Believe First or See First?

[Delta40]

Do you think the fundamental difference between Atheists and Christians is one subscribes to 'See and you will believe' while the other says 'Believe and then you will see'?

Just curious. Someone told me once that was the difference between faith and faithlessness and I'm interested to know your thoughts.

[cl154576]

Not entirely. Reading some old books, there are people who believed apparently because they saw "miracles."

[The Atheist]

Do you think the fundamental difference between Atheists and Christians is one subscribes to 'See and you will believe' while the other says 'Believe and then you will see'?

Just curious. Someone told me once that was the difference between faith and faithlessness and I'm interested to know your thoughts.

That would sum up a lot of atheists - the ones I group as "materialist atheists". Evidence is required, while belief plays no part in their thinking. That sums up my approach as well.

There is also an unknown number - but probably majority of the whole - of atheists who do not believe in god/s, but hold other supernatural beliefs. Buddhists, Wiccans and other groups fall into that category.

Atheists are a hard group to identify by any trait beyond "I do not believe in god/s".

[G L Wilson]

Seeing is not believing - simple science.

[Paulclem]

Investigate first, and keep on investigating with an open mind.

[YesNo]

I tend to suspend disbelief if I hear something interesting that I have not yet accepted or rejected. Then I check it out further. Sometimes it doesn't check out. Sometimes it does. If there is a technique I can practice, some diet or meditation, I would expect it to work or I might end up rejecting the original idea.

The problem is that in checking anything out, we do so within the context of ideas we have already accepted and rejected. This is the conceptual box we live in. Sometimes the box can be named with a formal religion or political position. Sometimes the box can't get a good label. It is still a constraint and part of our ego identification. We don't leave the box, because we think we are the box.

Take near death experiences as an example. Most people don't have these, so there is no seeing that comes first. To accept these one has to believe what people said they experienced or at least suspend disbelief. From within the atheist box, however, these experiences need to be rejected or trivialized. From within certain religious boxes, they also need to be modified to exclude any atheists who might have had a near death experience. From within my box, I have no problem accepting these sorts of things as part of reality. They don't conflict with anything. So I accept these ideas and reject the ideas that they don't really exist.

Or take most scientific theories, such as the theory claiming the protons and neutrons of an atom are composed of quarks or that the universe started from nothing 14 billion years ago. There is nothing to see first. Even the scientists coming up with the theories have seen very little. One has to believe or at least suspend disbelief to explore it further. Then depending on the ego-box one is already in, these theories will be accepted or rejected.

So, in the end, our boxes are made up of language-constrained faith ideas that become part of our egos. Even what we reject is just a language pattern regarding which we refuse to suspend any further disbelief. There is very little objective seeing involved to justify the boxes we have made. Both science and religion would discredit much of what we can see anyway as inadequate until we get the right instruments, telescopes or meditation, to see properly.

[JCamilo]

The use of suspension on disbelief to classify the scientific approach is just not correct.

[YesNo]

The use of suspension on disbelief to classify the scientific approach is just not correct.
Why not?

[JCamilo]

Because Suspension of Disbelief is not working from assumptions for an inquiry so it can progress, such as, gross example, that 1 + 1 = 2. It is accepting something as true even if you know it is not, to not question the internal logical of a system. Science does not work like this at all.

[Ecurb]

“Seeing is believing,” according to the aphorism. But William Moyneux, whose wife was blind, asked philosopher John Locke: “Suppose a man was born blind and taught by touch to distinguish between a cube and a sphere. If his vision was restored, could he distinguish which was which before touching them?”

In several rare medical cases, the blind actually have had their vision restored. As reported by Oliver Sachs in "An Anthropologist on Mars", the adjustment has not always been easy. H.S., a patient who received a corneal transplant after 22 years of blindness reported:



During the first weeks I had no appreciation of depth or distance; street lights were luminous stains stuck to the window panes, and the corridors of the hospitals were black holes…. Nor was it possible for me to count my own five fingers… it was not possible to pass from one to the other while counting.

All of the newly sighted have difficulty adjusting. S.B., another individual who had recovered his sight was always struck by how objects changed in appearance from different perspectives. For those not accustomed to seeing, this flux of appearances is not anchored to the world of objects – to space.

