The (ill)Logic of Belief - Part I
Let’s not deny belief its rightful and important position in our lives, as we do not deny water or soil or sunshine their proper yet insufficient roles in the successful budding of a seed.
I decide to take a walk into town. I see the church spire scrape the sky before me, the reds and pinks spilling out against the darkening clouds. I ask myself, is faith opposed to reason? I can’t believe the two are mutually exclusive. I see an old man walking along the cobbled bridge in the park. “One must first believe in order to know,” wrote Etienne Gilson. Belief is then the prerequisite bridge to knowledge. So let’s start there.
The Wright brothers must have first believed it possible, before they transformed themselves to birds. Even if a belief is “wrong”, in that it does not properly map reality, it guides us in a certain direction, it animates our movement towards greater understanding. This is why having the “wrong” belief can be so fatal, as understanding may come in the form of catastrophe. But there is a greater catastrophe: if I choose to not believe in something, do I then forsake ever discovering it to be true?
I’m trying to pin down the nature of belief. If I believe for example, that “people are inherently good,” will I be exposed to the more benevolent sides of human existence? Maybe it is more likely this perception will just magnify those benevolent aspects and minimize my attention to those things less characteristic of my belief? Objective or subjective, these outcomes will undoubtedly shape my experience. If neither is the case we can go ahead and disregard this statement. But I can’t help but think that, any way you see it, beliefs open some doors and close others.
As our friend Zorba from last week’s letter says:
“The idea is everything, you believe, and a sliver from an old door becomes a piece of the true cross. You don’t believe and the entire true cross becomes an old door.” - Zorba the Greek by Nikos Kazantzakis
Are the old door and the true cross one in the same, and our belief the only thing that distinguishes the two? Is our belief a sort of key to unlocking a deeper more profound vision for our lives? Does it access some greater resolution, a level of truth undefined by material reality alone? I’d like to engage with these questions in later letters, but for now: Maybe belief is best understood as a key that unlocks certain reality potentials for us. What if I choose to believe something about myself, say that I am a naturally terrible public speaker? Does this belief dictate the number of potential outcomes? Does it stop me from discovering potential realities that would only present themselves if in fact I did not hold this belief?
If it is granted that beliefs shape our experience, then by default, or at least in the context of maximizing our own experience, there is an inherent hierarchy of belief (for every situation). It would seem some beliefs are better than others. This is not a matter of inspiration. This is a question to logic. Is it more logical to be an optimist? Is it more logical to have faith in something despite its surface relation to reason? Is there some deeper pact faith has with logic, that is not understood by simply “surveying the grounds”.
Let’s look at the statements, “I can” and “I can’t.” There are myriad variants that would determine which one we should use. Say for example, a boy is faced with a dare. He is set to jump off a ledge into a pool of water. Obviously, the belief, “I can” may not serve him depending on the height of the fall. It may in fact serve his demise. This would be the greater understanding understood too late. Logic and reason are not the enemy of belief but must serve as her chaperon. It is irresponsible and more importantly insufficient to operate on belief alone. One must have access to reason, skill, self-awareness etc. This all forms a healthy relationship with day to day reality. But let’s not deny belief its rightful and important position in our lives, as we do not deny water or soil or sunshine their proper yet insufficient roles in the successful budding of a seed. In neglecting the miraculous watering of Belief (and her sage companion, Faith) in our lives, we may notice that a potential is lost, in the same way that a plant deprived of rainfall will only rise to a certain stature and most certainly lose out on greater potential.
Say, instead that the same boy is faced with the question, “Who will I be in 20 years?” Do we ask children to solely base their response off of reason? For example, do we make them audit their family history of employment, set equations to the trajectory of their life? We instead ask them to reach into their deepest visions, and access an idea of their life not yet accessible to any foresight. We ask them to believe, to say, “I can."
“Faith is taking the first step even when you can't see the whole staircase.”
- Martin Luther King Jr.
So what about this sage companion, Faith? Mark Twain said about her, “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.” Maybe it is. Maybe it is not. Maybe it is accessing faculties beyond our comprehension of time and space. Maybe faith is not about mapping reality as it is, maybe it is about mapping potentials of what could be.
Cross the bridge, even when you don’t know what exists on the other side.
A note: I know I’ve conflated belief & faith here a bit and I will try to parse the two in the later additions to this letter. There is a lot left unexplored, and much I probably have wrong here, but I’m looking forward to writing and conversing more on this topic. This is an experiment in thinking first and foremost. I’d love your comments, feedback, and insights. I appreciate your patience ; )
Keep diving,
A.J.
The (ill)Logic of Belief - Part I
A.J., my Brother,
I love the timing of this piece, as I have been considering the resistance to belief and how we wait for reality to validate it. We present the possibility of belief to our conscious minds and allow it to discern whether or not it lines up close enough to reality in order to be believable. Then, once we pass that check point, we move on to public dissection, again, yearning for validation to water our belief.
I laugh as I imagine the Brothers of Wright and their initial exclamation, "We will fly!". I wonder how strong the initial belief must have been in order to pass the first check point of the subconscious. Before flying, the only framework by which to pass that belief through was filled with planeless skies, flapping wings, and Newtons g = 9.81M/r2. And that came before the laughter..
Im not sure I'm ready to accept that logic and reason are necessary chaperons of belief. Could it be that logic and reason can only act as inhibitors of belief, our egos defense against movement into the unknown? Are some of these inhibitions easier to overcome simply do to the time spent in the collective subconscious?
The example of the boy faced with a dare...What if he believed with his entire being that he would survive a leap from beyond what has been deemed possible by logic and reason? Does the fall kill him or is it the lack of belief?
Could it be that Belief is both necessary and sufficient? Seems logical, honestly.