their perfect knowledge and perfect will precludes it. A human being, on the other hand, can repent.

If I knew the existance of God, why on earth would I sin? It cannot be for earthly temptations. Why would I care? I most certainly could not be for afterworldly promises. What is the reason, if not doubt?

For many, doubt it. But there have always been those who do so merely to defy. (Like I said before, you have Lucifer's eternal, non serviam.) You might, perhaps, sin out of weakness. Especially with the Christian idea that human beings, born into original sin, have certain weaknesses. For instance, the concept of concupiscence. Before the fall, the physical desires were perfectly subordinate to the rational will. After the fall, they are no longer subordinate. This is why desires which are not inherently bad (i.e., sexual desire, the desire for self-preservation), are used for evil-- because the desires are stretched and perverted, and the human no longer has the subordination of the desires to the will. (Think about it yourself-- ever give in to something when you intellectually knew you shouldn't have? Eating that chocolate bar when you're on a diet? Etc...)

To know something inherently means that you do not doubt it, and that is the distinction between hope, and belief. To believe in something means that there is doubt in your mind, but you side with the object of your belief anyway

Knowledge does not preclude doubt. Correction-- less than perfect knowledge does not preclude doubt. To believe is to hold something to be true. It does not entail doubt.

Does anyone else see a hypocracy in people who claim to know that God exists? Or am I making a mountain of a mole hill?

I don't see the hypocrisy, but I think you make many valid points.

Since the first sin God has somewhat hidden himself from the world. Before the first sin it was quite obvious that God does exist, now it is not. God could reviel himself to everyone right now if he wanted to, he could also eliminate all evil from the world. But then of course everyone would love him, but not out of free will. If God shows himself full we would not have true faith in him, it would just be seeing what our eyes see. If there was no evil in the world we would not truly love God, we just would have no choice we would be robots.

Originally Posted by Romans 7:14-20 (ESV)

For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

Paul can be a bit hard to follow sometimes, but I think he sums it all up pretty nicely. I'd also submit that few men ever could have claimed to have as intimate a relationship with God (which, I am thouroughly convinced is what knowing God is about, not some detached wealth of apologetic knowledge).

Other terms are thrown out such as "human depravity," "slaves to sin," "none are righteous," basically all of them mean that man finds sin enticing and will invariably selfishly submit to those desires regardless of how well they know God.

In terms of the original question, Professor James Hall, who has a nice series of lecture tapes on ontology, defines it as "justified true belief."

First, we start off with a belief. Say I believe the earth is round. Then we test it's truthfulness. In this case, it is quite true - I can fly around the world in a plane, and even see its curve. "True" refers to truth beyond reasonable doubt. Then we get to the justification. If I'm at a soccer game, someone scores, and I shout, "I knew he'd score!" then that's not real knowledge - I had no justification in believing that in the first place, and while it was true, I had no reason to believe it was true.

This is the definition I generally go by.

I don't think it's possible to know of God's existence, unless he manifests himself in such a way that his existence can be shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt. What Christians think of as their knowledge of God comes from two things - scriptures, which are purely historical, and what they think of as experience. Of course, there's absolutely no way of verifying this experience, since it happened to you and only you. In many cases, video evidence contradicts what we thought we were experiencing. While I do think our sensory perceptions are usually reliable, our minds play plenty of tricks on us, and when we already have belief in our heads, we make certain attributions and correlations that an unbiased mind wouldn't make.

So while we may be justified in believing in God, as I do believe it's human nature to do so, it cannot be shown to be true, and therefore doesnt' fall under my definition of knowledge.

I could say to anyone of you "does your mother love you?" to which most of you would reply "yes". Then I could ask you to proove it, and you would be unable to do so. This is becuase you know that this thing is true only through faith and faith alone. It is like this also with a belief in God.

I believe my mother loves me, but I don't know it. I simply can't know it, even with her repeatedly telling me, "I love you." If you asked me if my mom loved me, I'd tell you to ask her - she's the one who knows.

Originally Posted by Mad Hatter

I believe my mother loves me, but I don't know it. I simply can't know it, even with her repeatedly telling me, "I love you." If you asked me if my mom loved me, I'd tell you to ask her - she's the one who knows.

This is so true, that in the courtroom they have an objection specialized such statements; it's called speculation.