The infant learns to coordinate the impulses sent to the brain by his optic nerve with images sent by his sense of touch by batting a mobile around in his crib. As adults, we have no memory of this process of learning how to see. But Mark’s version of Jesus restoring the blind man’s sight is in remarkable agreement with the medical records.

“And Jesus took the blind man by the hand…and when He put His hands upon him, He asked him if he saw anything. And he looked up and said, “I see men looking like trees walking.” Mark, 8:24

When Jesus first restores the man’s sight, the man can see, but cannot distinguish between men and trees. So Jesus, “put His hands on his eyes again… and he saw every man clearly.” The miracle was actually two-fold – restoring physical sight and providing enlightenment as to how to interpret it.

[YesNo]

The miracle was actually two-fold – restoring physical sight and providing enlightenment as to how to interpret it.
It makes sense that there are two parts to seeing: the physical sight and the interpretation of it.

I wonder if it is possible to have an interpretation outside of first knowing a language.

[Ecurb]

It makes sense that there are two parts to seeing: the physical sight and the interpretation of it.

I wonder if it is possible to have an interpretation outside of first knowing a language.

That was my point. All knowledge (even seeing with one's own eyes) requires an interpretive paradigm. We always have to "believe" before we can "see" (in a sense, at least).

[The Atheist]

Take near death experiences as an example. Most people don't have these, so there is no seeing that comes first. To accept these one has to believe what people said they experienced or at least suspend disbelief. From within the atheist box, however, these experiences need to be rejected or trivialized.

Is there a book somewhere that prints fallacies like this for use in everyday conversation?

I ask because I see them so often, and that one almost word for word on too many occasions to count.

The statement may be true for non-rationalist atheists, but it is completely wrong for many, many atheists, whose approach would centre around explaining NDE logically, neither rejecting nor trivialising them.









From within certain religious boxes, they also need to be modified to exclude any atheists who might have had a near death experience. From within my box, I have no problem accepting these sorts of things as part of reality. They don't conflict with anything. So I accept these ideas and reject the ideas that they don't really exist.

Or take most scientific theories, such as the theory claiming the protons and neutrons of an atom are composed of quarks or that the universe started from nothing 14 billion years ago. There is nothing to see first. Even the scientists coming up with the theories have seen very little. One has to believe or at least suspend disbelief to explore it further. Then depending on the ego-box one is already in, these theories will be accepted or rejected.

So, in the end, our boxes are made up of language-constrained faith ideas that become part of our egos. Even what we reject is just a language pattern regarding which we refuse to suspend any further disbelief. There is very little objective seeing involved to justify the boxes we have made. Both science and religion would discredit much of what we can see anyway as inadequate until we get the right instruments, telescopes or meditation, to see properly.[/QUOTE]

[Jack of Hearts]

Don't really think so, Queen Kookaburra. In fact, this reader doesn't think the difference between religious people and atheists is all that great at all.

Would look up the agnostics, but don't know where to find them...







J

[Buh4Bee]

Another aspect of this question to possibly consider as certain answers are explored is the development of faith. Fowler proposed 6 stages of faith development that occur throughout a live time or the duration of one's faith development, possibly gaining faith later in life. This sort of framework of development follows along the lines of other developmental psychologists such as Piaget (cognitive) and Ericson (social). The research is pretty sound on the emergence of these stages and is a natural progression one follows as a person matures. In essence, faith development is a very gradual progression and doesn't occur over night. I think it is hard to pin it down to an either/or explanation, but one's development would need to leave one open to the possibility of faith. (As one develops through the stages, is their emotional and cognitive framework open to embrace such ideas?) If someone is open to faith later in life, than maybe they are able to take that leap of faith once religion makes personal sense.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I wanted to believe for quite a while, and if I didn't truly believe, I tried. And, from that attempt, I never saw, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted anything to suggest there was more than what we experience here on Earth. So, I tried the believing first way, and it didn't do anything. Now that I don't believe, maybe I'll see something to change my mind. It would be interesting.

[Vonny]

There's no Christian community. There's so many contradictions that my mind feels like a pretzel. The faith seems to be defined as: "Whatever is good for me."

But I see so many synchronicities in my life, that there is something beyond us.

A couple of things I know are...

I don't believe in Blessings. I don't believe that I have a better life than someone else because I am blessed. When I hear people constantly speaking of how blessed they are, I cringe.

