There are two kinds of knowledge
a priori and a posteriori
A posteriori is knowledge obtained by
experience.
This is a bit iffy. Better to say a priori knowledge is knowledge independent of experience, and a posteriori anything that's not.Existentialism, for example, is based on a posteriori knowledge, as is science.
Big stretch to think existentialism is based on any theory of "knowledge" and not on its own concepts of alienation, the absurd, bad faith, etc. Science is usually thought of as based on empiricism, and even that's a stretch: are a system of partial differential equations really "a posteriori knowledge"?A priori knowledge, on the other hand, is based on reason.
Again, "independent of experience." Your rationalist-empiricist division is literally from the 17th Century, and you're ignoring movements like idealism, pragmatism, logical positivism, othe metaphysical doodads.Where does "faith" fit into this equation?
Faith is at least a feeling, so perhaps it's not cognitive of any sort. Otherwise, it's popular to think of faith as a form of belief.How can you know anything merely by "faith"?
Either argue there is a divine entity who blessed you with faith so you can properly observe the world, or maybe it's a belief that is so well-justified that it is elevated to the status of knowledge.What is the difference between "faith" and "blind faith"?
If you're taking blindness as "lack of evidence" here, you're begging the question two sentences after this. More neutrally, blindness should mean "lack of justification."Is faith merely a kind of intuition?
Maybe; so what? Some people would say string theorists' work are validated because their justification lies on an intuitive feeling of how beautiful their mathematics is. Others don't.If so, then it can be wrong, because intuition can be wrong.
Reason and experience (or more to the point empirical knowledge) can be
wrong, as well, but they seem to be a more reliable way of knowledge than
mere "faith", because they can be tested and proven wrong.
The Is-Ought problem is a classic example of how empiricism can be wrong in its own special way. And what is your threshold of "proven," anyway?Can "faith" be tested?
If it's distinct from knowledge and still valued for purposes not attributed to knowledge, what's the point?What exactly does the word "faith" mean?
See above.I don't understand how anyone can believe based on faith,
because it seems to be a concept that is difficult to define
or at least understand.
We possess knowledge of various concepts that, in their details, are hard to define or understand (scientific theories of all sorts); at least, we want to claim they are. More likely, we only possess belief of some empirically tested theories.To put it differently, someone who was born to accept the inerrant nature of Gospel wouldn't understand your beliefs of empirical theories either. Would you feel comfortable with his dismissiveness?I say faith and knowledge.
Would it be better to say "faith or knowledge" or even "faith vs knowledge"?
Of course not; I would claim, at least, that both have values specific to them attached to them.Can faith be tested?
What's your point?
