Can we really call it 'belief' anymore?

Well, hello again

The typical Atheist slap : I will believe in God when I see him.

I've been wandering, how exactly is there any room for belief or disbelief once something is established to be real?

If God happened to show itself, then how can you call that belief anymore if you saw him?

I don't know if so far from what I have said whether anyone has understood my point?

If you have understood my point, then stop reading this, answer me.

If you haven't understood my point, let me explain a little more.

There is a store which has security cameras installed (CCTV) and records a man stealing a drink. A man, not necessarily the same man, is accused of the crime and is taken to court. You as the jury, need to make a decision as to whether the man who is accused did in fact commit the crime.

While the trial is going on, you come to a decision, however, you are not 100% sure. Footage is then played latter on and it becomes apparent that the accused is not the man in the video and he is set free. After you have seen the video, there is no chance, no possibility whatsoever that anyone will hold the man accountable because there is evidence showing another man committing the crime.

So basically, you have no choice in concluding that the accused is innocent because once you saw the video you know you can't go against the evidence no matter how much you want to.

So now if God was to show up, we would have no choice in believing or disbelieving because you can't go against the fact that God exists once he shows up.

In Islam, we have this thing where faith and evidence work together and individually the one is dependent on the other. So the more you have of faith (which is the first step/phase) the more you have of evidence (the second step/phase).

I know some of you are going to just dismiss that last sentence without giving it any thought, so let me remind you to give it a good deep thought of what it means before you work your way into pointing out it's "apparent" flaw in reasoning.

Atheists in general, want to see the evidence of God, however, ask yourself, which God is it that you want to see?
In Islam, we believe that Adam peace be upon him was the first man and Prophet and thus, God always existed in this world. Latter on, through deviation, corruption, ignorance, lack of understanding and misinterpretation, new concepts came out, which I will give an easy to remember name, the evolution of religion. Basically over time through little changes there came to exist all these religions which we see now.

Sorry for the long post, but any thoughts?

eselam said:

Well, hello again

The typical Atheist slap : I will believe in God when I see him.

I've been wandering, how exactly is there any room for belief or disbelief once something is established to be real?

Click to expand...

I think you're confusing "faith" and "belief". Belief simply means "to hold something as being true", regardless of certainty. Both "there is a God" and "there is a chair in my living room" are beliefs in that they are both positions the speaker apparently claims to be true, but they have very different rationalizations and means of reaching their respective conclusions.

In other words, everything that we hold to be true could be said to be a "belief", but not all beliefs are equally plausible or rational.

eselam said:

If God happened to show itself, then how can you call that belief anymore if you saw him?

Click to expand...

Because we would then believe God existed.

eselam said:

There is a store which has security cameras installed (CCTV) and records a man stealing a drink. A man, not necessarily the same man, is accused of the crime and is taken to court. You as the jury, need to make a decision as to whether the man who is accused did in fact commit the crime.

While the trial is going on, you come to a decision, however, you are not 100% sure. Footage is then played latter on and it becomes apparent that the accused is not the man in the video and he is set free. After you have seen the video, there is no chance, no possibility whatsoever that anyone will hold the man accountable because there is evidence showing another man committing the crime.

So basically, you have no choice in concluding that the accused is innocent because once you saw the video you know you can't go against the evidence no matter how much you want to.

So now if God was to show up, we would have no choice in believing or disbelieving because you can't go against the fact that God exists once he shows up.

In Islam, we have this thing where faith and evidence work together and individually the one is dependent on the other. So the more you have of faith (which is the first step/phase) the more you have of evidence (the second step/phase).

Click to expand...

Then the two positions are contradictory. If there is evidence, you do not need faith.

eselam said:

I know some of you are going to just dismiss that last sentence without giving it any thought, so let me remind you to give it a good deep thought of what it means before you work your way into pointing out it's "apparent" flaw in reasoning.

Click to expand...

I already have thought about the notion of faith for years. I've given it sufficient thought to reach the above conclusion.

eselam said:

Atheists in general, want to see the evidence of God, however, ask yourself, which God is it that you believe in?

Click to expand...

None, obviously.

"In Islam, we have this thing where faith and evidence work together and individually the one is dependent on the other. So the more you have of faith (which is the first step/phase) the more you have of evidence (the second step/phase)."

