Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yes, but that's one of the points of my definition for faith, that it's 
> based on a certainty that can feel like knowledge that comes from within 
> rather than from external sources.

Certainly. But that doesn't make it knowledge, any more than being deluded 
into thinking you're Napoleon makes it "knowledge" that you are.

> There's a distinction between the two (I know this perhaps contradicts 
> what I wrote earlier in this post even), but "faith" is kinda wishy-
> washy, a bit lower on the scale of certainty than "knowledge".  There are 
> some things that I have faith about, but I'm not bothered that the 
> associated feeling that accompanies that isn't as strong as some things 
> that I have a certainty about that I can't explain.

Still not "knowledge" in my book. "Random stuff I'm sure of without any 
evidence" isn't knowledge.

> In and of itself, it's difficult to explain the difference - so this 
> discussion is good because it's helping me think about the idea more.

That's why I ruminate here so often. :-)


> Will have to read that when I have more time.  It *sounds* interesting.

It's all very cool. SciFi helps too. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message