Do you believe in things you have no 1st hand knowledge of? Why or why not?

Question

For example:
I've never been to Australia, but I believe it exists because others have told me it does and have created maps showing its location and provided pictures that they say were taken there. I have no 1st hand knowledge of Australia, but I believe it exists just the same.

If I had to guess I would say that somewhere between 25% and 50% of the things I know (or believe) I have no real 1st hand knowledge of. I'm just taking someone's word for it or believing what I want to believe or both.

Why are we so willing to believe some things without proof and yet so reluctant to believe others?

Answer 1

        Your point is perfectly valid (deserve a star for it, too) -- in spite of the nay-sayers which have already posted and any of those whom post after me. I, personally, have 1st-hand, physical knowledge of the existence of God and personal proof of His personal interest in me and my life. I also have 1st- and 2nd-hand knowledge of hundreds to thousands of others whom also have 1st-hand knowledge of the same thing. Yet, it only takes one person, an Atheist, to throw all of that evidence away based solely on the fact that they, personally, have no such knowledge and thus, to them, the possibilities are out of the ordinary. Have you heard of the ostrich and their approach to what is otherwise real all around them? Well, that applies in this case.



God bless.

Answer 2

You make a good point. But, why is it still that others need proof of everything?

Answer 3

Well, we do have evidence of Australia--photographs, stories, people whom we may have met that are from or have visited Australia, etc. Unless we visit the place ourselves, we can't *know* Australia exists, but we have some reasons to think it's real. Plus, there isn't anything that seems odd or contradictory about Australia's existence. It's existence doesn't raise bigger questions that demand new answers.



Some claims are more extraordinary than others. If I said I have a wife, that isn't particularly unusual because marriage is a common phenomenon. Could I be lying? Of course I could. But does that possibility alone make it unreasonable to take my word for it? Not really. There's a huge difference between saying, "jtrusnik is a married man" and saying "jtrusnik owns a flying purple hippopotamus." The reason is that we know that hippos are not purple, they do not fly, and they usually aren't owned by private individuals.



You would be wise to doubt my claim to having such a fantastic creature, simply because the information you have would seem to contradict the claim. Extraordinary claims naturally demand stronger evidence than ordinary, run-of-the-mill claims.

Answer 4

That is an interesting point, giving you a star. :)

Answer 5

The existence of Australia ia undeniable because even if you have never been there been to the place there are multiple verifiable and reliable sources that it exist. It is also not an extraordinary claim that a country called Australia exists. Gods and the supernatural on the other hand are extraordinary claims. There is no evidence for them whatsoever, tangible or intangible, only unsupportable or unprovable hearsay.

Answer 6

Everything is a matter of evidence and probabilties. I believe that the sun will rise again tomorrow, though it is not compelled to do so. The fact that it has done so millions of times in the past leads to think that I may safely assume it will do it again tomorrow, but there is no garauntee that it will.



There is evidence for China and Australia, though I've never been there. There is zero evidence for space aliens visiting the earth or gods watching over us, so I can have faith in the former and not the latter.

Answer 7

"Know," "believe," and "presume to be true" all have different meanings. Belief, for me is the least reliable, and something I am rarely willing to do, especially in important matters. I am willing to believe the Cubs can win the World Series in my lifetime, for example. I have little evidence for it, and certainly no first hand knowledge, but it also doesn't matter much if I am wrong. Most of the things you refer to you "resume to be true." For Australia not to exist, for example, a million other things I presume to be true would also have to be untrue. If you examine the things you don;t know first hand, you will see that 99.9% of them fall into this category.