I like that! Faith then evidence.. I was stumbling around and found the following which seems to imply the evidence was there already:

"They clamour for guidance, although the standards of Him Who guideth all things are already hoisted. They cleave to the obscure intricacies of knowledge, when He, Who is the Object of all knowledge, shineth as the sun. They see the sun with their own eyes, and yet question that brilliant Orb as to the proof of its light. They behold the vernal showers descending upon them, and yet seek an evidence of that bounty. The proof of the sun is the light thereof, which shineth and envelopeth all things. The evidence of the shower is the bounty thereof, which reneweth and investeth the world with the mantle of life. Yea, the blind can perceive naught from the sun except its heat, and the arid soil hath no share of the showers of mercy. "Marvel not if in the Qur'án the unbeliever perceiveth naught but the trace of letters, for in the sun, the blind findeth naught but heat."

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 207)

It's also I think so individual ..that is it is difficult to make geeralized statements about belief and disbelief since they can be unique for each of us.

I agree, if something is objectively demonstrated by evidence, then it is not a matter of "belief" anymore. I don't choose to believe that the Sun exists -- I simply see it every day, and I have no choice but to conclude it must be there.

What you are arguing was also famously argued by the Christian apologist St. Augustine, I believe. He said "believe in order to understand". That is, if you have faith without evidence, then you will eventually be able to see the evidence to reinforce your faith.

The problem with this argument is that when people put their faith in something--anything--and search for evidence to affirm that faith, they usually find the evidence they are searching for. For example, after much soul-searching and studying scripture, and studying medicine and life and death, the American geneticist Francis Collins went on a hike to try to clear his mind and decide whether Christianity was true or not. During the hike he came upon a beautiful, three-pronged frozen waterfall. He involuntarily fell to his knees and wept at the sight of it, and he knew then that the doctrine of the trinity was true (God as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). In other words, Francis Collins, like you, adopted the strategy of having faith (the first step) and perceiving evidence as a result (the second step). And yet Francis Collins and you perceive contradictory evidence. Clearly, this method of obtaining evidence is unreliable, since it depends on the observer.

ImmortalFlame said:

I think you're confusing "faith" and "belief". Belief simply means "to hold something as being true", regardless of certainty. Both "there is a God" and "there is a chair in my living room" are beliefs in that they are both positions the speaker apparently claims to be true, but they have very different rationalizations and means of reaching their respective conclusions.

Click to expand...

I fail to understand your point and reasoning. I agree that belief means to hold something as being true, this applies to things which haven't been established concretely.

For example, I believe that I will be a father. If I am not a father yet, while I am a married male, then to say I believe I will be a father is correct in this case. But once I do become a father, then I am a father, it is an established reality and therefore there is choice in believing that you are a father or that you aren't because you are.

So in the same way, once we see God, we have no choice in believing him and instead we are forced to accept him. You can't go around saying I believe in God if you have seen that God is real.

In other words, everything that we hold to be true could be said to be a "belief", but not all beliefs are equally plausible or rational.

Click to expand...

I agree that not all beliefs are equally plausible, 2 married men could say that they believe they will become fathers one day and one ends up dying before that happens while the other lives to become one.

Because we would then believe God existed.

Click to expand...

You would have no choice but to believe/accept that he existed.

Then the two positions are contradictory. If there is evidence, you do not need faith.

Click to expand...

No they aren't. If it was so, then why would scientists waste time in doing research and experimentation if what they came up with initially 'works' in their head?

What is referred to evidence here is exactly the same as the evidence that a man has of becoming a father. If he is married and his wife is pregnant then it is contradictory for him to say that he believes he will become a father since there is evidence to suggest that he will.

I already have thought about the notion of faith for years. I've given it sufficient thought to reach the above conclusion.

Click to expand...

It doesn't seem like you came to the right conclusion.

None, obviously.

Click to expand...

I meant to ask which God do you want to see. It is obvious through lack of faith that Atheists don't believe in any God.

Belief is simply accepting the truth of a proposition; it is quite distinct from faith. I believe in gravity as well as God.

eselam said:

I fail to understand your point and reasoning. I agree that belief means to hold something as being true, this applies to things which haven't been established concretely.

For example, I believe that I will be a father. If I am not a father yet, while I am a married male, then to say I believe I will be a father is correct in this case. But once I do become a father, then I am a father, it is an established reality and therefore there is choice in believing that you are a father or that you aren't because you are.

Click to expand...

That's demonstrably false because it is possible to be a father while simultaneously believing you aren't. Just because something is true doesn't mean you believe it, and just because you believe something doesn't mean it is true.

eselam said:

So in the same way, once we see God, we have no choice in believing him and instead we are forced to accept him. You can't go around saying I believe in God if you have seen that God is real.