Mad Hatter, if you don't believe in God there is nothing you can possibly contribute to a thread that requires some kind of belief in Him. Think about it - you say, "There's no proof of God's existence" and the other guy says, "There doesn't have to be, I still believe". Nothing comes of it.

Au contraire,

If you reread my first post, I gladly welcome anyone to contribute to this thread as I, myself, am an atheist. Not believing in a law, for instance, does not facilitate that I cannot critique the law.

Originally Posted by Hyleaus

Not believing in a law, for instance, does not facilitate that I cannot critique the law.

Actually, if you operate under the assumption that God exists, whether you believe in Him or not, you cannot critique Him, since if God exists, He is perfect, and cannot be critiqued, for He has no wrong. In order to make any sort of argument against religion, you have to argue from within, which is futile, since the existence of a God therefore transcends all faults.

That's basically what Strain was trying to say.

You could argue against the interpretation of certain aspects of religion, but that can only accomplish so much.

All this asking for proof of God's existance, I would like to see some proof that he does not exist.

Originally Posted by Strain

Mad Hatter, if you don't believe in God there is nothing you can possibly contribute to a thread that requires some kind of belief in Him. Think about it - you say, "There's no proof of God's existence" and the other guy says, "There doesn't have to be, I still believe". Nothing comes of it.

You don't have to believe to discuss, nor is your reasoning less valid for it. The problem is that most people use reason selectively; that is, when it supports their case. As for nothing coming of it, that's subjective to each individual. Someone may change their mind about a point from discussion at any time, but I agree, you're never going to come to a universal truth, obviously.

I firmly believe in God. Four years ago, I called myself an atheist. Now, I hadn't been to church since I was five or six, and that with my grandparents a handful of times. My parents never took me, never taught me. I'd never read scripture, and never closely considered what I believed. I coasted along with what was surprisingly popular - denying God's existence, making jokes about Him. At one point, one of my best friends Amy questioned me about this. And I've always been open-minded, if not clear-minded; she asked me to read the Gospels, and I did, out of the Bible my father gave me for Christmas which I had never previously touched. She asked me to consider this: if the accounts in the Bible are accepted as history, must not Jesus be one of the following:

1.) A madman
2.) A liar
3.) Telling the truth

This is based, as far as I know, on the ideas of C.S. Lewis, who was once an atheist himself. He offers a very rational argument for Christianity in Mere Christianity (which also serves as a very fine introduction to anyone who has no notion of the concepts of Christianity, or is puzzled by any of a great many commonly held beliefs about it--I recommend it to everyone, regardless of faith), I think, based on his own thoughts and reasoning as an atheist, but it is not proof. There is also the fourth option, the one I supposed before reading anything in the Bible, which is left out: that the authors are not divinely inspired, but liars or madmen themselves. I can't believe that anymore, nor can I well explain my conviction to you. (And if they were liars, they created the grandest literary marvel ever heard of, as I'm realizing from my Bible as Literature class. But that's beside the point.) I can try, I can say that I do not believe Jesus is a liar because he spoke with such utter authority, which nobody at that time I know of could conceive of faking; that I see no hints of madness in him, but it's not likely to be convincing. It's far easier to show that something is untrue than that it is true, for the untruth only requires one flaw, one inconsistency, ever, while truth must time and time again, in every possible scenario, hold. I can't go through every point of the Bible and convince anyone of that.

Perhaps it's in my nature to believe people unless they give me cause to suspect. A lot of people cite passages from the Bible as contradictory, but when you place things in context, I have yet to find a contradiction. Nor is a clarification a contradiction; Jesus said a great many things that people complained were "changing the rules," but I believe he was giving their proper interpretation.

When it comes down to it, though, yes, it's belief, not knowledge. You can't have knowledge of something abstract. You can't prove love, can't prove a thought. And even with proof, that doesn't mean you can convince somebody who doesn't want to believe. You can explain gravity to someone and they can argue until the day they die. Really, the things in life we can absolutely prove, like mathematics, are only provable when we accept a set of conditions. I don't think God is any different, personally, but I agree with your distinction between knowing and believing. People say they know a great many things. It all comes down to perception, and whether you accept certain perceptions as reality.

I don't think it's hypocrisy to say, "I know God." It's a belief stated as fact, and the only facts are our convictions about reality which nobody has ever shown us to be false. It may be mistaken (it may not), it may be unprovable, but it's not hypocritical.

