Yes, completely.

If one is honest with themselves then there are already within their minds the belief (or lack thereof). I personally find it categorically absurd that someone can "choose" to believe. They may give in to the allure of a notion, but that is distinctly different.

I suggest that discovering what is already in ones' mind and heart (what knowledge, what need for belief) is absolutely paramount to really *knowing* oneself. Taking this step; critically and without ego, is - I think - a necessary first step in understanding ones own theology.

I've never known such peace as I have since I've taken my own journey (through all the means at my disposal). It was at times embarassing, at others pure elation. What I didn't expect was its outcome: That the distinction between belief and knowledge - that understanding - coupled with my own emotions and desires helped me to be OK with admitting the "truth" of what I always deep inside "knew". What I may learn, or how I may feel tomorrow may change my conclusions; and I have to allow that to happen. But for now, I know where I stand - that combination of my acknowledged feelings and facts.

Anyone in possession of a mind and heart owes it to themselves to "discover" the truth of their own orientation. Nothing lies so close to our perception of our world, and all its implications, as consciously being in sync with ones' own honest result. Clearly delineating between belief and knowledge, between emotion and intellect, then giving each its proper place of importance (wherever that might be for you) is, I think, the key.

Thanks

My knowledge and your knowledge could be completely different ,i cant convince you of my knowledge no more than you can disprove it to me..so whats knowledge? science? todays stupidity could be tomorrows revelation..

A demonstration, if I might.

[INDENT]I believe..............................I know
[/INDENT][INDENT]The Universe began with the Big Bang:
[/INDENT][INDENT]|------------------------------X------------|

Downstairs, the dishes are dirty:
|----------------------------------------X--|

The Christian God is real:
|-------------------------------------------|

I won $14 in the lottery yesterday, I'll win again in the next year:
|---X---------------------------------------|

There exists some god, as a single entity, that's responsible for all creation:
|-------------------------------------------|

Justin looks over the posts every day:
|--------------------------X----------------|

Adhering to the principle of any god results in a de-valuing of this life (yours and others):
|------------------X------------------------|

Justin looks over the posts on the forum often:
|----------------------------------------X--|

I will finish Chaucer's "Troilus and Cressida"
|--------------------------------X----------|
[/INDENT]Perhaps I should have posted this thread in "Epistemology". Although (as I've said before) I think this to have large implications for theology, it's probably more rightful the nature of knowledge.

Thanks

If we accept common definitions and methods of observation and reason, then one should have no problem convincing the other.

Justification is wrapped up in the definition of knowledge, so one must justify it to him or herself to count some idea as knowledge. If that is the case then one should be able to offer justification of the knowledge to another.

I dont agree self knowledge outweighs any thing you care to try and prove..or disprove..When there are so many unknowns in the world who really can say they know..There are certain examples that would be stupid to disagree with but on this forum we have debaters that would deny any creator but would accept the notion that the universe does not exist except in their subjective existance...whose the jelly in the bag of toffees..

Is the existence of human understanding and communication one of those examples that would be stupid to disagree about?

human understanding is far too personal and communicating is on different levels...but it exists..

So you think that different people have different modes of reason and perception?

I agree that we cannot prove that everyone reasons and perceives in the same way, but the beautiful thing about communication is the attachment of arbitrary symbols. We may perceive red differently, but we both attach the same symbol to what we perceive.

Through the arbitrary symbols of language, we avoid any difficulties differing consciousness may cause in communication.

Sorry for being ignorant, but I honestly fail to see what you're getting at here Khethil.

You left all the statements concerning God without an X on the bar. (Perhaps because you're atheist thus you claim neither belief nor knowledge of God.)

What worries me here, (for all that, as I said, I oppose free will,) is that it seems to me that you're suggesting that because beliefs are not chosen that they cannot be rationalized.

Which, to me, would be cause for the rational thinker to automatically dismiss anyone's belief.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting all of this, I don't know. But it seems like a rather narrow approach, to dismiss out of hand any beliefs because they do not conform to our rationale.

You digress from my reasoning on belief and knowledge...knowledge can be personal not generally accepted by the Masses...i could communicate my knowledge to you but you could disbelieve me because it is personal to me but it is still relevant and true to me even if the whole world does not accept my witness..Knowing water is wet is stupid to dispute but it is just as stupid to expect me to deny my personal knowledge..i cant deny what i believe to be true..You walk home one night and ghost appears and gives you advice on not taking your normal route home ..now you could be worried you are loosing your marbles...the next day you find out a brick wall had fallen down and if you had continued on your journey you could possible be dead..What relevance is that knowledge to you? then what about anyone you tell ,what is that knowledge to them? Its an illusion ,your off your rocker..but to you what does that knowledge mean?

