Seeing is believing?

[idav]

Normally for people seeing is believing but with religions we are asked to take a lot of things on faith including that certain texts are words from the source of existence.

Do people normally make an exception to the rule "seeing is believing" when it comes to god, religious texts, and religions? Why is that?

Science takes the principle seeing is believing to another level. They use observation as a key to understanding nature. It has been highly successful, so successful that many people start to question the need for faith all together.

Is "seeing is believing" enough or will there always be something right outside our grasp?

 

[bobhikes]

Everybody makes the exception of seeing is believing. We believe what we hear and read and thankfully most of it is good information. No one has a time machine that can go back in time or the time and knowledge to repeat all the necessary steps of an experiment or travel to remote location like the moon or mars.

We just set tolerances to our exceptions, if the several governments, books, scientists, teachers say it is so then it must be so. If governments, books, scientists and teachers have differing opinions then we will take sides.

There are those that will only except the truth if it is presented only before there eyes, generally we call these people insane.

 

[idav]

There are those that will only except the truth if it is presented only before there eyes, generally we call these people insane.

Lol, I thought they were called skeptics.

 

[sandandfoam]

I see God everywhere. Hence, for me, seeing is believing.
God is how I understand.

 

[sun rise]

Relying on "Seeing is believing" is demonstrably incorrect. Did you ever see the TV show "Brain Games"? It's trivially easy to fool people.

 

[sandandfoam]

Relying on "Seeing is believing" is demonstrably incorrect. Did you ever see the TV show "Brain Games"? It's trivially easy to fool people.

In my opinion thinking that the rabbit hole has a bottom is incorrect. 'Reality' is perhaps the greatest illusion of all imho.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

"Seeing is believing" doesn't represent science. It's nothing more than a folksy saying. With science, empiricism and predictable, repeatable results is believing. Some people don't need these things to believe. For them, blind faith and unsupported beliefs are fine.

 

[Nakosis]

Relying on "Seeing is believing" is demonstrably incorrect. Did you ever see the TV show "Brain Games"? It's trivially easy to fool people.

When means what? So our brain can be fooled.
Then how can we be certain of anything?

What do we rely on if we can't rely on our perception?

 

[ChristineES]

I think it would be more accurate to say "experience is believing". If I hear a song, then I know the song exists, but no one can see a song (they can see instruments and people singing). I won't even mention the blind.

I can't really see faith, but I can and have experienced it.

 

[sun rise]

In my opinion thinking that the rabbit hole has a bottom is incorrect. 'Reality' is perhaps the greatest illusion of all imho.

"Blindly" touching another part of the "elephant", I see it that way as well.

But on the other hand, St. Augustine referred to this issue

Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.

Peter Paul and Mary's "Unicorn Song" touched on this frame of reference.

Tricky question :yes:

 

[Nakosis]

Validation is believing.
How do you validate something? You do it by eliminating other possible causes.

Kind of difficult to do with spiritual experiences. You'd have to find a way to eliminate the mind as a possible cause of the experience.

Meditation attempts to eliminate the mind from your experience. Does it really do that?

 

[Whiterain]

There's nothing wrong with seeing is believing, you're not trying to be the fool getting had.
We're coming out of ages were belief in a omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient God was
nearly enforced and enforced brutally. My ideologies haven't really changed that much over
the last decade, since I started questioning it all. You must question the religious organization
since we can now. Everybody wanted the most powerful God and I think that bit of slander in
creating one may have happened. It was heresy punishable by death a short time ago just to
doubt any of it, the church doesn't seem to try and reflect back on these centuries of brutality,
over continually trying to just change their image from this view of ruthlessness.

I believe in God through experiences but it's not this God supposed to act on duties like people
want, this God does as he pleases and makes it difficult to talk about. People want this God
without ideology, personality, individuality or judgment that meets all needs and chooses all.

Jesus is the one routinely used to meet these needs and I don't hold him to these duties, either.

I think Jesus was talking to the Israeli followers he had, initially. I'm just going with the basics
of his campaign. I mean, from what I could understand he was leading a political campaign to
become King of Israel with a strong following. His miracles would no doubt be questioned but
after the centuries of enforcing belief in him questioning questioning his work is as outrageous.

