This study is based on two paradigms (belief and disbelief) and identify two different cognitive style (knowing and doubt) embedded in belief paradigm. If the individual preferred the belief paradigm, then he chooses to be a doubter (skeptic) or an undoubted believer (knowing). Individuals make their choices when they are still young, and then often confirm their choices throughout their lives.
Children under the age of 10 tend to believe in a supreme presence and intelligent design. They assume everything in the world is created for a purpose (Barrett, 2012). Later, people enter their youth by making a choice. Caldwell-Harris et. al. (2011) asked 42 atheists, “At what age did you come to the belief that God did not exist?” 42% of them stated, they converted before the age of 15. Vetter and Green (1931) found that 75% of the attendants had converted to atheism before 24. Seven of the eight atheists interviewed in this study stated that they were atheists before the age of 20. In the same breath, most of the skeptics involved in this study stated that they have been aware of their attitudes since an early age.
People also live for confirming their pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses, whether they are actually true or not (Scott, 1993; Nickerson, 1998; Oswald and Grosjean, 2004)Footnote 9. Human beings seem to have an infinite capacity to self-deception (Rambo, 1993). The certain believer confirms his certainity, an atheist confirms himself as a god and a skeptic confirms his doubt. It is noteworthy that Subject M23 presents material phenomenas as evidence of God’s existence while the same phenomenas would appear ordinary, even banal, to a skeptic or an atheist. This is self-validation from a knowing state of mind. Inteviewer: Do you believe by seeking evidence or without doing such verification? M23: … consider the mortality of humans … consider the greening of a tree. While there are such clear evidences, it is the weakness of faith still searches for that evidence. M23 is also aware of the skeptic or atheist state of mind. He still thinks that they cannot see the relation between the ordinary things and God. A skeptic confirms or denies his belief with his rational mind. Skeptic Subject M21 says, “As I can’t prove an abstract being through my limited rational mind, I have said to myself, ‘What happens if I believe? What happens if I don’t believe?’ I have rationally tried to juxtapose the advantages and disadvantages, then preferred to believe by arriving at the conclusion that believing is a more rational thing to do.”
Atheists inevitably become free from doubt; still, there could be skeptics among believers. Not to believe in God, is to believe in everythingFootnote 10; or not to believe in God, is being a ‘god’ in which the whole existence lies within his self. For an atheist, the sole reference point which he could prove the ‘existence’ by using it, is himself, and this individual cannot doubt his own existence while he doubts, as Descartes (2017) pointed out. According to belief-disbelief concept of this study, an atheist does not discuss the image of God. He has a new god and it is himself.Footnote 11
Atheist refers: ‘I’Footnote 12 decide if God exist. So, if ‘I’ decide, it should not exist. If the existence of something depends on my assumption, that thing cannot be transcendent than ‘I’. The atheist subject ‘M15’ says: “How come existence comes into being from nothing? … God is a possible explanation for this question, however there may be another explanation … For me, there is no difference between those two explanations.” On the other hand, skeptics (also believers) believe in the existence of some ‘Thing’ which transcends the individual-Self. This ‘Thing’ has to be transcendent than ‘I’ because ‘I’ wants to belong to a unity by disappearing in that ‘Thing’. ‘I’ do that by giving self-sacrifice. Martyrdom is a sacrifice, why would I do that? Sacrifice is an evidence that unification with the ‘Thing’ will not occur on a lateral space.
In the in-depth interviews with 275 natural and social scientists at 21 top U.S. research universities (Ecklund and Long, 2011), most of the interviewees who said they did not believe in God, also claimed they were spiritually oriented. These scientists reflected the following features in their speeches: (a) had an astonishment regarding the universe [Contrary to this view, Richard Dawkins (2005), as an atheist, bases the concept of ‘strangeness’ on the fact that our minds have not evolved with extremely rare or inaccessible phenomenona. He tries to explain that, the strangeness of something is the work of our position in the universe as opposed to emanating from the supremacy or inaccessibility of that thing.], (b) were angaged in an attempt to search for a meaning of the universe that transcends its image, (c) experienced a desire to belong to the integrity of the universe in a way that had not yet happened, and (d) possessed a desire to give to unpaid charity for society. Each of these orientations are reflections of the need to belong to a transcendent cause, and this makes it right for us to take these individuals into the dimension of doubt. From the perspective of the present study, most of them believe in God in some way.