And as a final point point of language, we use "to know" to refer to awareness of entities and concepts. We can "know" a character in a book, whether or not that character has a physical body in our reality. We can know our neighbor Steve, and that's still a vague thing to say, for how well do you know him? Even saying you know everything about him, suppose you're married to him, you can't prove you know everything. You can't prove you know anything about him, actually, you can only have him agree with you about something. I think it's ridiculous to try to deny God with the notion of "proof" (I'm not saying you're attempting to do this, and do not believe so--just making the point) since you can't prove anything else anyway. If it doesn't work with anything else, why should it work with God?

I apologize if I didn't organize my thoughts well. I tried to edit a bit for clarity.

Originally Posted by Hyleaus

It seems to me that no one could ever know the existance of God because to know would make it so much easier to get to heaven. The fact that one does not know is what makes temptation the potent power that it is. To not know, means that you debate on the subject, you are still subject to sin, and that your strife will be rewarded. To me, to know means that if you stray from God's path, you are... I can't think of anything besides dumb. If, for instance, I knew that God existed, I guarantee that I would be the most virtuous person that anyone would ever meet. I would be helping the elderly, reading to children, practicing at the church, etc. I would not sleep until the day that I died and so I would be welcomed into the bosom of God.

If I knew the existance of God, why on earth would I sin? It cannot be for earthly temptations. Why would I care? I most certainly could not be for afterworldly promises. What is the reason, if not doubt?

I think even people who know about God, still struggle. People are not perfect. When a person finds out for himself that God exists, he may still have occasional doubts about it. Why? Because Satan would try to twist that knowledge and confuse people. He knows that if a person obtains knowledge about God, it would strengthen their faith to a degree, and it would provide clarity for the person. His purposes are the opposite of God's. He would rather that man be confused and not clearly see correctly.
However, all the confusion depends on the person. If the person exercises faith and does not give in to the doubts and confusions, than he will retain the remembrance of the knowledge of God. But if he does give in, he will forget and go back to doubting about God.

Why would you sin? Like I said before, people are not perfect. Along with a good nature, man also has a sinful nature. Even if you do not give into the doubts, and are steadfast in faith, you would still fall short of things. That is where repentance comes in. God knew man would fall short of His commandments, so he provided a way that man could continually repent and become cleansed from sin.

Knowing that God exists, would create some measure of easiness. It would give a purpose in life and more of a desire to do good. However, temptations would not go away. A person's purpose to resist temptation would probably increase, but the temptations, most likely, would also increase in severity, because Satan would try harder than before to confuse the person.

These are my opinions, but I hope they may have helped answer your question. Good thread.

I still think that temptation is the result of not knowing. If we could still be tempted after we 'knew,' then why all the hyjinks hiding his (god's) existance? In that there still would be a disctinction between those who follow and those who shy away from, not revealing himself seems to be a tool or tactic without purpose.

I would say that God revealing Himself would pretty much be the end of the world. There wouldn't be any question left, just taking sides and fighting it out.

Originally Posted by Strain

Mad Hatter, if you don't believe in God there is nothing you can possibly contribute to a thread that requires some kind of belief in Him. Think about it - you say, "There's no proof of God's existence" and the other guy says, "There doesn't have to be, I still believe". Nothing comes of it.

He's welcome to believe whatever he wants. The point is that he can't know there's a god.

Originally Posted by Ja-Kun

Amy questioned me about this. And I've always been open-minded, if not clear-minded; she asked me to read the Gospels, and I did, out of the Bible my father gave me for Christmas which I had never previously touched. She asked me to consider this: if the accounts in the Bible are accepted as history, must not Jesus be one of the following:

1.) A madman
2.) A liar
3.) Telling the truth

This, however, assumes the Biblical account is completely accurate. In my opinion, it's quite possible he was a pretty good magician. We do have lots of tricks to make it look like water's turning into wine and other supposed miracles. Of course, I don't find the Bible to be accurate in the first place. But that's another discussion. The relevant point here is that your friend did not supply proof or even evidence of God's existence.

He offers a very rational argument for Christianity in Mere Christianity (which also serves as a very fine introduction to anyone who has no notion of the concepts of Christianity, or is puzzled by any of a great many commonly held beliefs about it--I recommend it to everyone, regardless of faith), I think, based on his own thoughts and reasoning as an atheist, but it is not proof.