I know that I evolved from animals - that I am an animal. And I don't believe that humans, on the whole, are a superior species.

[DocHeart]

Is it cheating to throw agnosticism into the discussion? I mean, science is all about *knowing*, right? And knowledge requires belief, justification for belief, and a kind of metaphysical, universal, sometimes ungraspable truth.

In other words, am I justified in believing that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God does not exist? By all accounts, I must be -- otherwise I wouldn't have forgotten the shopping bag which contained the whisky on the tarmac when I put everything else in the trunk -- AND I wouldn't have reversed over it.

Faith is available by the bucketfull. Justification for faith and knowledge, now -- that's a different kettle of fish.

Best,
DH

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

When it comes to religion and/or God, I don't even know if there is such a thing as agnosticism. Agnostics claim (and I used to identify myself as agnostic) that they just "don't know" or "can't know" if there is a God. Well, if you don't or can't know there is a god, you don't believe in God; therefore, you're an atheist.

[DocHeart]

When it comes to religion and/or God, I don't even know if there is such a thing as agnosticism. Agnostics claim (and I used to identify myself as agnostic) that they just "don't know" or "can't know" if there is a God. Well, if you don't or can't know there is a god, you don't believe in God; therefore, you're an atheist.

I can believe without knowing. I believe that I'm going to wake up tomorrow morning and eat the rest of that lovely Trikala sausage for breakfast, but my coronary artery might have different plans for this sultry August night.

Knowing, however -- THAT would be the sixty-four million dollar jackpot, ESPECIALLY when it comes to religion and/or God. What I am unable to do is to KNOW.

There are many cases (whenever I have to fly in bad weather, for instance) when I would LOVE for God to come out in any way he deems appropriate and convey to us the message that he's watching over us, and all tragedies and miseries on the planet are just steps to sunshine and apple pie.

So it's JUSTIFICATION that I'm lacking, and that hurts my belief. Give me a jolly good sign and I'll stop being an agnostic before you can say hallelujia.

Regards,
DH

[The Atheist]

I mean, science is all about *knowing*, right?

No, wrong. Science is all about testing, observation and repetition. Science doesn't interpret results, it just provides them.


In other words, am I justified in believing that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God does not exist? By all accounts, I must be -- otherwise I wouldn't have forgotten the shopping bag which contained the whisky on the tarmac when I put everything else in the trunk -- AND I wouldn't have reversed over it.

Wouldn't that prove there is a god? He's even making sure you don't drink too much.

:D

(Must be Allah!)


When it comes to religion and/or God, I don't even know if there is such a thing as agnosticism. Agnostics claim (and I used to identify myself as agnostic) that they just "don't know" or "can't know" if there is a God. Well, if you don't or can't know there is a god, you don't believe in God; therefore, you're an atheist.

Absolutely correct.


I can believe without knowing. I believe that I'm going to wake up tomorrow morning and eat the rest of that lovely Trikala sausage for breakfast, but my coronary artery might have different plans for this sultry August night.

Different kind of belief, really. One is based on that fact that you've woken up after every sleep so far.


So it's JUSTIFICATION that I'm lacking, and that hurts my belief. Give me a jolly good sign and I'll stop being an agnostic before you can say hallelujia.

:lol:

You're this guy! (http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheist-converts-after-mock-prayer-to-win-1m-lottery-is-answered-50600/)

[Varenne Rodin]

Belief without evidence requires a good deal of pretending, or delusion. It might make a person feel good, but if I tried to do it (and I have), it would make me feel like an empty, confused liar.

I'm atheist. I won't tell you there isn't any afterlife, even though I am skeptical, but I might say that there are as many possible afterlife situations as there are stars. It's very easy to think that the fictional works of human beings don't hold factual accounts of what goes on outside this reality.

If I have to pick a philosophy, it's to explore, and wait and see. "Know-it-all" believers seem like overly confident 8 year olds to me. They've got everything figured out and there is no room for other options. If you tell them there are other options, they will tell you that you're mean. There's no freedom in it. On the other hand, believers who are "confused" or "uncertain" of what they believe, are pretty near to being atheist. There is nothing wrong with being atheist, by the way. If a person admits to not knowing everything, then there's still lots to learn, and that's fun, right?

Lastly, why is a single god situation any more likely than a multi god system? They're both silly ideas to me, obviously, but how could it make sense for one guy to be running the whole show? It makes more sense to say a group of galactic nerds is playing Sim Universe.

