Let’s Talk About Knowing Versus Believing
That I cannot prove something doesn’t reduce it to a mere belief
This essay stems from a comment pane discussion I had with a reader in Clem Samson’s Scientists: The Human Soul Does Not Exist Death is the end of the individual and a merging with the Big Kahuna — being itself.
Using shoddy logic, jumping to conclusions without citation to scientific papers, and based upon his belief set, the author asserts that science has proven that souls do not exist. One reader, Steven Harp, responded in part with, “This is old school materialist doggerel. Without accounting for consciousness, these claims are all scientistic faith.”
While I agree, I decided not to classify the piece as such and simply commented, “I know souls exist. https://readmedium.com/my-understanding-of-god-life-death-and-the-between-lives-we-experience-with-our-many-soulmates-af641080747f.”
Another reader felt he needed to reply, “Correction: you *believe* souls exist.”
I did not accept his correction, replying, “Nope. I know.”
Then he attacked with:
Ahhh one who foolishly, when presented with the difference between a belief claim vs a knowledge claim, actually assets and claims he “knows”.
So I ask, what is your actual credible evidence for the existence of Souls, that would then be clearly and credibly be demonstrable, to all of humanity?
Consider it, your… “claim your Nobel prize moment”.
I simply replied, “I said I know. I didn’t say I could prove it to anyone.”
As expected, he continued with:
All hail, the intellectual bankruptcy of one who, doesn’t care if something is actually true vs them having a mere belief it’s true, to he alone. Which since he believes it to be true.. becomes true.
That he then, can’t credibly demonstrate to anyone else, but is then completely ok with morphing that into actual truth.
All the while completely ignorant, that he has established peer equivalency with every other “personal truth claim” also lacking credible evidence, to convince anyone else.
Peer equivalency with numerous opposing religions claims of souls, gods, heavens, hells, etc.
Just like you.
Peer equivalency, with every other batshit personal claim lacking sufficient credible evidence to convince someone else (insert Alien abduction, Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, on and on)
Just like you.
Responding generally and specifically to his, “Which since he believes it to be true.. becomes true,” I said:
Not at all. There was a time that I believed certain things, such as the existence of souls. Then my life experiences and intuition transformed that belief into knowledge.
Why is it that you spread insults throughout your replies. Does it make you feel better about yourself and make you feel superior?
I see no reason for me or anyone else to reduce knowledge to a belief because others do not share it and I did not state it as a fact nor expect to sway Mr. Samson’s, the replier’s, or anyone else's beliefs.
Facts are provable. That some knowledge is not provable does not reduce the knowledge to mere belief.
People can gain knowledge in many ways.
Then my life experiences and intuition transformed that belief into knowledge.
Jodie Helm http//www.asktheangels222.com recently shared this communication from the higher dimensional beings she channels — souls that based upon their referring to themselves as archangels (or maybe Jodie chose that?) have reached the highest echelon of “Heaven” and now serve to assist humanity:
From herself, Jodie wrote:
Still, I know this to be true. I have no problem whatsoever if you disagree with me or cannot entertain the possibility that consciousness is connected to the soul and is infinite, that there are really Angels and I talk to them all the time, or that we’re all connected not only to the universe but to each other through a universal, divine bond, but this is my truth, and I believe it completely.
I wish Jodie had said “and I know it completely,” but I think she was using “believe” as a synonym for “know.”
The channeled section included:
While science is often helpful, so is intuition. While science is reliant on proof, intuition relies on truth. We have said before that truth is relative, and many times, it very much is. If you believe in Angels, for example, you do not base this belief on science, not because proof does not exist, but because science has not advanced enough to find it yet. Still, many know this truth. There are more theories which cannot yet be proven than there are that can, but that does not mean they are untrue. It only means the proof has not yet been uncovered.
As noted toward the end of my essay, Ménage à Trois Between Science, Spirituality and Philosophy, They should have a permanent and mutually satisfying interdependent polyamorous relationship:
Einstein said, “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift, and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
Tesla said, “Instinct is something which transcends knowledge. We have, undoubtedly, certain finer fibers that enable us to perceive truths when logical deduction, or any other willful effort of the brain, is futile.”
Also distinguishing beliefs and knowledge is that beliefs are subject to change. This past summer I felt pulled to read Alan Arkin’s Out of My Mind (Not Quite a Memoir) as soon as it arrived a few weeks after I felt compelled by my intuition to read his obituary when it hit my New York Times application feed. I felt enthralled, with tears of connection, to read all 100 not-long pages in one sitting, whereas most books I purchase land in my ever-growing unread book pile.
In the first chapter, Arkin talks about several transitions from belief set to belief set throughout his life and how he would have vigorously or comfortably tried to change the whole rest of the world to his way of thinking at the respective time. He writes:
“After a few years of this, it occurred to me that it might be a good idea to stop believing in so many things. I looked back and realized that for the first half of my life I’d been ready to change the world three times with three sets of beliefs, each one of which I’d outgrown and discarded, so it seemed a better idea to just shut up. I started to slowly let go of my needs for the rest of the world and began living more and more in my feelings and my intuitions and concentrating on the enormous faults within myself that needed addressing and correcting. As I did so, and it was a slow and painful process, I could see that whatever work I did on the inside was slowly taking root, making me saner, more patient, somewhat more compassionate and all of this began to affect a new view of the world which I tried hard not to concretize and make rules for. As a result, everything started to become more fluid, less frightening, and more surprising, both inside me and around me, and I started thinking maybe that was enough for a while. Belief systems, I started to realize, were wish lists. Things you’d like to be true. They were not immutable laws.”
I don’t wish the existence of souls to be true. I know it is, and while I share my knowledge, I don’t seek to impose it as “truth” at which everyone should arrive. While I respect the views of those materialists who don’t troll or denigrate spiritualists and am happy for those who find meaning in their life or contentment without meaning, I do recommend that those who seem angry at their lot in life, at least try to be open-minded.
A few years ago I wrote this tanka and decoder ring after a disturbing conversation with one such miserable materialist:
Handcuffed by science Minds of materialists Suffocate on proof Spiritualists thriving Embracing uncertainty
For further work of mine on souls and so you may read about the experiences that led to my knowledge, you may see:
In Rama I create, with soul energy surging through my body, inspiring me and breathing wind into my sails,
