“See to believe” or “believe to see”?

Reflections for the Second Sunday of Easter: Acts 2:42-47, 1 Peter 1:3-9, John 20:19-3

Doubting Thomas, the skeptical disciple, the incredulous friend, the unbelieving apostle: these are some of the ‘not so merciful’ adjectives that we usually employ this Sunday of Divine Mercy to describe Thomas. On the other hand, Richard Dawkins, who is a staunch atheist, has a very different proposal: "Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists". (The Humanist, Feb 1997, pgs.26-29). So, who was Thomas? A failed apostle or a daring scientist?

Thomas wanted to see in order to believe. He refused secondary witnesses and insists, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands… I will not believe”. In a way, this is also the basic premise of science, logic and reason. As we are taught in our physics and chemistry laboratories, method in science necessitates three key steps: experiment first, observe next and then make inferences. The logic of Thomas is also the foundation of epistemology, rationality, deduction and empiricism. You have to see the evidence before you believe.

As Aristotle argues in the opening of Metaphysics, “For not only with a view to action, but even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer seeing to everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things.” The conviction that “seeing is believing” (βλέποντας πιστεύει) is not exclusive to the Greek civilization. Many ancient cultures and worldviews have held that seeing is knowing. Traditional Judeo-Christian understanding however, insists that to “see” is more than just to “look” or to “gaze”; to see the world is to be in it and to be of it; In short, it is to actively discern.

For centuries, science and religion have been portrayed as incompatible opposites or as enemies. However, the Church has long moved away from the radical opposition between faith and reason. Pope John Paul II begins his encyclical Fides et Ratio stating, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth”. Einstein wrote, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”. The Pope and the scientist seem to be on the same page here: Faith needs reason and reason needs faith.

If faith and reason are both helpful “wings” that elevate us to the truth, why would Jesus rebuke Thomas saying, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed”. Jesus is not reprehending Thomas here but inviting him to experience a different logic. While Thomas’ logic wanted to see in order to believe, Jesus invites him to believe so he may see. While his scientific logic wished for evidence, the logic of God invites him to the act of faith. Jesus extends a similar challenge to Martha at the entrance of the tomb of her dead brother Lazarus: "If you believe (step 1), you will see (step 2) the glory of God” (John 11:40).

Does this mean that the logic of God (believing to see) is incompatible with science's logic (seeing to believe)? No, this is one area where the ‘both/and’ approach can help us more than the ‘either/or’ method. Could we possibly accept these seemingly contradictory logics as complementary, each valid in its own respect? Gabriel Marcel’s distinction between problem and mystery can be helpful in this regard. He writes: “A problem is something which I meet, which I find complete before me, but which I can therefore lay siege to and reduce. But a mystery is something in which I myself am involved”.

Science deals with the problems of the physical world and uses its logic in seeking responses through its engagement with the natural world. Faith, on the other hand, deals with mysteries in which we are involved in, invested in, and implicated in. Responses to these mysteries are not so evident in the natural world and therefore require us to dare the act of faith and enter the logic of believing before seeing. Hebrews 11:1 says, “Now faith is a firm assurance of things hoped for, a demonstration of things not seen”. Seeing before believing does not make faith any less ‘credible’ than reason. Faith is not absurdity, credulity or naivety. Etymologically, the Hebrew word “faith” comes from Aman, which means firm, sure and certain. Faith does not deceive us (Romans 5:5) but as Peter asserts in the second reading, we are “safeguarded through faith”.

This is the journey of faith that Thomas undertakes in the Gospel today: from the logic of “seeing in order to believe” to the logic of “believing in order to see”. How many pictures of Thomas have you seen depicting him putting his finger into Jesus’ nail marks or putting his hand into his side? Observe carefully, however, John does not report Thomas doing it! What he does report is the faith summary of Thomas: “My Lord and my God!”, which according to many theologians, is the most significant and theologically rich statement of faith confessions in the Gospels. Raymond Brown remarks that there are only three passages in Scripture that indisputably call Jesus God, two of which are in John's Gospel, in the first verse and at the very end, in Thomas' confession (Jesus, God and Man, 1968). As the First reading insists, this faith strengthened the four pillars of the early Church: the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayer. May Thomas' conversion from "see to believe" logic to the biblical logic of "believe to see" continue to strengthen our collective faith journey.