I've been told that atheists have faith based belief systems, and that choosing to not believe is the same as being religious, that's not true but let's pretend for a moment that it is. It still wouldn't make the one God idea any more valid, and I am happy to choose "not god" because that idea just sucks, quite frankly. It's all judgment and grouchiness from a lonely, insecure punk deity. I would rather fantasize a faith in something much more complex and interesting. Not some ancient toga pansy who impregnates virgin girls, and has his magic son die, and let's his human "children" die horribly, and can't or won't talk, and sits in heaven while not controlling the gates, and casts pals he is grumpy with into fiery hell and etc. It's LAME. It's obviously so lame and it makes me want to puke.

We as humans, even our lunatics, can surely come up with a better story in this modern age. For now, I'll ride my atheist high. Color me unimpressed, Mr. Jesus Christ.

This is not directed at anyone here, so please don't take it personally. Well wishes. :)

[Buh4Bee]

"On the other hand, believers who are "confused" or "uncertain" of what they believe, are pretty near to being atheist."

I can agree with this statement. I don't fall into the category of confused or uncertain, but for me it is more like a rejection of faith. I just get sick and tired of it sometimes, so I struggle with it and go into an emotional overhaul. But this is not uncommon for religious people in my age range.

As for one God, I don't deny that there are other spiritual entities in existence, I just choose to worship one God, not a pantheon of gods.

As far as make blasphemous statements, you never know when the devil will show up.

[Varenne Rodin]

"On the other hand, believers who are "confused" or "uncertain" of what they believe, are pretty near to being atheist."

I can agree with this statement. I don't fall into the category of confused or uncertain, but for me it is more like a rejection of faith. I just get tired and sick of it sometimes, so I struggle with it and go into an emotional overhaul. But this is actually common for religious people in my age range anyway.

As for one God, I don't deny that there are other spiritual entities in existence, I just to worship one God, not a pantheon of gods.

As far as make blasphemous statements, you never know when the devil will show up.

That's very interesting, Jersea. I haven't encountered many Christians who allow for the possibility of more than one god. As for blasphemy bringing the devil for a visit, I'm unconcerned. I'm atheist. I don't believe in the devil. More importantly, I'm not afraid of any supernatural beasties. Not god. Not Satan. Why would god want me to fear him? Is he a monster? Why does he demand constant worship? Low self esteem? Why would the devil, who supposedly hates god, punish me for insulting god? Anyway, there's nothing worse for a god to do to me than plunking me down in this confusing existence with a bunch of zealots, racists, rapists, murderers, morons, cancers, and viruses. Nothing worse than eventual pain and death for every living thing, everyone I love.

That being said, I understand what it's like to hedge your bets. I used to do it. My mom is lovely and kind and full of grace and fear of god. I respect her right, and yours, to behave that way. It's just not for me and that's nothing to be sad about. :)

[cl154576]

Why would the devil, who supposedly hates god, punish me for insulting god?

I never considered that before ...

[Varenne Rodin]

I never considered that before ...

Aw. I love the rare occasion when I inspire new consideration! It's so rare because I'm very clumsy with expression. That makes me happy. Thank you, cl!

[tonywalt]

I suppose the above threads explain the reason why Evangelical Christianity is not marketed to the educated developed world as much.

It is a much easier sell to undeveloped, poor, and uneducated masses. Rich pickings there and I doubt the converts apply critical thought in any serious way to the whole process.

Having said that I am so uncomfortable saying I am an atheist. I did grow up in the christian church and do think there is a lot of wisdom in the books Proverbs and (the Gospels) Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So life is so bloody complex, I would like to think it came from Something. And I do want to believe in that thing, which I think is a good thing.

Two thoughts above 1. Marketing of Christianity 2. Hope for some sort of higher power.

Tony

[The Atheist]

I suppose the above threads explain the reason why Evangelical Christianity is not marketed to the educated developed world as much.

Actually, you'd be quite wrong.

It is heavily marketed in English-speaking countries, and US-style evangelicals are the fastest-growing religions in places like New Zealand and Australia.

Bizarrely, an anti-science church seems to have more, not less, appeal to those who were educated to know better.

[Vonny]

I suppose the above threads explain the reason why Evangelical Christianity is not marketed to the educated developed world as much.

