I’ve heard this contrasted as ‘knowledge’, where you intellectually assent to something and can make predictions from it and ‘belief’, where you order your life according to that knowledge, but this distinction is certainly not made in normal speech.
A common illustration of this distinction (often told by preachers) is that Blondin the tightrope walker asked the crowd if they believed he could safely carry someone across the Niagra falls on a tightrope, and almost the whole crowd shouted ‘yes’. Then he asked for a volunteer to become the first man ever so carried, at which point the crowd shut up. In the end the only person he could find to accept was his manager.
A common illustration of this distinction (often told by preachers) is that Blondin the tightrope walker asked the crowd if they believed he could safely carry someone across the Niagra falls on a tightrope, and almost the whole crowd shouted ‘yes’. Then he asked for a volunteer to become the first man ever so carried, at which point the crowd shut up. In the end the only person he could find to accept was his manager.
Which is, of course, followed by handing out buckets of stones and pointing out suitable targets of righteous retribution. Adulterers, people who eat beetles, anyone who missed the sermon...
I’ve heard this contrasted as ‘knowledge’, where you intellectually assent to something and can make predictions from it and ‘belief’, where you order your life according to that knowledge, but this distinction is certainly not made in normal speech.
A common illustration of this distinction (often told by preachers) is that Blondin the tightrope walker asked the crowd if they believed he could safely carry someone across the Niagra falls on a tightrope, and almost the whole crowd shouted ‘yes’. Then he asked for a volunteer to become the first man ever so carried, at which point the crowd shut up. In the end the only person he could find to accept was his manager.
Would they be safe? Probably. Would they enjoy the experience? Probably not...
Yeah, that is a problem with the illustration. However, I don’t think it’s completely devoid of use.
Taking a risk based on some knowledge is a very strong sign of having internalised that knowledge.
Risking one’s life to make a point requires not just belief but an extreme degree of belief, which the crowd was not asked to express.
Which is, of course, followed by handing out buckets of stones and pointing out suitable targets of righteous retribution. Adulterers, people who eat beetles, anyone who missed the sermon...
Is that a knee-jerk insult pointed at religion? If so, you’re the AI Professor who takes cheap shots at Republicans.
If not, apologies, I must have missed the point.
Not remotely, and that labeling strikes me as decidedly out of place and mildly objectionable.
I’ve seen you delete comments that received objecting responses a few times now. Why do you do that?
I sense much anger in you....
I’ve not heard that one. Why are they regarded suitable targets for religious wrath?