Can we really call it 'belief' anymore?

Gharib · Jun 15, 2012

arthra 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)."

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, the Qur'an does mention many times that there are evidence but just as the sun is only a source of heat for the blind so too are those miracles just a story to many people.

Gharib · Jun 15, 2012

Mr Spinkles said:
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.

Frubal for not trying to take me into circles and for accepting/seeing that.

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.

I didn't know that, but I agree with him. That's how many things work. (even those which have nothing to do with religion)

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.

Some evidence is personal and does depend solely on the observer and good example too.

But not all evidence is isolated to only one person. In Islam, the Prophets peace be upon them, all performed miracles with the permission of God to show the people that they are speaking the truth. Some of this evidence in the form of miracles requires scientific research, historical research etc. I will mention 1 such example.

When Moses peace be upon him led his followers away from Egypt, it is said that he opened the sea with the permission of God and the people walked on the sea bed and got across to the other side. The Pharaoh chased them and when Moses and the people crossed, the sea collapsed back in and the Pharaoh drowned in it. The OT and the Qur'an mention this event.

Some time in the last century, the body of a mummified Pharaoh was analysed in France and the scientists came to the conclusion that the body had been drowned in salty water due to the salt particles which were found inside the body. The body had been recovered but it was too late and the Pharaoh had died.

The man at the head of this research accepted this as evidence and became a Muslim.

Are you going to call this example an unreliable method of obtaining evidence which depends on the observer?

Gharib · Jun 15, 2012

I want to mention that some of you are focusing too much on the meaning of the words and not on the examples. Faith and Belief have different meanings, we know that. If you don't get the bigger picture don't respond immediately and wait for some more posts until more information is provided. But if you do get the bigger picture but like to go in circles then please don't.

9Westy9 · Jun 15, 2012

eselam said:
Well, hello again

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

Is the atheist being logical really facepalm inducing?

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

There isn't. If you can establish something as true it become knowledge.

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

I need to call it belief? I'd just say "I know God exists"

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.

Agreed (not sure why you needed the CCTV analogy though)

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).

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?

I want to see the God that exists. Shame I haven't seen him yet. Also I prefer to look at the evidence before I choose a faith. If you don't like that then tough

freethinker44 · Jun 15, 2012

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

Right, it applies to any living animal that can think. We are not talking about every other living thing though, we are talking about the original post. Why would I focus on any other belief other than what fits the context of the OP?

I realize I made a point about his religious beliefs that also apply to yours, and you were making sure that I knew it applied to mine as well, and you were trying to gain some ground by shifting what you perceive to be a negative statement I made towards his beliefs to my own beliefs as well. However, I don't consider that statement to be negative at all. It may have a negative effect on religious beliefs, but I use it as a tool to filter my ideology from what I want to believe and what is actually true.

839311 · Jun 15, 2012

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).

This warrants another admonition. This is perhaps the worst violation of reason I have yet to see in my entire life. Maybe there have been worse ones, I don't know, but I can't think of any. I find this overwhelmingly offensive to rationality and logic. Unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

:redcard:

You should be suspended from the forums for writing something like that. I was trying to fall asleep yesterday with this absurd nonsense plaguing my thoughts.

:slap:

waitasec · Jun 15, 2012

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?

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?

i think you created your own strawman...

i'll know there is a god when i see one.

Mr Spinkles · Jun 15, 2012

eselam said:
Some time in the last century, the body of a mummified Pharaoh was analysed in France and the scientists came to the conclusion that the body had been drowned in salty water due to the salt particles which were found inside the body. The body had been recovered but it was too late and the Pharaoh had died.

The man at the head of this research accepted this as evidence and became a Muslim.

Are you going to call this example an unreliable method of obtaining evidence which depends on the observer?

This article by the Egyptologist Zahi Hawass shows that these claims are false.

In fact, this is a great example of how faith leads to false beliefs. (1) People have faith that Ramses II is the Pharoah from the story in the OT and Qu'ran. (2) They interpret ordinary things like the presence of salt in a mummy as evidence for their faith. And, additionally, (3) false rumors are added which are accepted uncritically and spread on the Internet, because they support the faith.

It's interesting, too, that this evidence would cause a person to become Muslim. Why not Jewish or Christian? The story that the French scientist converted to Islam is probably untrue, like other elements of the story, but it was accepted as true without question and spread on the Internet because it confirms Muslims' faith.

Like I said, search for evidence to back up your faith and you will find it, whether that evidence is sound or not. The scientific method is to search for evidence against your beliefs, and to examine every alternative possibility, not just the possibility you want to be true.

1137 · Jun 15, 2012

839311 said:
This warrants another admonition. This is perhaps the worst violation of reason I have yet to see in my entire life. Maybe there have been worse ones, I don't know, but I can't think of any. I find this overwhelmingly offensive to rationality and logic. Unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

:redcard:

You should be suspended from the forums for writing something like that. I was trying to fall asleep yesterday with this absurd nonsense plaguing my thoughts.

:slap:

I agree. I honestly told three buddies of mine, one with a PhD in philosophy about this, and they were highly offended. As I pointed out my mind shut it out the first time I read the OP. If there is a God, it is responsible for humans having such intelligence, self identity, the ability to problem solve and think rationally. If God exists the OP pretty much rejected God's greatest gift and slapped him in the face.

McBell · Jun 15, 2012

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

Like those who "disbelieve" evolution?

arthra · Jun 15, 2012

I think people sometimes want to believe something and don't investigate for themselves or it is important to them to get credit for discovering something like the ark of the covenant or the Noah's ark or whatever and they want it to be true so much they dismiss evidence... Same is true I think about the Shroud of Turin.

