We often state our beliefs as though they’re something we know. They’re not.

Belief is based in faith, love or desperation with knowledge based in evidence and facts. Confusing the two can be misleading, self-demeaning or even dangerous.

In a famous video interview conducted in 1959 by the BBC’s John Freeman with psychologist Carl Jung, then in his 80s, about growing up in a rather strict religious environment, Freeman asks Jung if he still believes in God. Reflectively, but with self-assurance, the father or analytical psychology responds, “I don’t need to believe, I know.”

This assertion goes unchallenged and is accepted by the interviewer as a statement of elder wisdom. I’m afraid, though, that as a paradigm of the differentiation between belief and knowledge, it leaves more than a little bit to be desired.

Dictionary definitions lend some insight into these important concepts and their even more important distinctions. According to “Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary,” “belief” is defined as being a “state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.” It later goes on to qualify that the belief does not require objectified evidence.

“Knowledge,” on the other hand, is “the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association.” It goes on to characterize it as a “branch of learning.” Why is so important to be able to distinguish one from the other for ourselves?

The things we believe require no proof or evidence. They are, if you will, articles of faith. We believe them because they are part of and support a larger system of beliefs that we likely have been working on, forming and consolidating since early childhood. They are most often things about which we neither have no empirical evidence for nor do we feel that we require any. We believe what we believe.

The things we know, on the other hand, are things that we can support with less reliance on subjective impressions. Research, measurable outcomes and more objective consensus amongst people who are not “taught” to know something are elements that may come into play in determining “knowledge” from “belief.”

Of course, it’s rarely that simple. Most people who believe something that’s important to them believe that they know it. The distinction between the two concepts is moot. We are all quick to rationalize whatever we may believe to sound as if it is actually knowledge. To some, in fact, there may be no real distinction at all.Even so, being able to sort out one from the other can be important at many times in life. Beliefs are heavily influenced by wishes, hopes and fears while knowledge develops, ideally, around the acquisition of experience and data. So, using relationships as a singular example, we might believe that someone we have met is the right person for us — not because we know it, but because we believe it. The belief is driven by our hopes and wishes, and often powered by that special attribute we call “infatuation” that frequently accompanies the beginning stages of a new relationship. Knowing a person comes with more time with them.

Sometimes, the eventual knowing winds up supporting the initial belief — sometimes not. Every adult knows this, as it is true of relationships, as well as most things that accompany the human experience.

I don’t expect everyone to agree with me about this, but I hope that this brief exposition engenders some useful thought on the subject.

David Reinstein is a San Anselmo resident. IJ readers are invited to share their stories of love, dating, parenting, marriage, friendship and other experiences for our How It Is column, which runs Tuesdays in the Lifestyles section. All stories must not have been published in part or in its entirety previously. Send your stories of no more than 600 words to lifestyles@marinij.com. Please write How It Is in the subject line. The IJ reserves the right to edit them for publication. Please include your full name, address and a daytime phone number.