Of course. My agnosticism is informed by the very same thoughts. It seemed you were denying the whole of knowledge, not just subjective.

Good Morning, does everyone have their coffee yet?

I'd like to present a concept and my view of it for discussion. It has to do with Belief; specifically that flavor of belief that holds to concepts of god - whatever concept you might have.

Basis: An attempt at an honest, critically-thought evaluation of how one arrives at a conclusion.

Question: Is theological belief voluntary? Concurrently; is any 'belief' voluntary?

Clarifications:[INDENT]1. Belief, in this context, I'd describe as holding or subscribing to a notion without sufficient backup to claim as "knowledge". This is a working definition of the concept, verbalized here for the purposes of our discussion.
[/INDENT][INDENT]2. Knowledge, in this context, I'd like to define here as some fact or aspect that one can practically know. This is a vastly-divergent concept that, itself, isn't rock-solid (and indeed could be completely obliterated without much effort). But for the purpose of this thread, I'd like to define this as practical information for which enough agreement exists - between us fine thinkers - to accept as 'true' (insofar as we're able). Let's all stand 'round a table, touch it, bang on it, all agree that it's black - this is how I'd like to work with the term "knowledge" in this context.
[/INDENT]Claims:[INDENT] 1. Belief isn't voluntary; belief is a conclusion - drawn by the mind - about a condition or existence where some need or desire is so strong, that the lack of facts is ignored.
[/INDENT][INDENT] 2. Belief and Knowledge are two opposite points on a scale. Draw a straight line; at the far left put the word "belief", at the far right put the word "knowledge". You're next going to place a dot on that line that represents where in this scale your claim belongs. Next, consider what evidence and rational support you have for your postulation. The more you have, the further on that line - towards the left - you're going to place your dot. Where your dot ends up sitting, on this line, will determine how much quantifiable support exists (in your considered estimation).
[/INDENT][INDENT] 3. Whether or not you end up standing proudly and proclaiming, "I believe" or "I know" will depend on where that 'dot' (from claim 2) exists. An important point here is that where the breakpoint is; that point where belief has enough support to be subjectively called "knowledge" is different for every person.
[/INDENT]My Conclusion:[INDENT]One cannot "choose" to believe in something. Either the need/desire to believe exists or it does not. To try and consciously buy-in to a theological belief is to deceive oneself; it is disingenuous and self-deluding.
[/INDENT]This is how I see it. That belief arises in the individual based on a desire or hope. If this is true, then it stands to no reason that one could "force a fit". I'm very curious how valid or invalid others see this view.

Thanks in advance

I have to admit that I have not been able to follow the argument in this thread, so please give me a kick in the butt if I have overlooked the obvious.

The issues seem to revolve around the definitions of "belief," "knowledge," and "God."

1. Khethil's proposition is that "belief" reflects a low level of logical assurance in a given proposition, while "knowledge" reflects a high level of assurance. While I agree that we typically use the term "know" to indicate we have a high level of assurance, I don't think we necessarily use the term "believe" to indicate a low level. Sometimes when we say we believe something, we mean that we accept it as an indisputable fact. I do concede that a "religious belief" is commonly considered to be not supported by demonstrable facts. However, that does not necessarily make it illogical or irrational. For example, how about the religious belief, "We can make the world a better place if we love our fellow human beings." I think most of us would agree that such a statement cannot be proven to be true, and yet, it is certainly possible to argue rationally for its validity.

Additionally, "believing" may be more primary than "knowing." I have explained under the epistomology heading that, so far as I can tell, I always have to believe in something (have trust in, have faith in) before I can claim to know something.

2. If we try to apply this to theology, we immediately run into a huge problem. We have to agree on a definition of "God," before we can argue about "God's" existence. When someone says, "I don't believe in God" I would be inclined to say, "I probably don't believe in the same God you don't believe in." Certain (I would argue false) images of God have been so widely perpetuated by professing Christians in our culture, it's no wonder at all that many of us have become atheists.

So, again, I apologize if I have overlooked some conclusions that have been reached in this inquiry, but I am still unclear as to whether the participants have come to any conclusions about the basic notions of "belief," "knowledge," and "God."

If not, I will try to keep up from here on out!

... Belief for the individual can be built on personal knowledge.

This is an important point I believe I neglected to address in my OP; one that's been called back to my attention a number of times. I think it deserves some emphasis

Personal 'knowledge' can be - and often is - indeed a basis for a belief. For me, the weight and amount of such knowledge 'bits' determine whether I label the overall notion as "I know" or "I believe".

Thanks