It’s summer! Time to explore the neighbourhood. To be daring! To try new things!

In that spirit, I attended the “Shy Philosophers” gathering at the Little Mountain Neighbourhood House, to discuss “What is belief?”

I wasn’t a featured speaker, host, or resource person. I simply joined 12 other adults, seated in a circle of beat-up couches and folding chairs. Facilitators JJ and DV invited each of us to offer a brief thought on “belief.” And, after that orderly beginning, we were off!

“Knowledge and belief are the same thing,” said S. “Even when we say we know something, we only believe it. Let’s prove this with a scientific experiment. What time is it?”

Four people looked at their watches; each watch displayed a different time.

“You see?” said S. “Time is absolute. Yet each of us has a different time. We cannot know time! We only have beliefs about it.”

“Wow!” responded D. “Do you choose to see knowledge as something absolute, high up there? While you see yourself and your beliefs as imperfect and lowly? That’s the picture of knowledge that academics sell. They complicate everything with jargon, and pretend to be experts. Claiming scientific method proves they’re right, they trick us into thinking we can’t choose what to believe.”

“Are we talking only about proof?” asked G. “What about perception and interpretation? When I stand before the Justice of the Peace, and say, ‘I take you to be my forever spouse,’ do I have to know it, or can I just believe it?”

“Let’s put aside science and explore human relationship,” said I. (that’s me!). “Suppose I know that my teenage child consistently disrespects me. One day I overhear her telling a friend ‘You must respect your parents.’ With this new information, I reinterpret her behaviour; now I know she is struggling for independence. The new interpretation seems truer: I interact differently; the teen responds differently; our relationship improves; and our community affirms this.”

“Flexibility!” said D. “That’s what I’m talking about. Avoiding a rigid definition of truth.”

“Knowledge vs. belief has many meanings,” said I. “Sometimes the distinction turns on proof: knowledge has been proven and belief has not. Sometimes it turns on depth of feeling: when I know something, I feel it very deeply; when I believe, less so. Ideally, at your wedding, you know your commitment in this way. And sometimes the contrast rests on the kind of object: we know about medicine; we believe in God.”

“Belief in God,” said F., “isn’t always rigid and exclusive. In some cultures, people practice multiple religions, sincerely believing in multiple Gods. They are serious about Pascal’s wager: Either there is a God, or there isn’t. If I believe there is, but I’m wrong, nothing is lost. But if I believe there isn’t, and I’m wrong, then I suffer eternal damnation. So it’s most beneficial to believe.”

“That’s not a wager about God,” I. said. “It’s a wager about hell.”

Everyone laughed.

Why did they laugh? Because it was obvious, or because it was surprising? Do they see “condemns unbelievers to eternal punishment” as an essential attribute of God? God could exist, and be compassionate; or be both just and free; or not be in the judging business at all.

What do we know about God, and what do we believe? A fascinating mystery.

And, maybe, a topic for another gathering!

**
Not bad for an amateur group, free-associating from topic to topic! My report doesn’t do justice to the richness of the conversation, or include all the thoughtful philosophers who spoke. Also, I didn’t talk as much as the report suggests; I just remember best the exchanges most interesting to me. Of course, we can argue against any of the views presented here; I’m only reporting them! Not affirming them!

Image: Posted on the “Shy Philosophers” meetup page by JJ.