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.
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.
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"This is yet another reason to segregate the different categories of knowledge. To me, they speak of different matters, and thus there should be no conflicts. It's because they're too often mixed together that conflicts result.
Where in the heck did you read *that* into my posts?
- is shared by many though not expressed by many.
It wasn't expressed by me either.
Obviously though, there are many here who disagree with you. I am one.
In order to disagree with me, you would first have to understand what I was actually saying.
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).
That's a wonderfully idealistic and rosy view, but it is quite inconsistent with actual history. My synopsis is based on a long familiarity with the historical roots of empiricism, and I stand by it.
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.
Raising a question is an "example of my prejudice"? Ooookay...
Instead of simply saying "belief" you say "mere belief".
No, I do not say "mere belief" *instead* of "simply saying 'belief'", I said "mere belief" to DISTINGUISH it from those beliefs which are *true*. As the passage above should have made reasonably clear, by "mere belief" I meant, as I clarified in the very next sentence, "[those] of our beliefs [...] which are false". In other words, *false* beliefs are not knowledge, they are "mere beliefs" -- they are *only* beliefs, and nothing more. They are those beliefs which do not reflect reality.
Perhaps you misread my words due to *your* "prejudice"?
And again, in the second sentence, you presume that "beliefs" can be subjected to proofs.
No, I "presume" that beliefs can be subjected to examination and compared against reality to determine whether they are accurate or not. Do you actually disagree with this?
But generally speaking, a proof requires an observer status apart from that that which is being observed.
Irrelevant, since I was not speaking of "proof".
So, go ahead and apply your skeptics' tests and demand your proofs
Sigh. Go argue with someone who actually *did* say anything about "proofs".
- you will never meet God that way and will only estrange yourself from Him.
This is incredibly condescending and presumptuous. Please keep your small-minded notions of how God may be reached to yourself.
In the meantime, your body of knowledge will accrue to the maximum limit of your mind.
If so, that would put me ahead of a lot of folks.
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
Yes, of course, your capacity exceeds my own and is in fact limitless. I am humbled. *snort*