It is a much easier sell to undeveloped, poor, and uneducated masses. Rich pickings there and I doubt the converts apply critical thought in any serious way to the whole process.

Having said that I am so uncomfortable saying I am an atheist. I did grow up in the christian church and do think there is a lot of wisdom in the books Proverbs and (the Gospels) Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So life is so bloody complex, I would like to think it came from Something. And I do want to believe in that thing, which I think is a good thing.

Two thoughts above 1. Marketing of Christianity 2. Hope for some sort of higher power.

Tony

This is exactly how I feel Tony. Sometimes I see the logic in atheism. But I just don't want to be an atheist. And I don't think it's possible for me. I can be an atheist for a few hours, and then I find myself slipping.

[tonywalt]

Actually, you'd be quite wrong.

It is heavily marketed in English-speaking countries, and US-style evangelicals are the fastest-growing religions in places like New Zealand and Australia.

Bizarrely, an anti-science church seems to have more, not less, appeal to those who were educated to know better.

I do not disagree, but when I go to places like Nigeria, the crowds are in a hysteria and in the 100,000 range and open air. It's not just the numbers, but the hysterics and dogmatism that scares me. But, yes I do see missionaries in Sweden and Poland and growth in those countries.

Also Brazil, massive hysterical crowds. Again, not just the numbers but the degree of the literal beliefs is magnified.

Do not get me wrong, I think missionaries did alot of practical good. I am not an Atheist, but I am openminded to those who are and can converse with them.

[Vonny]

I do not disagree, but when I go to places like Nigeria, the crowds are in a hysteria and in the 100,000 range and open air. It's not just the numbers, but the hysterics and dogmatism that scares me. But, yes I do see missionaries in Sweden and Poland and growth in those countries.

Also Brazil, massive hysterical crowds. Again, not just the numbers but the degree of the literal beliefs is magnified.

Do not get me wrong, I think missionaries did alot of practical good. I am not an Atheist, but I am openminded to those who are and can converse with them.

Yeah, me too, except I'm not sure if missionaries have done more good than harm. I believe in Jesus and that his message was inspired somehow, but the problem is we don't know exactly what he said. Some of the bible must be mistranslated and/or we're not able to understand it as it was intended.

[tonywalt]

Yeah, me too, except I'm not sure if missionaries have done more good than harm. I believe in Jesus and that his message was inspired somehow, but the problem is we don't know exactly what he said. Some of the bible must be mistranslated and/or we're not able to understand it as it was intended.

Vonny, agreed. Actually, it may do whomever more good than harm, as the teachings of Christ are altogether impressive. But, this is not the leaning of the modern evangelical church for the most part.

[The Atheist]

I do not disagree, but when I go to places like Nigeria, the crowds are in a hysteria and in the 100,000 range and open air. It's not just the numbers, but the hysterics and dogmatism that scares me.

Yes, I've seen them, too. I just think you were underestimating the efforts still being expended in developed nations.

I agree with you on the dogma as well. We do have some fairly useful historical examples of where that gets us.



Do not get me wrong, I think missionaries did alot of practical good. I am not an Atheist, but I am openminded to those who are and can converse with them.

Goodo!

As to missionaries, I think there are some that do good and some that do harm.

The recently heavily-awarded musical play The Book of Mormon is about just that subject. Brilliantly done, but highly blasphemous.

[Vonny]

Vonny, agreed. Actually, it may do whomever more good than harm, as the teachings of Christ are altogether impressive. But, this is not the leaning of the modern evangelical church for the most part.

Yes, you're right about the teachings of Christ.

The modern evangelical church - they see no point in simply feeding or clothing a person apart from saving their soul. It bothers me that they only have it in their hearts to feed someone if they can hand them a bible at the same time. They don't want to feed someone with the idea that perhaps they can still learn about Christ at a later time if that's what it takes, or if maybe they are going to be Buddhists. They figure that if a person's soul is going to hell for eternity there's no point in feeding them now - and they do some judgement in this area to decide who to feed or clothe. They do nothing from their own hearts, only what they think God wants them to do. They will extend themselves to a person in need, and then when they imagine that God is telling them that that person is "unsaved" they simply drop that person and move on to someone else.

In terms of the bible, it's not Jesus, but Paul and the Old Testament that are crazy making - well, not all, but some.