While we may believe something to be true, knowledge has no effect on our life UNTIL we trust it enough to act on it. And to act on that trust, we need the knowledge to be credible. Credibility is more than proving what we observe. Evidence from eido knowledge is credible based on the guidelines of science. But what about evidence from gnosis knowledge? What makes the evidence of our “sixth sense” credible enough for us to trust it? This idea of evidence introduces us to the word “faith.” We hear this word a lot, but what exactly is faith? Where does faith come from and how does faith fit, in this discussion of knowledge and truth? Before we discuss competing worldviews on how knowledge and faith work in trusting what is true, let me clarify what I mean by faith. Here we are talking about faith in general, not related to any particular faith or religion. Faith is defined as the evidence... or proof... that something that we can’t see, or measure physically, actually exists. That proof is how we know— “gnosis” know—that it is true. In other words, FAITH is the EVIDENCE we cannot physically observe.

Again, FAITH is basically the evidence that comes to us in our “gnosis” knowledge. Many don’t realize it but, we all use faith as the evidence for what we think is true. Interestingly enough, we will see later on in this session that FAITH evidence is not necessarily any weaker or less believable than evidence that is collected through scientific physical measurements. So, all faith has a distinct source, but a source we cannot observe with our physical senses. All people use gnosis knowledge. And this knowledge comes from somewhere. So everyone, whether they always recognize it or not, have faith in something. Everyone must rely or trust some source for all their gnosis knowledge. We will continue to study this more, but it is important that you not limit your idea of faith by the most common contexts for faith, such as religion.

Here’s an interesting and important corollary to what we’ve been talking about: Some people think that if you use scientific measurements to “prove” something, you don’t have to trust anyone’s word about whether or not the conclusion is true. But if you think about it, how do you know that the person who made those scientific instruments did it properly? Are they really as precise and accurate as you think they are? How do you know?

And, if their performance is based on other data, or calibration adjustments, how do you know that those other data were collected and analyzed properly by someone, or that the calibration adjustments were done properly by someone?

And, if you think about it a little more philosophically, how do you know that the scientific principles upon which your analysis is based are all consistent and do not change with time and circumstances? What is your basis for believing that? WHO told you THAT is true? Maybe a high school science teacher or maybe a college professor? What makes us decide to trust them...and who did they trust? Isn’t this also a matter of faith? Though this may call into question the credibility of “objective” science, are these not important questions to ask?
In other words, everything is ultimately based on who you trust—whether that person be the designer or manufacturer of the scientific instruments you are using, or the one who is responsible for concluding or even maintaining the scientific principles that you use to analyze the measurements you collect. So, if someone says, “I don’t need faith, I have science,” are they thinking about this deeply enough? Can we then say that all “eido” knowledge is built on top of “gnosis” knowledge?