Not All Beliefs Are Equal | The differences between faith, knowledge, and belief

In this video I go over the differences between faith, belief, and knowledge. It's partially a lesson in epistemology, partially a critique of theism. There's also a bit about opinions and where they fit into the epistemological landscape. Enjoy.
Timestamps:
0:00 Intro
1:44 Beliefs
2:50 Knowledge
3:39 Faith
5:53 Delusions
7:03 Summary
8:12 Brute Facts
10:04 Opinions
14:18 Atheist belief vs theist belief
17:40 Conclusion or whatever

[@ericyaffey7869]

Exceptionally clear explanations of these fundamental concepts, their relationships to one another and the implications of mis-understanding them. Thank you!

[@livertiny]

This video is really important in this modern dark age where "alternative facts" and creationism are gaining scary mainstream "legitimacy".

[@WadeAllen001]

Unfortunately a photo I included of Frank Turek's "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" didn't show up in the final rendering of the video for some reason at 0:48. I wanted to show that theists really do say that. They've said to it me in the comments of my videos, Frank Turek and Norman Geisler have a book titled "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist," and Frank Turek has a series of talks titled that as well.

[@twinkskeptic9029]

Love your videos, man. Congrats on 1K subs!

[@WadeAllen001]

Thanks!

[@Alicegoulding]

I definitely learned a lot in this video. I was wondering where mathematical ideas and conclusions fit in all of this. An easy example would be any axiom within Euclid's Elements. These cannot be proven and are accepted as self-evident. But they do not exist in physical reality. And yet, we can make accurate predictions and conclusions about space with regards to these axioms. I was wondering what your general thoughts were. Are mathematical conclusions considered knowledge? How about the axioms upon which they're formed?-- is that belief or knowledge, since it cannot be either justified nor observed?

[@WadeAllen001]

These are good thoughts, and they could form the basis of an interesting video in the future. My rough ideas on it right now are that axioms of mathematics (such as Euclid's postulates that you mentioned) are in some hazy territory. I mention brute facts in this video, where things have no underpinning justification and the only thing that justifies them is that they're observed. They just are. But Euclid's postulates don't quite fit there. They're more like arbitrary definitions. However, those arbitrary definitions can lead to actual knowledge, as you say. It's like numbers themselves. In what sense does the concept of a number exist? I would say only in our imagination. For instance, the number 5 does not exist as an entity. And yet you can take an imaginary concept (importantly, one that maps onto reality in some way, as numbers refer to things) and formulate a statement with a justifiable truth value from them. Example: 2+3=5. But that statement is really only justifiable as it relates to an imaginary concept underpinning it: the existence of numbers. So you could say that the statement 2+3=5 has internal validity (it makes sense within a system I've imposed) but it might not have external validity (the system itself is imaginary, or at least potentially imaginary. Let's just say for the sake of argument that it really is imaginary, as there are plenty of people who would argue in favor of the ontological realness of numbers). It's a bit like in fiction, how you can make a justifiable claim with an actual truth value about something that exists in a novel. Like, "hobbits exist." The statement can be coherent and true, but only so far as you're referring to Tolkien's fantasy novels or works derivative of them. If you try to take that statement outside of its system then it ceases to be true. But then the interesting question about mathematical concepts is if this same thinking applies. From one perspective, it seems to be the case that mathematical concepts that originate within an imaginary system lead to conclusions that are true outside that system. But then if you think about it another way, are we still just operating within that system whenever we discuss the accurate predictions of math? This is a long way of saying, I don't know the status of mathematical concepts, I'll have to think about it more.

[@mattatron3152]

Freedom of religion is the same things as freedom of speech. Just because you have the right to your religious beliefs doesn't make them true or smart. Likewise-just because a person is entitled to their opinion and to express it-it doesn't mean that their opinion is actually worth expressing-lol...