If the individual ‘knows’ the God without any doubt, his case reflects C.G. Jung’s response to the speaker in the interview series named ‘Face to Face’ in 1959:
Speaker: Did you believe in God?
Jung: Oh yes.
Speaker: Do you now believe in God?
Jung: Now!? (..he thinks..) Difficult to answer. I know.. (he smiles) I don’t need to believe. I know.
Metaphorically, the one who falls into the pit of ‘knowing’ (see Fig. 1) is at the eye of a hurricane or at the bottom of a whirlpool. Just beyond the cognitive chaos that starts at the limen of the vortex, belongs an absolute certainty created by that chaos, wrapped by it, and has even become an inseparable element of it. These depictions also apply to atheists, except the notion of ‘insight’. Insight is used in this study closely with the notion of ‘knowing’. While ‘knowing’ expresses the situation, ‘insight’ expresses the ability to know. ‘Knowing’ is a supraliminal cognitive state. It arises from an expansion of the conscious-Ego carried towards the unconsciousness. This expansion creates its own footprint on the conscious. One dimension of this expansion should be related to the divine, according to Jung (2006, p. 215): God is always man-madeFootnote 13. Aforementioned footprint was named as ‘discernment’ in this study. This is called ‘feraset’ in Arabic and it means to be able to distinguish from right and wrong. This footprint, with Jung’s expression (2006), is similar to the wash ashore contents of the unconscious sea. Discernment is only an image of insight, and it constitutes a reference point for dogma’s accuracy. Those who have discernment, the knowing group, may transform the interpretation of the fundamental suppositions (dogma) of their dogmatic map, so that it matches the newly added scientific informations. They dare transform their dogma because they feel that the new interpretation is compatible with the wishes of God. However, the doubtful believers cannot perform this, or they show insufficient performance. M21, who is a clear skeptic, denies the supraliminal cognition by stating, “I believe that those who say that they would not seek any evidence while believing, have weaker faiths. I believe that such people are hypocrites. Doesn’t the Holly Qur’an say ‘Don’t you ever contemplate? Don’t you ever think?” But knowers like M2 reject this claim: “I have never been a person who needed evidence to have faith … I know the existence of God without any evidence.” Skeptics get their dogma from their traditions as believers do but they cannot confirm it in an intuitive way. When a confirmation needed, they prefer not to touch to culturally presented forms. Nevertheless, there are exceptions to be examined later.
The concept of ‘doubt’ refers to the cognitive preference by which a skeptic tries to prove his dogmaFootnote 14 by using his logical mind. However, the knowing individual accepts his dogma or the essence of it as it is, and basically attempts to prove his mind to his dogma. Skeptics may be contented to doubt the religious rules because they may not want to surrender to these rules when rules contradict with their desires. For example, the deist M53 was asked about the difference of God he believes from the God of theists. He said, “Let’s say that there are things the person wants to do, but according to God it is bad, there is a conflict, there should not be such.” These desires can be defined by the ‘Shadow’ in Jungian psychology, by ‘ID’ in Freudian psychology, by ‘nefs-i emmare’ in Islam mysticism or by ‘physical needs’ in terms of Maslow. In this case, a skeptic believes, but cannot be sure that ‘what he believes’ is ‘what he must believe’. When interviewer asked deist M53:”How did you get to this point?” M53 answers: “… I started to think that something divine should not be so controversial… If something (he means Qur’an) is universal … it should always be open and obvious.” A knower would answer M53 as follows: “Why do you trust your mind so much when judging the Qur’an?” Divine is complicated to M53 because, he doesn’t have a kind of meta-theory (insight) that helping him to choose the right theory among other alternatives or to make these possibilities consistent with each other.
Descartes (Popkin, 2003, p. 148) emphasizes the relation of doubt to belief and points out the ultimate doubt:
“Unless one were willing to pursue the possibility of raising doubts to the end, one could never hope to discover any truth untainted by doubt or uncertainty.”
According to Descartes, doubt is always about faith, even though strong skeptics may not be aware. So, when the individual reaches the end of doubt (Edge of Faith and Edge of Knowing, in Fig. 1), either finds a ‘god’ or a ‘God’.
