Heart-knowledge

 

There are two different, and often intertwined, kinds of knowledge that I am going to talk about here. The first one, everyone has heard of. It’s the kind that is most associated with the word “knowing”. I know that grass grows in the summer. I know that the earth moves around the sun. I know that the Bible was written by men. This kind of knowledge is experimentally based. We can prove head knowledge as right or wrong by experimentation. Science gives us this head-knowledge, and it is good for it. Head-knowledge is a wonderful thing to have. I can know the Bible in this way.

The next kind of knowledge is remarkably different from head-knowledge. This knowledge is found in our hearts. I have heart-knowledge that the Bible is written by God himself, through men. I have heart-knowledge that God exists. I have heart-knowledge that God made the universe, and us. And this is where head-knowledge and heart-knowledge diverge. I can know of God with head-knowledge, but I can only know Him through heart-knowledge. Heart-knowledge is undeniable faith in God – you know Him in your heart. Head-knowledge doesn’t touch this heart-knowledge.

Here’s the thing with heart-knowledge – it exists apart from God too. There is heart-knowledge that the universe exploded into being from nothing. Head-knowledge tells us that the universe is expanding. Using this knowledge, someone postulated that the universe came from a singular point, and exploded outward giving birth to matter and time itself. This is a best guess at the origins of the universe using head-knowledge; and became heart-knowledge to some. Heart-knowledge causes people to know that the universe happened through random, incalculable, chance. And by chance the earth had the right materials for life. And through chance, humans came into being. Let me correct myself, ‘natural selection’ and not chance. However, this is a kind of heart-knowledge about the universe.

My point in writing this is that we can argue, debate, discuss these two kinds of heart-knowledge all the living long day, and not get anywhere. The reason is that we cannot talk heart-knowledge with head-knowledge. There’s no evidence for God and no evidence against God, in the head-knowledge sense of the word ‘evidence’. All these discussions will become is conjecture based on our individual heart-knowledges. The same goes for the “Big Bang”, as it is known by. No one absolutely knows, through head-knowledge, that the Big Bang caused us.

In conclusion, I have realized that there is no intellectual way of talking about the existence of God. This is because God works through heart-knowledge. He works through the impossible becoming possible. A virgin birth. Dead being raised to life. A 90 year old woman having a child that will populate the earth with innumerable descendants. Life after death. Me having virtually no side effects from a 4 day coma, and two weeks in and out, adventure resulting from two hemorrhages in my brain. There really is no use in trying to argue the existence of God intellectually. My heart-knowledge is different than everyone else’s. You know with your heart, and I know with mine. God will draw you to Him and teach you His heart-knowledge. All you need to do is ask, seek, and knock continually.

Advertisements

19 comments on “Heart-knowledge

  1. Imagine that you have heart-knowledge your partner is faithful…then you find out they you cheated on you.

    As you can see, heart knowledge can be wrong – in fact, it’s just emotion based on instincts…to discover truth we must allow our heads to speak louder than our hearts.

    Skepticism based on thinking through head-knowledge is a virtue – faith based on emotions and heart-knowledge is not.

      • God is faithful, man is not. We are fallible, and God is not. God is God, and we are not. We are the ones that cheat on Him. Faith, or heart-knowledge, in God is therefore completely different than faith in fallible, unfaithful, and sinful man.

    • Wow Kong. This analogy is really strong if we see heart-knowledge as faith and head-knowledge as reality.

      The faithful go on believing blissfully (heart-knowledge) for no reason (head-knowledge). When they finally get to the end, they discover they were wrong to believe for no reason, because they have now discovered the truth (head-knowledge).

      Very interesting. The nature of faith is that, even once pointed out how illogical it is, they just don’t care at all – in fact it strengthens their faith. Such is the nature of the virus!

      • So, Larry, what head knowledge tells you that there is no God? Have you died yet? Remember the point of my post? Arguing about heart-knowledge using head-knowledge will get us nowhere. So, I will let my heart-knowledge carry me. You allow yours to do the same.

