Faith, beleife, knowledge and the school syllabus

[Littlepaw]

Dear All,
I was wondering on my way home from town today if belief and knowledge are the same thing?  Knowledge is something that you know to be true so what is a belief?  I heard someone explain once that faith and belief are two different things.  He explained it like this as if you were at a bus stop and the sign at the bus said there is a bus coming on that day at a specific time.  Having faith means you will wait at the bus stop.   At what point in our education should we learn the difference between faith and belief, information and knowledge, emotion and feeling?  I have for a long time been interested in education and having felt a distinct lack of it throughout schoolI thought it might be fun to write a new syllabus and what to include that you think kids should be learning and also practical ways in which they could learn them.  Or perhaps you disagree with me and think that the way school in the west is actually not broken and does not need fixing?
One thing that struck me as I have been learning about History and mainly War in History is that I did not know nearly anything about the first and second world wars.  I knew more about the Romans! Who fought who, why did they happen?  |Why, if the first world war was the war to end all wars was there another war shortly after?  Why were so many non combatants murdered?   What was the outcome of both wars?  I think it would be very beneficial to study questions like this, questions that make young minds think rather than switch off.  Perhaps I just went to a bad school?  Perhaps some of you did tackle tough subject and did truly exercise your minds.  I would be interested to know what you think about education in general, what you would add to the syllabus and how you would teach subjects differently.
I was thinking that it is all very well to say the education system is bad, which I believe it is, but unless you have something to replace it with who is going to listen?  Innovation is my ideal.

[quantumshaman]

I've written tons on the subject of belief vs. knowledge, but in a nutshell, the difference is simplyt his:
Belief:  anything accepted on faith or hearsay.  Example:  We BELIEVE the sun will rise tomorrow morning, but we do not possess absolute KNOWLEDGE that it will.
Knowledge:  Something we experience directly, personally, through experience.  Example:  I know the assemblage point of the mushroom ally because I've "been there".  To anyone who has NOT had the direct experience, it is only a tale of power or, simply put, a belief.
I see a lot of people on this forum (and in life in general) acting as if they KNOW things, when the reality is that they only believe what they have read in books.
So much of what we believe is nothing more than yada programming put onto us from an early age - but we beliee it because it is part of the operating system (aka the foreign installation), so the only way to STOP believing something is to examine WHY we believe it, and from there, determine if it is relevant to our lives in any way, or if it is only part of the program, installed for the benefit of the program itself.
Belief is faith.
Knowledge is experience.
The rest is illusion.
QS

[Guest]

quantumshaman wrote:
Belief is faith.
Knowledge is experience.
The rest is illusion.
QS
I understand what you are saying, QS and agree with you to a degree.  However, if we take the (religious)  connotations away from the word "faith" we can be left with a powerful tool that along with the will and intent to succeed, can make for a powerful formula for success.   Personally I come from a non-religion  background so I don't see the word faith as connected to religion in any way. However, here is an equation that illustrates my point:
Intended action + the will to make it so + the faith (or knowing) that intended action will come to pass = successful manifestation.
So
Intent plus will plus faith equals action
If you break this down further, you can say that faith is under the umbrella of intent (also a facet of will, but we won't complicate things neeedlessly here) -- Intent being the mechanism that sets your will in motion, Faith (or knowing)  in tandem being the force that propels that motion further toward your will and expected outcome.  If you intend an outcome without the knowing (or belief or faith ) that you will succeed, you may just as well have intended to turn into a pink fluffy rabbit, ya get me?
Of course, If you want to call it belief, you can, too.  I intend an action and I believe it will come to pass.   (Obviously you need to add personal power into the mix too.  A warrior with power, can use faith to his or her advantage, whereas other people, perhaps religious followers would use it as a crutch.  )m
So it's all in the adaptation of the words, their uses and the equations each individual may use more so than it is about the words themselves.  If you ask me...

