which is which?

which really goes first???/

“TOO SEE IS TO BELIEVE!” or " TO BELIEVE IS TO SEE!"

It’s a matter of perspective, and thus relative to the person asking the question. Essentially, belief is a mental agreement to accept something, and thus the person in question must decide what their requirements for belief are.

I’m going to say, “To believe is to see!” :smiley:

A baby sees things before it believes or knows anything. Beliefs arrive subsequently…

Neither.

Believing is accepting something as true even though you do not see it to be true. Hence, it is something that you could not accept.

Too see something is essentially the same as knowing something. You cannot deny that it is true because you can plainly see that it is true. It is not possible that you not accept it.

If you can see that something is true, that means you can no longer believe it to be so. Certain knowledge takes the place of belief. As this is applied to the Catholic Faith which is something we believe in, we can only “have faith” and “believe” while we until we attain the Beatific Vision, at which point we will see the truth of the Faith and know it, no longer “believing.” This is why the theological virtues of Faith and Hope cannot exist among the saints, because both virtues involve something unseen.

If you are thinking about Christ’s exchange with the Apostle Thomas, I would suggest that seeing and believing have two different antecedents in Christ’s discourse. What is seen is a miracle, what is believed is Christ’s identity. Thus, blessed are they who believe me without having witnessed a miracle, etc. Having seen a miracle, however, does count as having “seen” the truth to which the miracle is evidence. Thus, having seen Christ’s resurrected body does not mean that the Apostles “saw” that Christ was/is God. It still required Faith and belief.

I think I agree with you completely here. “Not seeing is believing” is much truer (though of course, not everything unseen is believed … but whatever). If you “see,” that is generally meant that you “know.” Belief is accepting the existence of something but not knowing it. As soon as you know it, though, you no longer believe it … you know it (which is preferable). This is what Plato would say too.

Then you say this …

I think I agree with you here too. In fact, yes. Well said.

All I wanted to add then is what is “faith.” **Is faith the exact same thing as belief? ** Correct me someone if I’m wrong but I think faith is a combination of knowledge and belief. It has often been said that faith is a kind of shadowy knowledge. That is, it is partially revealed and partially hidden. That is, therefore, partially known and partially believed. The Catholic faith is a rich set of truths, and I suppose those with greater faith have more knowledge than belief while those with lesser faith have more belief than knowledge. Due to the richness of the deposit of faith, I suppose differing degrees like this would be possible. Right? Am I off my rocker here?

I think this is right because those with greater faith can be said to have greater knowledge of God. Right? Or no. Faith, as Augustine and Aquinas said, is definitely a kind of knowledge, correct me if I’m wrong. Protestants seem to equate faith with trust, but this, I think, is incorrect. Or is it just partially incorrect? Hmm.

Help me out here, though, someone. I need confirmation or correction.:wink:

You are right. I didn’t mean to equate Faith entirely with belief, but I can see that I gave that impression in my previous post. I also like the way you said that Faith is a mixture of knowledge and belief. It has the characteristic of certainty just as knowledge, yet its objective is unseen as in belief.

Faith is certainly a form of knowledge, but differs from knowledge as we generally experience it insofar as it does not proceed from reason alone, but is “known” by way of the authority and revelation of God.

For Protestants, at least in the tradition of Martin Luther, Faith is opposed to Reason, so it is indeed a kind of unreasoned trust. For Catholics, however, Faith is very much a reasonable prospect. Recognizing the harmony between Faith and Reason, we see that Reason in some way leads us to Faith and supports its conclusions.

Well, as far as my personal religious growth has gone, I can only speak for myself when I say “To Believe is to See” has always come first. I guess in a philosophical sense it would differ for the individuals considering it.
I have always understood my faith as something I can not prove per say, unless you consider answering questions about it after being educated on the theology behind it, but to really believe is to get beyond the basic desire I have of “proving” what is truth and believing in in despite not being able to see it. Looking at it this way has always made more sense, but again, it’s just what I like to do.

=azirtsed;5565092]which really goes first???/

“TOO SEE IS TO BELIEVE!” or " TO BELIEVE IS TO SEE!"


Here is what Jesus advises:

Mt. 14:28 "And Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, bid me come to you on the water.” He said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus; but when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, "Lord, save me."Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, “O man of little faith, why did you doubt?*”**

***Mt. 6:30 "But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O men of little faith?Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek all these things; and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well. ***

**Luke 17: 5"The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!” And the Lord said, “If you had faith as a grain of mustard seed, you could say to this sycamine tree, ‘Be rooted up, and be planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you.” **

Amen friend!

Yet, it is possible to believe in what one does not see.

Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy …

(1 Peter 1:8)

:slight_smile:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.