The skeptic is certain of his reason because he may confirm it by his own suspicion, but the dogma is behind a curtain. As Legare et al. (2012) points out, this view is implied by the assumption that scientific explanations prevail against supernatural ones due to their superiority at providing empirically testable explanations. This certainty creates a gravitation pull that directs the skeptic to his mind, and this exertion of force has been identified as “The superiority of the rational mind to the suspected dogma” (see Fig. 2). A skeptic may not have a dogma to put his hearth and soul for the sake, but he still has the deepest need of humankind: to endeavor for the sake of a great cause. According to Maslow (1971) when other needs are satisfied, the individual connects his Ego to an entity that is greater than his being or beyond the material world. This fundamental need is deeply held; while other needs are still being felt and answered. If the skeptic has begun to feel the need of ‘burning out for a great cause’ sufficiently (see Fig. 2), he may begin to construct his personal dogmatic map in a way that confirms his dogma. Because, the dogma that was previously suspected is more valuable now. Thereby, a coherent dogmatic map would start to appear again, as it did for Subject F7: “I did not grow up in a family that fulfilled religious rituals… I have started reading the Qur’an when I became middle aged and I have started realizing that each one of the religious rituals had their own logic in terms of their personal and social outcomes.”
Dynamics of the dogmatic map
Dogmatic map consists of two parts: (a) Dogma and (b) Information Sets. There is also a (c) Deeper Dogma (see Table 1) which is not part of the dogmatic map, but its character (there is a God versus I am the god) and the relationship the believer establishes with it (I know the God versus I believe in God without knowing ItFootnote 15) affect the interaction between dogma and information sets.
In the case of knowers, deeper dogma serves as a reference point for which parts of dogma can be re-considered to adapt to the changes in the information set. In other respect, it also serves as a reference point for clarifying, which parts of the dogma are untouchable. The topics contained in the Qur’an can be addressed under three groups (Rahman, 2009): (a) Belief Principles, includes principles that should be believed (akaid), principles of worship (eibada) and moral issues (akhlaq). (b) Principles of Civil Order, includes prohibited and criminal offenses and penalties to be applied (ukubad) and governing relations between man and man and man and state (mueamala). There are also ontological and metaphysical issues that can be dealt with under the title of (c) Nature. Cosmogony, creation, space and earth are among them.
During the interviews it was observed that, subjects considered to be knowers, avoided interfering with the issues included by group ‘a’ and ‘b’ but they have been very liberal in addressing the issues related to ‘Nature’. M32 is a good example for this situation. He stated that he had a few doubts about the principles of the Qur’an on matters such as marriage and inheritance, he could not resolve these doubts completely yet but suspended them. On the other hand, when asked about his view of ‘evolution’, he made brave reinterpretations as seen in Appendix.
Current dogmatic maps are subject to creative destruction if there is an information entry into the system, because new information needs to be added and it often does not fit the existing map. For example, the knowledge that ‘man was created from clay’Footnote 16 is the primitive interpretation of Surah Ar-Rahman 14th/Quran, and in this form, it is an Islamic dogma. For the individual with little knowledge, this dogma becomes his dogmatic map, explains the truth while demonstrating how he should relate to the world. Intellectual acquisitions must be integrated appropriately into this prototype. For example, if there is convincing evidence that ‘man may have evolved from primates’, this information at first glance, is incompatible with the dogma above. When such loss of internal consistency appears in the dogmatic map the person experiences a cognitive conflict. According to Festinger (1957), such mismatchs causes a tension between what is actually happening and what it supposed to occur. In order to solve this conflict, the dogma and the new information set should be integrated into each other.
The integration process of supernatural and natural explanations into a single explanation is defined as ‘integrated thinkingFootnote 17‘ by Legare et al. (2012). Ashforth (2002) gives an example from Africa which unprotected sex is regarded as a proximate cause of AIDS whereas witchcraft is regarded as the ultimate cause (e.g., witches are believed to be capable of putting an AIDS-infected person in your path). “Supernatural AIDS” notion is a reaction to the information people receive from AIDS education programs indicating that witchcraft does not cause AIDS, enabling them to maintain witchcraft as an explanatory system for illness and misfortune generally (Legare et al., 2012). Since dogma is a simple proposition (witchcraft leads to AIDS) in this example, its position in the cause chain could have been changed easily. However, dogma can be complicated like the 10th versicle of Surah of Luqman. In this case a knower may re-organize the original wording of the verse to eliminate the contradiction when needed.