Click to expand...

Yes you could. People do it all the time, including you.

eselam said:

You would have no choice but to believe/accept that he existed.

Click to expand...

Actually, there is still a choice. People can still deny or choose not to accept something. There are people in the world who, in spite of being shown the evidence, continue to believe the world is flat.

eselam said:

No they aren't. If it was so, then why would scientists waste time in doing research and experimentation if what they came up with initially 'works' in their head?

Click to expand...

What does that have to do with what I said?

eselam said:

What is referred to evidence here is exactly the same as the evidence that a man has of becoming a father. If he is married and his wife is pregnant then it is contradictory for him to say that he believes he will become a father since there is evidence to suggest that he will.

Click to expand...

Again, I fail to see what this has to do with what I said. Faith is when you believe something in spite of a lack of evidence or in spite of the fact that evidence contradicts it. If you have evidence, then faith is not required since you can base your conclusion on that evidence. Using your analogy, that man bases his belief that he will become a father on the evidence. If there was no evidence whatsoever of his going to become a father, he would either not believe as such or he would be believing on the basis of faith.

eselam said:

It doesn't seem like you came to the right conclusion.

Click to expand...

Then what is the "right conclusion" and how did you determine it? I'm honestly having a lot of difficulty understanding your arguments.

eselam said:

I meant to ask which God do you want to see. It is obvious through lack of faith that Atheists don't believe in any God.

Click to expand...

Then you should understand that asking such a question of an atheist is meaningless. I don't "want to see" any particular God. Whatever God there is sufficient, rational justification to believe in is whatever God I would then believe in.

Storm said:

Belief is simply accepting the truth of a proposition; it is quite distinct from faith. I believe in gravity as well as God.

Click to expand...

But gravity you can test, God you can't.

Gravity is an established fact which has been proven/shown and therefore you cannot deny it.

If God appeared and we saw him, his existence would be an established fact and as a result you can't deny him. Now though, you can because the first requirement (faith) must be established in our hearts and mind just as gravity.

eselam said:

But gravity you can test, God you can't.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the definition of "belief"

Gravity is an established fact which has been proven/shown and therefore you cannot deny it.

If God appeared and we saw him, his existence would be an established fact and as a result you can't deny him. Now though, you can because the first requirement (faith) must be established in our hearts and mind just as gravity.

Click to expand...

Which is why "belief" is not necessarily "faith."

From Dictionary.com:
verb (used with object) 2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.

3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).

4. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.

5. to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.

eselam said:

In Islam, we have this thing where faith and evidence work together and individually the one is dependent on the other. So the more you have of faith (which is the first step/phase) the more you have of evidence (the second step/phase).

Click to expand...

This is a horrible reason to believe something. If you want to believe something is true, you will find evidence for it. It doesn't matter what it is or how blatantly false it is. If you want to believe it, you will. That doesn't mean it is true, that just means you have ignored all the evidence against it and "cherry picked" what supported your beliefs. Its possible your belief is true, but that isn't because your methods for deducing truth were outstanding, it was just dumb-luck. You just so happened to pick something that was actually true when you carelessly assumed it was true for no reason.

However, if you at first assume something is false, and then look for all the evidence, the truth will come out. Unless you just straight-up lie to yourself. You don't have to assume anything beforehand. Don't look for proof of a particular belief, just look for the truth. If you just look for truth, whatever it may be, you will only find the truth. If god is true, and I look for truth, I should find god right? What does your religion have to hide that it needs me to believe in god first and then look for evidence of it? That sounds like a con job to me.

You can call that belief, sure. You can believe truth, I think you are confusing belief and faith (as said). If we know facts we can believe them without faith. I do not fit your stereotype of an atheist. If God exists I doubt we will see him / her / it. However, we should see God's influence, God's mark on reality. I would believe in God if the evidence and logical inference suggested one exists, but I have not seen such things provided.

I didn't notice the claim that faith precedes evidence at first. Maybe my brain just refused to process it. You are never going to get anywhere with such a thought.

When there exist multiple options that one could conceivably put faith in, I don't see any value in faith.

eselam said:

Atheists in general, want to see the evidence of God, however, ask yourself, which God is it that you want to see?

Click to expand...

I don't particularly want anything of the sort.