With Christ not enough turns up at his trial, like the Virgin birth in particular. He would have been
cared for like a God and it just goes un-mentioned at his trial, as well as his miracles and his
following. You could assume he was had in the betrayal and his disappearance to trial and execution
went relatively quiet, until people found out. But then Rome tortured and persecuted his followers for
decades to centuries.



The history of Mankind

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Seeing is believing doesn't work. In some cases, two people can look at the same thing and see two different things.

I believe that the universe's consciousness, as well as its oneness, is revealed through how things go. Unfortunately, it is not as obvious as it seems to me for some people

 

[dawny0826]

Normally for people seeing is believing but with religions we are asked to take a lot of things on faith including that certain texts are words from the source of existence.

Do people normally make an exception to the rule "seeing is believing" when it comes to god, religious texts, and religions? Why is that?

Science takes the principle seeing is believing to another level. They use observation as a key to understanding nature. It has been highly successful, so successful that many people start to question the need for faith all together.

Is "seeing is believing" enough or will there always be something right outside our grasp?

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't be a Christian if I hadn't "seen" my God through the works of others and through His presence within me and around me. I believe because I've seen and felt my God.

Faith is as much steadfastness and trust as it is believing in something that you can't see.

We all have faith to a degree. We should all grasp the concept of believing in something that we cannot see. Outcomes, for instance. You can hypothesize an outcome and assume an outcome based upon presented facts and suggestions, but, outcomes can surprise.

Most of us assume when we leave the house in the morning that we'll be returning home in the evening to retire to start anew. That's a type of faith. Most tragedy or deviation from our assumed path comes as surprise.

There's always something outside of our grasp - something outside of our expectations and assumptions.

 

[Desert Snake]

One persons proof is another persons not-proof.
'Seeing is believing' in the religious sense isn't clear. It depends on what or who one is worshipping etc.

 

[Whiterain]

Seeing is believing doesn't work. In some cases, two people can look at the same thing and see two different things.

I believe that the universe's consciousness, as well as its oneness, is revealed through how things go. Unfortunately, it is not as obvious as it seems to me for some people

The challenge for me is trying not to make the irrational rational.

I do not believe the universe has a consciousness itself or the idea of oneness, while
there may be a supreme being - not necessarily the universe itself. The idea of oneness
may descend from that teaching that our immortal soul is of God/s.

While our soul is of God, in most dogma, and can be absorbed into the God head. (?) That's some zionist mumbo jumbo...

Your soul is of God in many teaching.. Not something you may be alone born with.

As far as seeing is believing, I mean it in a sense of trying not to convince someone
on word alone. It's something they would need to experience themselves, not necessarily
looking at the same thing from different perspectives, that's what debate and conversation is for.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

The challenge for me is trying not to make the irrational rational.

I'm convinced that there is a point in the chain of cause and effect where the rational derives from something irrational. In other words, chaos.

I do not believe the universe has a consciousness itself or the idea of oneness, while
there may be a supreme being - not necessarily the universe itself. The idea of oneness
may descend from that teaching that our immortal soul is of God/s.

If God is truly separate from the universe, then there is something greater than him: A single categorization of both the universe & God.

While our soul is of God, in most dogma, and can be absorbed into the God head. (?) That's some zionist mumbo jumbo...

Your soul is of God in many teaching.. Not something you may be alone born with.

As far as seeing is believing, I mean it in a sense of trying not to convince someone
on word alone. It's something they would need to experience themselves, not necessarily
looking at the same thing from different perspectives, that's what debate and conversation is for.

That makes sense. It definitely is way more reliable than taking someone's word for it.

Perhaps instead of "Something they would need to experience themselves", the better path is to experience themselves.

 

[Thief]

Magicians play on the fault of vision....and make a living doing so.
They don't believe what they see.

The Carpenter did warn....a wicked generation would ask for a sign.

I suppose it was courtesy that prompted the miracles He did.
and changing water to wine appeared to be a moment of irritation as it was His own mother pointing out the lack of 'spirits'.

 

[idav]

Magicians play on the fault of vision....and make a living doing so.
They don't believe what they see.

The Carpenter did warn....a wicked generation would ask for a sign.

I suppose it was courtesy that prompted the miracles He did.
and changing water to wine appeared to be a moment of irritation as it was His own mother pointing out the lack of 'spirits'.

You reminded me about the doubting thomas, he had to see it and that wasnt enough, he had to physically touch it.