I've actually found that a great amount of his arguments in "Mere Christianity" were flawed. Of course, he's such a good writer that they seem perfectly fine...

that the authors are not divinely inspired, but liars or madmen themselves. I can't believe that anymore, nor can I well explain my conviction to you. (And if they were liars, they created the grandest literary marvel ever heard of, as I'm realizing from my Bible as Literature class. But that's beside the point.)

Your argument seems to be "The Bible is true because otherwise, someone would have had to be wrong or dishonest." I would hardly consider that to be a valid argument.


And here's where I admit that I hadn't read your whole post before starting my response. Since the stuff I responded to was not really your argument, my response is kind of irrelevant. But I'll leave it anyway, cause I don't want to feel like I wasted the time...

I do agree with your main point though.

Originally Posted by Hyleaus

I still think that temptation is the result of not knowing. If we could still be tempted after we 'knew,' then why all the hyjinks hiding his (god's) existance? In that there still would be a disctinction between those who follow and those who shy away from, not revealing himself seems to be a tool or tactic without purpose.

Here's a thought,
Perhaps maybe the reason God doesn't show Himself to most people is because He wants us to have faith in Him without seeing Him. That way, we would have more of a true, heartfelt faith and knowledge rather than a more shallow, eye- seeing one. Did I interpret your question correctly?

Well, sort of. That is the reason, I'll grant it to you. But is the purpose of hiding himself to sort out the faithful, or the do-gooders? Earlier on this thread, it was discussed that someone can know that god exists and still turn away. If that is the case, then God's showing himself to everyone would still entail that some people would go to hell, those who turn away from god. Doing this would make god accessable to more people and still sort out the faithful from the non-faithful, but on a larger scale, no? And at the very least, he could proclaim which religion is the correct one, so that I don't have to do all of the searching.

But there really is no point in my debating this because, sadly, it will never happen.

Originally Posted by Mad Hatter

The point is that he can't know there's a god.

That's a ridiculously uneducated, non-scientific statement. Can you verify this? Is it really impossible to know there is a god?

This, however, assumes the Biblical account is completely accurate.

Unless you bring forth a counter-source, the Biblical account, being written in the day and age of these events, is as accurate as it gets. Everything else, having not been widely available for the last couple thousand years to verify authenticity, may very well be flawed and/or deceptive. A two-thousand year old book, when applied to the context of civilizaton at the time, is a very accurate source. Especially when its the oldest remotely credible historical source of its kind pertaining to the events described therein.

I've actually found that a great amount of his arguments in "Mere Christianity" were flawed.

I've found that the sky is purple and trees are blue. And I have absolutely no proof to show for it. Wheeeeeeeee! >> I hope I got my point across.

We do have lots of tricks to make it look like water's turning into wine and other supposed miracles.

So Jesus turned the water into wine, but no one drank it? If the wine was truly in jars, how would they be able to see that it had changed in the first place, without drinking it? I think it'd be hard to pass off water as wine taste-wise. Don't you agree?

Originally Posted by Hyleaus

It seems to me that no one could ever know the existance of God because to know would make it so much easier to get to heaven.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Actually, people who know of the existence of God would still be sinners, as they are not perfect. It makes it easier, but not guaranteed. I do believe that was the point of salvation, not of the knowledge of the existence of God, in any case.

I still think that temptation is the result of not knowing.

To a certain degree, I suppose doubt is a major factor in temptation, or at least the success of it. Temptation stems more from the attempt to fulfill oneself with things that are harmful to oneself or to others, and so on. To put it simply, people, ordinary human beings, are not capable of "filling" themselves with God's grace. So, naturally, there will always be a little bit of "emptiness" in every person. Since human will is naturally flawed, often the attempts to fill that emptiness are made without much prudent thought (prostitution, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, etc.).

If that is the case, then God's showing himself to everyone would still entail that some people would go to hell, those who turn away from god.

Exactly. Which is why it can't happen. God will do nothing directly that might potentially result in any one person's condemnation, free will being the exception (but it isn't really He who does anything, is it?). Revealing Himself to Man would directly result in the condemnation of those who turned away. No questions asked.

I would say that God revealing Himself would pretty much be the end of the world.

It has been done, or at least according to Scripture, on many counts. And there are many credited accounts of Appearances to saints and so on. Now, if you mean God the Father coming in spirit and form into the world, I might agree with you. That'd be the day.