Interviewer asked atheist M34 if he could give examples to the contradictions he found in the Qur’an and M34 said: “It is said in the Qur’an that ‘mountains are nailed as pillars to the surface in order to prevent tremors on earth’ but today, geology science proves that the mountains float over the magma layer.” Traditional Qur’anic scripts translates the 10th versicle of Luqman, as M34 described. On the other hand, Prof. Okuyan (2016) re-considers the versicle: “The word mountain in Arabic is not expressed with the word used in this versicle. The mountain means ‘al jabal’ but here, the word ‘revasiye’ has been used. The word ‘revasi’ means actually ‘weights’ and ‘pressures.’ So, the meaning is ‘Allah implemented heavy pressures on earth.” The force of gravity might have been mentioned here, while in the previous versicle it is implied that how objects in space are far away from each other.
Re-organizing dogma is one of the techniques to resolve the conflict. Another way is to re-evaluate the information set by (a) distorting it in a way that does not conflict with current dogma (there is no example for this option in this article) or (b) by re-conceiving it under the light of the current dogma. Subject M52 did the latter. He reconsidered the contingency of illegitimate relationships and consequences of the punishment imposed on these relationships by Qur’an. In his initial consideration, the punishment seemed heavy to him, but in his later consideration, he found that the sentence imposed in the Qur’an was directed towards illegitimate industries that dominate the public sphere rather than the individual, because there should be four witnesses according to Qur’an who saw the adultery and this is a difficult condition. M52 did not discuss the dogma, did not reject it or did not ignored the resulting conflict, but began to see the information set targeted by dogma from a new perspective. His previous point of view was based on one of the concepts proposed by Kahneman (2011, p. 245), ‘the inside view’ which is not supported by statistical data or probabilities. His latter perspective is based on ‘the outside view’ which includes the expanding consequences of punishment in time and space. According to our theory, the operation performed by M52 requires discernment because it is cognitively exhausting, there is a need for reason to endure it.
If the dogmatic map cannot be re-constructed easily, and (a) if the individual has discernment, then the resulting conflict would be ignored in favor of the current dogma, in the hope of a future solution. However, if the individual is a skeptic (b) then the resulting conflict generally appears as a suspicion towards the current dogma. When dogma contradicts the scientific knowledge, scientific knowledge has an advantage through evidence but there is no insight to support dogma. Some skeptics of this study went through a similar process and became deists. At this stage, the dogmatic map begins to decompose into two segments, as a “suspected dogma” and “relatively independent cognitive map”. Such intellectuals generally augment their suspicion by reaffirming it. The dogmatic map may lose its internal consistency completely or this process might reverse to create a stable dogmatic map again. In this case, it is an issue about what extent the dogmas of the new stable map are compatible with the norms of the society or to what extent they are fed by discernment. Let us examine this systematically:
Skeptic M31 got a new information. He says: “I have been reading on archeology for the last year. When I was studying the myths, I saw that the Biblical Flood has been considered by many different societies such as the Sumerians, the Egyptians and the like.” This information reduced the internal consistency of his dogmatic map because has created three new dogmatic options for M31 (see Table 2) that allows him to doubt his former belief (dogma): ‘Biblical Flood story was written in the Qur’an by God through the prophet’. Now he needs to re-build his dogmatic map in a consistent manner by selecting one of these options. Options of M31 are, if Biblical Flood happened (1a) ‘Different societies such as the Sumerians, the Egyptians, etc., took the story from previous civilizations, while the Qur’an took it from God’ This option was suggested by the interviewer during the chat: “I think that the Biblical Flood might have taken place 70,000 years ago” This proposal explains why the biblical flood is present in all cultures and thus helps to preserve the argument that the Qur’an is not the subject of another source, but is still the word of God. (1b) ‘The Qur’an took the story from previous civilizations.’ On the other hand, if Biblical Flood did not happen (2) “Societies which lived with their fears created the Biblical Flood story (Noah saved the creatures and humankind) as an image of help.” M31 has stated the last option during the interview: “I started to think, the stories that the monotheist religions tell, have been derived from the previous stories. I started to understand that the societies which lived with their fears created an image of help.”