The article cited above has the following:

"Being that this mummy did not require any treatment, the real reason behind their request lay in their search for the Pharaoh of the biblical Exodus whom they believed to be Ramses II, .."

"...whom they believed to be..."

Al-Ahram Weekly | Heritage | The Mummy of the Pharaoh of Moses

The Qur'an really doesn't identify the Pharoah..

And remember when we rescued you for the people of Pharoah, who had laid
on you a cruel chastisement. They slew your male children, and let only your
females live: and in this was a great trial from your Lord:
And when we parted the sea for you, and saved you, and drowned the
people of Pharoah, while ye were looking on:

(The Qur'an (Rodwell tr), Sura 2 - The Cow)

and neither does the Bible..See

Which Pharaoh was in power at the time of Moses

Baha'is are not really involved in this particular issue either.

How I see the statement above is that if one has some faith (maybe the word could be a hypothesis) that confirmations can follow..this may apply more to one's inner life. If you don't look for something you probably won't find it.. If you have blinders over your eyes and are so certain you are right that's when you could be missing some things.

Also I believe our minds can make connections that are not necessarily verifiable or warranted..even "seeing" can be deceiving... a lot of the shows lately on the History Channel are to me based on unwarranted assumptions...

Kerr · Jun 16, 2012

Mestemia said:
Like those who "disbelieve" evolution?

Or those who "disbelieve" gravity.

Gharib · Jun 16, 2012

Mr Spinkles said:
This article by the Egyptologist Zahi Hawass shows that these claims are false.

In fact, this is a great example of how faith leads to false beliefs. (1) People have faith that Ramses II is the Pharoah from the story in the OT and Qu'ran. (2) They interpret ordinary things like the presence of salt in a mummy as evidence for their faith. And, additionally, (3) false rumors are added which are accepted uncritically and spread on the Internet, because they support the faith.

It's interesting, too, that this evidence would cause a person to become Muslim. Why not Jewish or Christian? The story that the French scientist converted to Islam is probably untrue, like other elements of the story, but it was accepted as true without question and spread on the Internet because it confirms Muslims' faith.

Like I said, search for evidence to back up your faith and you will find it, whether that evidence is sound or not. The scientific method is to search for evidence against your beliefs, and to examine every alternative possibility, not just the possibility you want to be true.

I will get to this post again and reply in detail, but in the mean time due to other posts which I need to reply in limited time, can you find me another source which holds the same views? (But not the same person)

PolyHedral · Jun 16, 2012

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

There are lots of things I want to believe, but don't.

Gharib · Jun 16, 2012

ImmortalFlame said:
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.

Everyone else has accepted my reasoning while you don't. Why?

If you do not believe something which is true, then there is something wrong such a person. You can't accuse an innocent man whose innocence was proven to be guilty of the crime which he was cleared of. Sorry, it just doesn't make sense.

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

I don't get this?

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.

No one believes that the world is flat. OK maybe Christians

What does that have to do with what I said?

I don't really remember what I was getting at with what I said, I'm lost now.

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.

Which is exactly what I am saying. God (as Islam teaches) is supposed to be about belief, hence my statement, first you require belief/faith then you require the evidence. (I will later explain this statement further, it is not so black and white as it appears.) So if God did show up at the request of Atheists, then God would be an established fact that he exists, thus there is no faith, no belief and no choice, you must accept that God exists, you are forced to.

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

You said that evidence doesn't require faith/belief. While I say that first you need to have faith and then you will see the evidence. Your conclusion in this matter is wrong because you are required to have faith in order to see the evidence. Just as you won't know how effective a cure is until you apply it/try it. So as I said, you need faith, the more you have of faith, the more you have of evidence. I think I really need to explain this statement before I go on any further, I can understand that it is difficult to understand what exactly I mean.

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.

I will leave this for now. I'll get back to it. If I forget please remind me.

Gharib · Jun 16, 2012

My apologies to everyone for not being able to respond to all the posts, I am becoming busy with my religious studies and I can only reply when I have some free time.

crocusj · Jun 16, 2012

eselam said:
I didn't know that, but I agree with him. That's how many things work. (even those which have nothing to do with religion)

With regard to St Augustine. He also said that if science and reason indicated that a scripture was obviously errant then it should not be taken as literal and that other interpretations should be looked for. He did not accept the six days in Genesis as a physical passage of time, for example.

crocusj · Jun 16, 2012

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

Why would an atheist want to see a god of any kind? Asking for evidence is merely a reaction to a claim made, not a need in itself. If someone has lost their faith in a god then they might well be scambling about in search of evidence for this god but if someone does not believe then they are unlikely to be looking for any evidence at all. Why would they?

Mr Spinkles · Jun 16, 2012

eselam said:
I will get to this post again and reply in detail, but in the mean time due to other posts which I need to reply in limited time, can you find me another source which holds the same views? (But not the same person)

Okay. Here's a source which confirms that salt is used in the mummification process:
British Museum - Linen bag of salt for mummification

dust1n · Jun 16, 2012

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).

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.

Apparent flaw in reasoning? It is a flaw of reasoning. It's called a confirmation bias.

This has been known before Islam or Christianity.

Tolstoy said:
I know that most men—not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever, and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic problems—can very seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as to oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty—conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives.

Can we really call it 'belief' anymore?

I want Khilafah back

I want Khilafah back

I want Khilafah back

Sceptic, Libertarian, Egalitarian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Mr

Here until I storm off again

Resident Sourpuss

Baha'i

Well-Known Member

I want Khilafah back

Superabacus Mystic

I want Khilafah back

I want Khilafah back

Active Member

Active Member

Mr

Zindīq