Someone tells you they believe in karma. The next time something bad happens to a person they don't like, the belief explains it. The belief is comforting. The belief is portable. The belief is the giveaway. They believe because they haven't seen. If they had seen — directly, without intermediary — they wouldn't need to believe. They would just know. The belief is what stands in when the seeing isn't there.
K had a harsh view of belief. He thought belief was a substitute for seeing. People believe in God because they haven't seen God. People believe in karma because they haven't seen karma. People believe everything happens for a reason because they haven't seen everything happening for a reason. Belief is what fills the space where direct experience would have been. The belief is the symptom of the absent experience, not its content.
This is why belief gets defended so fiercely. The defense isn't about the truth of the belief. The defense is about what the belief is covering. Beneath every defended belief is the absence of the experience it purports to be about. Threaten the belief and you threaten to expose the absence. The believer reacts as if their identity is under attack. Because, structurally, it is. The belief is the identity, defending itself with theology.
The body of belief is rigid. Beliefs have a quality of being held. Direct experience doesn't need to be held. It just is. People with direct experience of something — anything — don't defend it the way people with beliefs about it do. The seeing has its own ground. The belief has only itself.
You believe because you haven't seen. The belief is the symptom. K wasn't against the things people believed in. He was against the belief structure, which substitutes for the seeing and prevents it. Drop the belief and the absence of the seeing becomes obvious. The absence is what was supposed to be solved. The belief postponed it.