[quantumshaman]

The only problem with your equation is that faith is not knowing. When you actually know something, no faith is required.  You can slice & dice the words any way you want, but a duck is still a duck at the end of the day even if you choose to call it a fish.  It is what it is.  Reassigning labels doesn't alter essence.
Faith is just another word for belief.

[Guest]

quantumshaman wrote:The only problem with your equation is that faith is not knowing. When you actually know something, no faith is required.  You can slice & dice the words any way you want, but a duck is still a duck at the end of the day even if you choose to call it a fish.  It is what it is.  Reassigning labels doesn't alter essence.
Faith is just another word for belief.
I don't see things that way.   I think, the difference in our definitions could very well be based on a religious connotation of the word versus a non-religious definition of it (faith).  I do like how defintions, words and ideas can change around though, depending on who is describing or seeing.  
Here are two separate definitions of faith:  For the purpose of this discussion, and clarification, I refer to the first definition while, you are using the 2nd.
Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. 
Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.If I have complete trust and confidence in something, I KNOW it!  See what I'm saying here?

[quantumshaman]

I don't equate "faith" only with religious beliefs, but with belief with a capital "B".  While I can see what you're saying and might agree on a certain level, I am also reminded of people who "truly know" the UFOs are gonna land, so they sell off all their belongings, pack a suitcase and go hang out on a mountaintop waiting for ET to phone home. 
Bottom line:  one cannot really KNOW something until after-the-fact - i.e., post-experience.  Prior to the experience, we might believe and hope and dream - and maybe that energy is part of the creative process, I certainly think it is! - but faith is still just faith at the end of the day.
If you have complete trust & confidence in something, that's certainly a step toward action - but it is hardly "knowledge".  Most people have "faith" that the airliner will get them from New York to Los Angeles... but airliners nonetheless crash despite their faith and certainty.
...if you see what I'm saying.

[Guest]

Again, we are talking two different meanings of the word faith, here.  
Bottom line:  one cannot really KNOW something until after-the-fact -
i.e., post-experience.  Prior to the experience, we might believe and
hope and dream - and maybe that energy is part of the creative process, I
certainly think it is! - but faith is still just faith at the end of
the day.
If you have complete trust & confidence in something, that's certainly a step toward action - but it is hardly "knowledge" Knowing, can and very often does happen before the fact as seeing ahead or precognition.   Many times we, as warriors, seers or persons of knowledge have known something well before it has happened.
Also, I didn't say that faith was knowledge so let's not confuse things.  Knowing and knoweldge are two separate birds. 
Most people have "faith" that the airliner will get them from New York
to Los Angeles... but airliners nonetheless crash despite their faith
and certainty.
Maybe 'most people" depend on hoping wishing and dreaming, for a
warrior, it's much more simple.  He either knows, or he does not.
Added:
Every energy is part of the creative process, each thought, mood and even negative action either propels or hinders our creative process.  The more you say "it can't be done"  the more it can not be.

[Guest]

quantumshaman wrote:
Bottom line:  one cannot really KNOW something until after-the-fact - i.e., post-experience. 

Wrong.

A priori knowledge is independent of experience.

[Guest]

Urantia:



"Increasingly throughout the morontia progression the assurance of truth replaces the assurance of faith. When you are finally mustered into the actual spirit world, then will the assurances of pure spirit insight operate in the place of faith and truth or, rather, in conjunction with, and superimposed upon, these former techniques of personality assurance."







There is no need to reject 'faith' and 'belief' as having no value; 'pure spirit insight' and 'truth' is built upon them, there is no need to wholly reject the foundation once one further evolves/experiences life (spirit reality).





QS reminds me of one who grows out of their training wheels and onto a regular bicycle but then proceeds to campaign against training wheels preaching that people should just ride regular bicycles and never use training wheels because they are completely useless and without function.









Also one can claim to have 'knowledge' through experience of something, but this does not guarentee the accuracy of such 'knowledge'. One can have an experience but interpret it erroneously thus gaining a false knowledge.





Does 'seeing' make one infallible?

