Faith is a pathway to knowledge

evidence and belief.A little girl believes Barbie cured her father because of a passing comment by a nurse and because her father recovered when Barbie was hidden in his bed. Most adults would not take these events as evidence of Barbie's healing powers, but Con argues that they are indeed evidence, the little girl accepted them as such and so she does not have faith in Barbie but justified belief.In Round 2 I told the story of the friend who believes her boyfriend is cheating because a coin toss came down heads and heads means cheating, according to her.If we accept the coin toss as evidence, then what my friend is experiencing is not faith but justified belief as well. But what about her faith in the coin toss? Does she have any evidence that a coin toss is a good way to test fidelity? It seems unlikely.Similarly, the little girl has faith in what she sees as her evidence regarding Barbie's powers. But is her faith in the evidence justified? Does she have enough evidence to conclude that it was Barbie's presence in her father's bed that cured him? Let's say that she doesn't. That would mean that faith in a process led to belief in Barbie's powers which led to knowledge. So faith would still be a pathway to knowledge.Con claims that the presence of smoke is good evidence that dinner is burning. I don't think so. Smoke is good evidence that something is burning. If Con is in the habit of burning dinner, then it's natural he would leap to a conclusion that it is dinner, rather than anything else, that is burning. But this is based on memory-based schemas and mental associations, not on actual physical evidence. Thus he had knowledge that something was burning, but no evidence as to what was burning. If he really believed that it was his dinner burning before he ran and checked then this would be faith, according to Con's very specific definitions in Round 1.a pathway to knowledge vs a "true pathway" to knowledgeCon talks about pathways to knowledge and "true pathways" to knowledge, but not only are "true pathways" not mentioned in the resolution or in the definitions, but it's unclear what the difference is.For example, Con argues that something that motivates you to gain knowledge is not a "true pathway" to knowledge. But let's look at his own definition of pathway:pathway - a route to or way of access to; way of reaching or achieving something So yes, according to this definition, if your faith drives you to gain knowledge, then it's a pathway to knowledge.Con has implied that I'm arguing on semantics. He has stated that my conclusions about pathways are "absurd" and "silly and ridiculous", He complains that we are "definitely discussing different concepts".This is unfair because I have been arguing according to definitions that he himself provided, and nowhere has he defined or clearly explained what a "true pathway" might be and how it differs from pathways in general.knowledge and emotionsCon argues that anger, love and faith cannot lead to knowledge "in any meaningful way". I think this is quite untrue. When we love someone, we are hyperaware and interested in everything about them, how they feel, what they say, their physical appearance, and all kinds of other details. The state of love structures our brains in a specific way to gather knowledge about the object of our love. Love is definitely a pathway to knowledge in this sense, and I don't think it's trivial to say so.At the very least, emotions influence our thoughts and behaviors in particular ways and by observing this process we gain knowledge about ourselves and the way we interact with the world.faith is a pathway to knowledgeOf course faith leads to knowledge. Humans are gaining knowledge continuously. There are many, many pathways to knowledge, and faith is one of them.