[Ichneumon]

Hello Alamo-Girl and Patrick! You see I thought to use Patrick’s list as the focus of my own thinking in this matter of grades of ascertainable (more or less) knowledge. I notice that Patrick has segregated forms of theological knowledge to a sub-class, a ghetto as it were, inferior to the main body of relative (un)certainties.

God has revealed to me that PatrickHenry is correct to do so.

Just a couple observations: It has only been in the recent few (post-modern) centuries that theological knowledge, a/k/a/ spiritual understanding of types (1) and (2), has been relegated to an intellectual ghetto.

...because in the recent few centuries, it has been found to be a strikingly unreliable way of acquiring reliable knowledge about the universe.

In former times, (1) and (2) were understood to be the very ground or foundation of the Patrick’s 1 through 7. It was because (1) and (2) were valid that humans had any confidence at all in the first 7. And because of that confidence, science became possible.

This is a remarkably inaccurate description of the history of science in particular, or epistemology in general.

If anything, "(1) and (2) [faith and revelation]" were obstacles to real learning for millennia (just as they continue to be in the Muslim world to this day). Furthermore, faith and evelation" led primarily not to "confidence" in the reliability of "the first 7", but to doubt in them -- both because "the first 7" sometimes led to conclusions contrary to the "accepted wisdom" arrived at via "faith and revelation", and because belief in the results of "faith and revelation" pointed towards a conclusion that the universe was *capricious* (i.e., operated at the whims of god), and was not *predictable* (i.e. mechanistic/deterministic enough for constant physical laws and processes to be discovered).

When lightning bolts are hurled weapons of god's wrath, who's going to bother to examine them for regularities and the constant laws by which they invariably behave?

Because in the pre- post-modern world, God and Truth were synonymous.

Tell that to Galileo.

And humans beings understood, or used to, that without a foundation in Truth, everything that human beings do is in vain.

They still do understand that. It's just that they've come to understand that Truth exists and can be found apart from consulting what Odin and Allah allegedly said about it. Thus began the Enlightenment.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for all of your posts, Ichneumon!

I suspect your reaction on this thread - that there is only one "right" answer which is your own - is shared by many though not expressed by many. After all, if a person did not believe he had the right answer, why would he embrace it at all?

Obviously though, there are many here who disagree with you. I am one. Nevertheless, it is important to me to know how and why you arrive at your conclusions! That is why we keep saying that there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer to the question posed.

If anything, "(1) and (2) [faith and revelation]" were obstacles to real learning for millennia (just as they continue to be in the Muslim world to this day). Furthermore, faith and evelation" led primarily not to "confidence" in the reliability of "the first 7", but to doubt in them -- both because "the first 7" sometimes led to conclusions contrary to the "accepted wisdom" arrived at via "faith and revelation", and because belief in the results of "faith and revelation" pointed towards a conclusion that the universe was *capricious* (i.e., operated at the whims of god), and was not *predictable* (i.e. mechanistic/deterministic enough for constant physical laws and processes to be discovered).

For example, I completely disagree with you on the above and instead agree with betty boop. I cannot speak to the other cultures, but Judeo/Christian faith not only encourages discovery - it demands it by Scripture (Psalms 19 and Romans 1).

Therein lies the rub -- how, exactly, *does* one separate knowledge from mere belief? That is, how do we determine which of our beliefs are true (actual knowledge) and which are false?

The above is yet another example of your prejudice. (Which is fine, BTW - that is the point of this thread!)

Instead of simply saying "belief" you say "mere belief". And again, in the second sentence, you presume that "beliefs" can be subjected to proofs. But generally speaking, a proof requires an observer status apart from that that which is being observed. Whereas in Christian faith, the Spirit Himself indwells - the "proof" is His person which abides in the believer and makes him a new person altogether. Thus the proof is of the same order as Descartes' cogito ergo sum - He thinks in me and I in Him, I know Him personally - He is.

So, go ahead and apply your skeptics' tests and demand your proofs - you will never meet God that way and will only estrange yourself from Him. In the meantime, your body of knowledge will accrue to the maximum limit of your mind.

I, on the other hand, will receive understanding according to God's will. My mind will form no limitation to my increase in knowledge according to His will.