With regards to theism, people come up with all sorts of claims, and I poke them to see if there's any reason to believe they are true.

eselam said:

In Islam, we have this thing where faith and evidence work together and individually the one is dependent on the other.

Click to expand...

:faint:

eselam said:

So the more you have of faith (which is the first step/phase) the more you have of evidence (the second step/phase).

Click to expand...

:redcard:

eselam said:

But gravity you can test, God you can't.

Gravity is an established fact which has been proven/shown and therefore you cannot deny it.

If God appeared and we saw him, his existence would be an established fact and as a result you can't deny him. Now though, you can because the first requirement (faith) must be established in our hearts and mind just as gravity.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... there are probably ways people have tried to "test" God and some examples you may have found in the history of religion as in the Bible and Qur'an...

The wording might be different...such as

4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

(King James Bible, Matthew)

Usually the temptation or testing is within ourselves as in:

Cleanse from your hearts the love of worldly things, from your tongues every remembrance except His remembrance, from your entire being whatsoever may deter you from beholding His face, or may tempt you to follow the promptings of your evil and corrupt inclinations. Let God be your fear, O people, and be ye of them that tread the path of righteousness.

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 275)

esalam wrote above:

"If God appeared and we saw him, his existence would be an established fact "

God does not incarnate Himself in a body at least not for Muslims or Baha'is. In the Baha'i Writings God can manifest Himself however through a Messenger and we can read His revealed words and see the effect of actions inspired by those words. So there is a way I think to evaluate and weigh a Prophet or Messenger.

I would suggest that I agree that both faith and evidence are important, however having a lot of faith does not constitute evidence in the same way that having more evidence does not necessarily mean you will have more faith (though this is more likely).

However, I do not believe in the capacity for proof of God (I do not believe it is possible to ascertain the truth of 'revelation', to authenticate it's origins) nor indeed the proof in the lack of God (most such concepts are inherently unfalsifiable). Were such an entity to show up, I would simply believe it had a greater grasp of the natural laws than me and access to technology beyond my understanding, or, that I was delusional. For this reason such a being showing up would not constitute proof.

Rather than proof I consider the best one can hope for is to gather evidence from our surroundings and from that evidence identify explanations (include those that exist within various theological texts) that explain that evidence... As to which of the various explanations you use to account for that... well I have my own personal opinions, however I believe that any explanation which can incorporate the evidence (without rejecting or discounting contrary evidence) is valid... even if the interpretation used to obtain that explanation is metaphorical.

eselam said:

Well, hello again

The typical Atheist slap : I will believe in God when I see him.
.....
Sorry for the long post, but any thoughts?

Click to expand...

The typical 'ist' of any kind whatsoever - "I will see it when I believe it"

Haven't you noticed,eselam, that people of every kind of religious belief (or any kind of belief) get the same result ? They see 'evidence' !

Seriously, stop, take a deep breath and ask yourself if this is true or not.

If you are honest, you will acknowledge that what you are suggesting is true of any variety of belief.

You are not clearly seeing that the human mind is made a certain way. Of course you see 'evidence' for a belief - that is the nature of belief !

Beliefs are shared in communities and bond people. The bonding is the crucial issue, not the belief. This is not a problem if you stay within one community, or if that community does not need to relate to other communities with different beliefs (which they see evidence for, of course).

You need to investigate the effects of belief on perception to understand this; you also need to understand the fact that pack-bonding animals have bonding rituals. For humans, that involves our minds and our view of the universe.

I know you don't 'believe' that humans are a kind of animal, and that is why you can't see the evidence of what I am talking about.

eselam said:

I've been wandering, how exactly is there any room for belief or disbelief once something is established to be real?

Click to expand...

I believe my little 5yo daughter is real, but I do not always believe what she tells me. Belief in someone entails much more than merely knowing they are real.

apophenia said:

Beliefs are shared in communities and bond people. The bonding is the crucial issue, not the belief.

Click to expand...

some beliefs are better at forming bonds than others... A community of isolationists who all hold the same belief of isolationism will not bond with one another.

freethinker44 said:

Originally Posted by eselam
In Islam, we have this thing where faith and evidence work together and individually the one is dependent on the other. So the more you have of faith (which is the first step/phase) the more you have of evidence (the second step/phase).

Click to expand...

This is a horrible reason to believe something. If you want to believe something is true, you will find evidence for it. It doesn't matter what it is or how blatantly false it is. If you want to believe it, you will.

Click to expand...

"If you want to believe it, you will" - this statement applies to both religious and non-religious people equally.