  2. I personally feel sorry that you feel we’re all miserable offenders eliezer. To claim God is perfect is to surely deny the imperfection in the world.

    • There’s a problem with your thought process – God is not human, and He is not the world. Humans have messed this world up. Not God. That’s the beauty of free-will. We can do what we want, and suffer the consequences.

      • I find evolution to be a far more satisfying explanation for why we suffer pain. Funnily enough it’s also the one backed up with evidence. Head knowledge comes into my decision – there’s no evidence for God, thus head-knowledge tells me he’s not there. My heart says “maybe he’s there, because the idea of heaven is kind of comforting”, but my heart knows nothing. It just feels – and it can be wrong.

      • Understandable, Larry. That makes sense, but the head-knowledge telling you there is no God, isn’t really head-knowledge. Your heart looks at the head-knowledge and bases that belief off of it, but it’s still heart knowledge. Lack of evidence isn’t proof. It leads to assumptions but that is all. I feel His evidence and it is in my heart. It was in yours once too.

  3. To me, there is a chance of some kind of creator kicking off the entire multiverse, but not one maintaining it. In Hinduism these are separate concepts; Brahma is the creator and Vishnu is the sustainer. In Christianity, they’re the same thing. Either way, the idea of a maintainer is very hard to comprehend for me, because it’s such an incomprehensible and incoherent concept for somebody of intellect to believe in.

    You keep talking about head knowledge. As I said before, we need evidence before we submit to ideas. It’s not the job of the atheist to prove there’s no God, it’s the job of the believer to prove there is.

    And yet a further misunderstanding you seem to hold: Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god (or gods), not an active belief that there isn’t one. Big difference.

    • You say that we need evidence before submitting to ideas. First, you make mention of a multiverse…what evidence did you have for parallel universes before you submitted to that idea? What scientific evidence have you, in order to submit to the idea that there is no God? Larry, you have been pretty adamant about there being no God. So, you contradict yourself when you describe atheism.

      The burden of proof is on no one. It is your decision to seek God. If you seek Him, you will find Him. You will find the evidence. I have found that evidence, and that is enough for me.

      • You might enjoy this. It will certainly explain what I am conveying to you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AXBvmd-xcw

        No idea if we’re in a multiverse. I have no evidence for parallel universes and don’t have views about universe or multiverse either way. I simply find the idea quite mind-bogglingly fascinating – certainly don’t know whether there is one or not.

        In the same way, I’m an agnostic. I do not know whether or not there is a god – I’ve said that many times. You’re the only one saying anything is “definitely” anything. I’ve merely stated that I find the idea of God extremely improbable, find no reason to believe in one and, as far as my life requires me to be concerned, there is no God. However one cannot simply go either way without faith – and I do not like the distortion faith causes to minds.

        Very convenient of you to say there’s no ‘burden of proof’. I could say that about anything I wanted – however, of course, there is still burden of proof when it comes down to validating truth, however reluctant anybody is to admit it, especially concerning their own ideas.

        Does that make more sense?

      • It makes sense Larry. However, the impression I got from you is that you are a firm believer that there is no God.

        “there’s no evidence for God, thus head-knowledge tells me he’s not there” you said this today.

        Hence, my labeling you as an atheist. An agnostic says he doesn’t know, not that there isn’t a God. But, I appreciate your efforts to clear up this misperception. Your words before stick with me though, and I believe that you are so against the idea of God as to attack the beliefs of others that do believe in God. Sounds like atheism to me.

        I have faith in God. I believe Him to be there. Because of His works in my life. He brought me back from near death. 4 breaths a minute, and 4 days in coma. The doctors thought I’d be a vegetable, if I survived at all. And more than this, He gives me peace and joy like I’ve not known before my belief. That’s all the evidence I need – that peace and joy and contentment. You don’t see it, you may not have experienced it. Doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

        Also, there could very well be a teapot. You just have faith that there isn’t. You said in another comment on another post that I talk to “someone that isn’t there”. Sounds like strong belief, or faith, in something you cannot prove. I’d be careful with faith that you have, if faith really distorts.