Which one will M31 choose? If he chooses ‘1a’ dogma will be protected. If he chooses ‘1b’ dogma will be protected but will lost its sanctuary. If he chooses ‘2’ then dogma is completely wrong. M31 could have chosen option ‘1a’ which have been suggested by the interviewer, but he explained why he did not choose: “… however it does not explain why every society living nearby water sources have the story of the Biblical Flood.” However, a knower may bring new defenses against this claim: ‘Perhaps most ancient civilizations were by the river, or maybe those who were in touch with the river are grasping better what the flood is.’ As it turns out, this is an endless debate because it is based on justifications which built on two main approaches; to be knower or being in doubt towards the dogma. M31 does not prefer the interviewer’s recommendations because he cannot find a probabilistic difference between that option and the others. Nevertheless, we observed that M31 is prone to rejecting dogma by choosing option ‘2’ rather than re-considering the dogma by choosing option ‘1a’ instead. Naturally Qur’an is not inspired to him and was not inspired to anyone either except the prophet, however knowers tend to choose the option ‘1a’ systematically.
This study claims that dogma and axiom concepts have internal consistency. The concept of ‘Deeper Dogma’ indicates a singular assumption, but dogma and axiom concepts are sets of assumptions. Their internal consistency means that the assumptions they contain do not contradict with each other. The internal consistency of the dogmatic map means that, it is not based on more than one founder assumption set. The dogmatic map without internal consistency has at least two constitutive sets of assumptions as dogmas and originally obtained axioms.
The ‘Information set’ could be a cluster of cause–effect relations in which every relation has been induced by a dogma or an axiom as a constituent assumption. For example, according to the Qur’an, alcohol is bad and prohibitedFootnote 18. Let us assume that an information set based on this dogma consists of two cause–effect relations: (1) Drinking alcohol kills brain cells (O’Connor, 2004) and (2) alcohol is a reason for many crimes (Bennet and Holloway, 2005, p. 12). If an information that contradicts dogma, added into this set like (3) drinking wine about a glass per day offers some benefits (Sobel, 2019), a conflict arises: This can be resolved in four ways: (a) The conflict ignored in favor of the dogma by a knower. (b) The information set is re-read by a believer; Old set: Alcohol is completely harmful. New set-a: Total harm of alcohol is more than its total benefits. New set-b: Even if it is completely usefull to human body, it is still completely bad because God has forbidden itFootnote 19. The ‘New set-b’ is an example of how information can be read through two different paradigms. The value or goodness-badness of things has an intrinsic resourceFootnote 20 as well as extrinsic (Hood and Bloom, 2008). (c) The skeptic begins to suspect dogma and perhaps acquires a new moral judgment (axiom) like ‘social drinking is acceptable’. (d) Dogma is re-considered by a knower. This example is related to ‘ukubad’, the ban on alcohol in Islam is clear, so it is almost impossible to re-consider 90th/Surah Al-Ma’idah.
Other theoretical implications
It is plausible to assume that strong skeptics would feel the aforementioned Maslowian need as a strong negative feelingFootnote 21 or a kind of dissatisfaction. Because they cannot endeavor for a great cause and yet they are not the ‘great cause’ like an atheist. The existence of this need depends on the existence of the external subject in which the individual wants to be exhausted. In this respect, it is theoretically expected that atheists do not feel this pain like knowers. Indeed, Buggle et al. (2000) found depression scores to be lowest for strong Christians, followed by convinced atheists, whereas moderate believers were most likely to be depressed (Schnell, 2015, p. 273). These informations also support us for the idea that belief and disbelief are exclusive paradigms. As a matter of fact, the atheists M22, M30, and M34 declared that they used to be afraid of the afterlife, but now there was no trace of fear and they have no unrest. A large number of atheists who write about existential crisis on the forum of the Richard Dawkins Foundation (2013, May 5) gave similar statements with our subjects. But these statements contradict the statistics: Suicide cases have a significant prevalence among atheists (Stack, 1983; Stack and Lester, 1991; Kanita et al., 2005; Wu et al., 2015). In atheists, the ‘need to burn out for a great cause’ seems to have turned into the ‘need to explain the unknown’. Based on the discussions in the forum above, the author thinks that some atheists are able to develop cognitive mechanisms which prevent them from returning to existential questions and to focus on the right points in the external world. But some of them are unsuccessful. Study of Schnell and Keenan (2011) with 102 atheists supports the argument that there are two different groups in terms of having success with existential crisis. They have identified two independent meaning subsystems: “Low- commitment” type was characterized by low meaningfulness, and a high frequency of crises of meaning and “Broad-commitment” type atheists exhibited higher levels of meaningfulness and rare crises of meaning.
