On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:53:16 -0400, Alain wrote:

> You can beleive something based on knowlege, but you can also beleive in
> something outside of any knowlege.
> 
> Strictly, beleif don't need to rely on knowlege and knowlege don't lead
> to beleiving.

I can see that - and in the broader discussion of what is antithetical to 
knowledge, "faith" is a better answer than "belief".

But belief and faith are similar if belief isn't based on knowledge; the 
'fine distinction' I'm referring to is that faith implies no (need for) 
knowledge, whereas belief has no such inference.

I guess in some ways it depends on which definition of 'belief' you're 
using (much the same as my earlier discussion on the proper usage of 
'theory' by creationists).

OED says there are several definitions; the definition that requires 
knowledge (or one of them, in any event) has to do with 'mental 
acceptance of a proposition, statement, or fact, as true, on the ground 
of authority or evidence.'.  That differs from definitions pertaining to 
religious belief, or the 'trust in God'.

Jim

Post a reply to this message