  4. “It makes sense Larry. However, the impression I got from you is that you are a firm believer that there is no God. “there’s no evidence for God, thus head-knowledge tells me he’s not there” you said this today. Hence, my labeling you as an atheist. An agnostic says he doesn’t know, not that there isn’t a God. But, I appreciate your efforts to clear up this misperception. Your words before stick with me though, and I believe that you are so against the idea of God as to attack the beliefs of others that do believe in God. Sounds like atheism to me.”

    Here’s how I see it:

    Agnostic: Do not know whether there is a god
    Do not know whether they believe in a god

    Atheist: Do not know whether there is a god
    Does not believe in a god as they find it highly improbable

    I am an atheist because I do not believe in any of the 3000 gods humans have worshipped throughout history – and agnostic because I don’t know if there is one, even if I find the idea highly improbable.

    “I have faith in God. I believe Him to be there. Because of His works in my life. He brought me back from near death. 4 breaths a minute, and 4 days in coma. The doctors thought I’d be a vegetable, if I survived at all.”

    That’s a beautiful and an amazing story, and it really is wonderful that the doctors managed to save you. Great work by the doctors – what extraordinary beings humans have become, evolving from mere hunters into excellent lifesavers! Fantastic work. I’m very pleased to hear of your recovery – shows us what great medical research science has given us.

    “And more than this, He gives me peace and joy like I’ve not known before my belief. That’s all the evidence I need – that peace and joy and contentment. You don’t see it, you may not have experienced it. Doesn’t mean it isn’t there.”

    I have experienced the peace and joy. Would you rather believe something because it comforts you, or because it’s true? that’s the dilemma I myself faced. I was more concerned with the truth than feeling good, so I went with the truth.

    “Also, there could very well be a teapot. You just have faith that there isn’t.”

    Yep – we should all have faith there isn’t until proven otherwise.

    “You said in another comment on another post that I talk to “someone that isn’t there”. Sounds like strong belief, or faith, in something you cannot prove. I’d be careful with faith that you have, if faith really distorts.”

    Yep – we should all have faith there isn’t until proven otherwise.

    With evidence.

    • First of all, the doctors gave me pain medicine and had me on life support. That’s all.

      Secondly, you contradict yourself way too many times for me to even begin understanding what you say. Your definitions of atheism and agnosticism are essentially the same, and you claim to be both of them. So, how can you not believe in a god, yet say you do not know? You either believe there isn’t one, or you don’t know. If you don’t know, why be so adamant that there isn’t one?

      Also, you claim the nonexistence of God to be truth…without evidence. So, are you being as irrational as I am or even more so? You have faith, without proof. Just as I do. Faith with proof is not faith at all. For, faith is the assurance if things hoped for and the conviction of their reality.

      • Medicine and life support…”that’s all”? That’s the whole reason you’re alive! :p And it’s great you are.

        I am a negative atheist – I do not know whether or not a god exists. I believe they do not exist because there is no evidence.

        Hope I cleared it up.

      • The pain medicine only dulled pain I didn’t feel until I woke… The life support also has nothing to do with mitigating the damage my brain underwent.

        You did clear it up, and I appreciate your honesty. But, can you understand how your definitions are not the commonly held ones?

  5. Maybe. Wikipedia says “”Negative explicit” atheists assert they do not believe any deities exist, but do not assert it is definitely true that no deity exists.”

    I see atheism as lack of belief in any gods, not denial there is a possibility. Naturally an atheist will see that probability as small, else they would likely be an agnostic or a believer. Do you agree?

    • Maybe. I think that admitting there’s a possibility denotes agnosticism. We’re stuck on semantics.

      I think that you’re a bit wish washy with your beliefs though. You go from no God, to the possibility, and back again. It’s a bit confusing to me.

Comments are closed.