[Guest]

Experience teaches us that a thing is so and so, but not that it cannot be otherwise. First, then, if we have a proposition which in being thought is thought as necessary, it is an a priori judgment; and if, besides, it is not derived from any proposition except one which also has the validity of a necessary judgment, it is an absolutely a priori judgment. Secondly, experience never confers on its judgments true or strict but only assumed and comparative universality, through induction. We can properly only say, therefore, that so far as we have hitherto observed, there is no exception to this or that rule. If, then, a judgment is thought with strict universality, that is, in such manner that no exception is allowed as possible, it is not derived from experience, but is valid absolutely a priori.



— Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason







If it be true, that all knowledge lies only in the perception of the agreement or disagreement of our own ideas, the visions of an enthusiast [fanatic] and the reasonings of a sober man will be equally certain. It is no matter how things are: so a man observes but the agreement of his own imaginations, and talk conformably, it is all truth, all certainty. Such castles in the air will be as strongholds of truth, as the demonstrations of Euclid. That an harpy is not a centaur is by this way as certain knowledge, and as much a truth, as that a square is not a circle.



(Locke IV: iv:1)

[Guest]

Experience teaches us that a thing is so and so, but not that it cannot be otherwise. First, then, if we have a proposition which in being thought is thought as necessary, it is an a priori judgment; and if, besides, it is not derived from any proposition except one which also has the validity of a necessary judgment, it is an absolutely a priori judgment. Secondly, experience never confers on its judgments true or strict but only assumed and comparative universality, through induction. We can properly only say, therefore, that so far as we have hitherto observed, there is no exception to this or that rule. If, then, a judgment is thought with strict universality, that is, in such manner that no exception is allowed as possible, it is not derived from experience, but is valid absolutely a priori.



— Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason

[Guest]

and someone needs to learn the proper way to spell 'belief'

[quantumshaman]

If you need to quote Urantia to make your point... I've made mine.   
Sorry if reality doesn't set well with some of you, but it is what it is.  One can have premonitions, silent knowing and the like, which has nothing to do with faith.
Pointless conversation, really.  No reason to continue it, is there?

[Guest]

quantumshaman wrote:
Bottom line:  one cannot really KNOW something until after-the-fact - i.e., post-experience. 

Wrong.

A priori knowledge is independent of experience.

[Guest]

'Seeing' does not make one infallible, even don Juan was not infallible.





What is worse than one who thinks they are infallible due to their supposed knowledge or experience of 'seeing', when they are in fact not?





(it then is only an erroneous belief that deludes them)

[quantumshaman]

What does any of this have to do with seeing and being infallible?
The conversation had to do with, essentially, semantics - a debate as to the meaning of a word.  I have determined that such a conversation is, in fact, utterly pointless - nothing more than an attempt to form a consensus, wherein we either agree or disagree.  Silly, really.  Faith is a word - a series of grunts & clicks.  Belief is a word - a series of grunts and clicks.
I think we all have better things to do than debate the precise meaning of words.
That's what I *see*.  Doesn't matter if we agree or not.  Who cares?
That's why forums in general become tedious.  No real "work" is being done - just a lot of rattling of the words, reminiscent of a scene from an old Monty Python skit. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

[Guest]

Perhaps its only pointless to you because you do not care to delve deeper into the essence of what I'm saying... (a form of ignoring/ignorance)





QS may be stuck on the semantics of it, dont try to define the conversation so limitedly as to frame it as if it is only about semantics... (it is like she is trying to character assassinate the conversation because she wants to devalue it... why? afraid of being fallible?)





it takes courage to admit one is wrong... if you are caught in the trap of trying to appear infallible then I can see why you would want to paint the discussion in a negative light, as if the discussion is meaningless/worthless/ (who cares its only a pointless debate)... spoken like one who wants to cover up meaningful discourse/dialectics because they do not like the 'truth' that is surfacing...