While believers resolve all possible unknowns with the image of God, atheists seem to be divided into those who successfully compensate unknowns or who cannot. Those who cannot, are likely to be responsible for high suicide rates. An atheist, nick named “Merrick” in his 30s asked on the web site (2013, May 5), “I am consumed by the terror of death and the meaninglessness is casts on my entire life and everything I love. I’m wondering how other atheists find a way to move forward…” Merrick has existential dread and each of the atheist authors who gave advice to Merrick in Appendix (under the ‘Forum’ title), seems to deal with the situation well.
Daniel Edwin’s paradigmatic leapFootnote 22 towards atheism may be facilitated by the fact that he had a dogma that is not worth to living for. But this may not be the only cause for such a jump. Rambo (1993, pp. 48–55) determined various catalysts for the crises that ignite the conversions. Outstanding ones are following: mystical experiences, near-death experiences, severe illness and healing, ‘is that all there is?’, desire for transcendence, altered state of consciousness, etc. Present study meets the ‘desire for transcendence’ factor with the concept of ‘the need to burning out for a great cause’. This factor is one of the two opposing forces that manipulate skeptics on their path.
A personality trait may also make conversions easier. Individuals prone to be un-doubted, are prone to great devotions. Great devotion means, “I am renunciating from myself, for the sake of something that is not yet covered by my individuality”. But the power of having consent for pain, can rapidly turn into the power to abandon the Maslowian need for self-actualization. It is logical to argue that, individuals who can give up this need could be strong skeptics and get ready to be an atheist. Zuckerman et al. (2013) discussed this idea, and stated that intelligent people are less likely to conform; therefore, they are more likely to resist religious dogmas. The unfulfilled need to explain the unknown would create a sense of dissatisfaction during stages of crises in atheists. It would not be easy to bear it. As Jeffrey Lang experienced, the paradigmatic shifts from disbelief to the pit of knowing, would emerge, because the individual-god could not explain the unknown. He would then search for what he wants to burn out for. Because he cannot not burn out for himself except for suicide.
Is there an ‘Insight’?
The notion of ‘discernment’ which separates the knowing believer and the skeptic, is based on the theoric existence of an ‘absolute knowledge’. Although this information has various projections, it actually emerges from a singular source. We have the right to make this assumption because, first, there is an absolute truth (God) for those who belong to the belief paradigm and second, some people act or believe as if there is an absolute way of knowing it (God). According to the central limit theorem, people are normally distributed in terms of many features. It means, this absolute knowledge can be intuited or represented by some of the believers.
On the other side, skeptics reject a metaphysical source that converges people cognitively. Deist M49 expresses this idea as follows: “Metaphysics is more than one for me… Is there any God? (He believes there is). When we say yes, everything we attribute to It is an imposition, is a bad suspicion. There is anger, arrogance, selfishness and fantasy in it.” According to M49 trueness cannot emanate from human because man does not have a metaphysical connection (insight) with God. Whereas, according to a knower, the reason for this is that man has broken ties with the God.
Atheists perceive religion as an externality produced by culture. They cannot or do not perceive a supraliminal source for religious thought. Atheist M30 decleared that before becoming an atheist, he could not understand “why people care so much about religion?” All rituels appear to have no benefit to society. This questioning led M30 to abandon his religion. His ability to ask this means that he never had any kind of insight. That is, people do not believe for a benefit, people believe in just because they believe (Primmer, 2018). M30 has attended the Dhikr rituals of Muslims, the rituals of Christians and the rituals of Assyrians. He concluded that “All of them play a game in their own way”. This statement brings to mind the aphorism of Nietzsche (2017), “Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.” But M30 interprets this sentence from his point of view, arguing that music is created by those who can hear. At the end of his interview, M30 opened a picture of a cartoon on his cell phone. In the cartoon, a group of people are walking with their umbrellas in the rain. One of them closes his umbrella, and the sun starts shining only on his face. The participant means to say, “Have you opened your umbrella because it was raining, or has it started to rain because you have opened your umbrella”.