[Littlepaw]

My first reaction is to want to defend Quantum Shaman. I got the impression that when she was talking bout no real work being done here I think she is right! Real work is that feeling of accomplishment you get from interacting in a way in which you learn something about yourself. For me this feeling always comes out of the blue and is unexpected, just a moment of recognition that something was achieved. What is our aim here? what are we trying to achieve? I think the fact that I have no real concrete ideas about why i even posted my original topic suggests that it was pretty meaningless to begin with, lol. But I feel I can learn something from Quantum Shaman or rather I can learn something about myself by her being here. Just have to figure out what it is.

[Guest]

Definition of DIALECTIC:





: discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation; specifically : the Socratic techniques of exposing false beliefs and eliciting truth





: the Platonic investigation of the eternal ideas





: any systematic reasoning, exposition, or argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas and usually seeks to resolve their conflict





: an intellectual exchange of ideas

[Guest]

The times are no longer that of having ONE Nagual Guru disseminating 'truth' without question...



its the age of the internet, where ideas and beliefs can be explored in a group context like never before





but still many are behind the times

[Guest]

'Seeing' does not make one infallible, even don Juan was not infallible.





What is worse than one who thinks they are infallible due to their supposed knowledge or experience of 'seeing', when they are in fact not?





(it then is only an erroneous belief that deludes them)

[Guest]

quantumshaman wrote:
Bottom line:  one cannot really KNOW something until after-the-fact - i.e., post-experience. 



Wrong.

A priori knowledge is independent of experience.

[Guest]

Quantum, I'm not sure if you're still talking to me. I may have missed

Something (urantia and being infallibe) perhaps posts have been removed.

Whatever the case, I am simply saying that we can choose to use our intent

To turn faith into action.



As warriors, that's what we do, sorcery is action. Warriors act.

Also, though communication and conversation may be tedious -- sometimes it is important because if we are open
We can sometimes learn something about ourselves from listening to the other POV even thoiugh we don't agree with it.

[quantumshaman]

stardreamer wrote:
Quantum, I'm not sure if you're still talking to me. I may have missed
Something (urantia and being infallibe) perhaps posts have been removed.
Whatever the case, I am simply saying that we can choose to use our intent
To turn faith into action.
As warriors, that's what we do, sorcery is action. Warriors act. Also, though communication and conversation may be tedious -- sometimes it is important because if we are open We can sometimes learn something about ourselves from listening to the other POV even thoiugh we don't agree with it.Actually, I was talking to someone else who has seemingly removed all her posts, leaving gaps in the converation.  I think his/her name was "Lightdream" or something like that.  Ah well...
I agree with you that sorcery is action.  What I mean by tedious is that I've been on forums for many years, and when I see a conversation de-evolving into semantics and minutiae (as was happening), there's very little point continuing it.  You know what YOU mean by faith, and I know what I mean... and there may never be any agreement as to the word itself, though we would probably agree as to the general concept underneath.
My gripe with the word "faith" is that I've seen far too many people use it as a crutch to avoid the hard work of the path itself.  "I have faith that it will all become clear."  Or "I have faith that my double will show me the way."  Or "I have faith in myself."  I can somewhat understand the final statement - having "faith" in oneself - but generally speaking, I don't like using words like "faith" because they are ambiguous and result in conversations like this.  LOL.  I would prefer to say, "I have confidence that all will become clear."  It's still ambiguous, perhaps, but at least "confidence" carries some odd underlying meaning which suggests that there is "reason" or "evidence" to support one's belief.  Semantics, sure, probably no different in the end.  But in my own work, when someone tells me they have "faith", I generally find it means they have some airy-fairy IDEA of how they want things to turn out, but may not be doing anything in the way of action to bring whatever-it-is into manifestation. 
There's a famous biblical quote to the effect, "If you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you can move mountains." I do agree with that in essence.  Unfortunately, the word "faith" has essentially de-evolved in our western culture over the years to mean "hope" or "belief".  I agree with you there - there is a big difference, which is where my comments began.

[Guest]

UnknownPoet008 wrote:http://www.theshiftofcons...ness.info/castaneda.html





"We always get tricked by words," he said.


Couldn't have said it better meself!