On Belief

Article 2 of a 10 part series dedicated to ontology.

Caption: A flower growing through a cracked wall, an AI created visualization of belief as a 'grant of leave' courtesy of Nano Banana.

Introduction

We often think of belief as a simple act of the mind—a hesitant nod to an unproven fact, or worse, a blind leap into the irrational. This view renders belief as a secondary, somewhat flawed human faculty. But what if we have it backwards? What if belief is not a psychological crutch but the fundamental ontological act—the primary gesture that grants existence its creative and dynamic character?^[1] To comprehend being itself, we must first understand belief. This article argues that belief is the essential mechanism that allows being to unfold, differentiate, and realize itself in concert. Belief is the ontological 'grant of leave' that makes the conference of difference—the process primitive of existence— possible.

All existence is a conference of difference, a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.^[2]

Classical Positions

Our journey begins in ancient Greece, where belief was understood as pistis—a form of trust, persuasion, or reliable conviction. This was less about intellectual assent to a proposition and more about a relational confidence in the cosmic order or a fellow citizen. It was a glue for the polis and the cosmos alike.^[3] Crucially, pistis was often contrasted with episteme, or certain knowledge. The slow but decisive shift from this communal and cosmic trust towards a more individual, propositional assent marks a key transition in late antiquity, setting the stage for belief to become a problem of knowledge.

The Medieval synthesis, deeply shaped by Christian theology, elevated belief (fides) to the status of a theological virtue, a gift divinely infused into the soul. Here, belief became the crucial bridge between human reason and divine revelation. The scholastic project, with figures like Thomas Aquinas, sought to reconcile faith and reason, leading to an internalisation of belief. It was no longer just adherence to external Church authority but a complex, grace-enabled habit of the soul.^[4] The Enlightenment, however, would subject this very habit to relentless scrutiny.

This conceptual leap changed everything by re framing belief as a subject of epistemology. For David Hume, belief was a 'lively idea; associated with a present impression, a feeling susceptible to radical skepticism, especially concerning miracles and causation. Immanuel Kant, in response, sought to salvage rational grounds for belief with his 'rational faith', positing God, freedom, and immortality as necessary postulates of practical reason. The anchor for belief had shifted decisively from divine authority to the individual's capacity for reason and empirical evidence.

The modern and postmodern eras witnessed a fragmentation of this confident, if contested, foundation. William James framed belief as a psychological state with "cash-value," emphasizing its practical consequences. Karl Marx critiqued it as an ideological superstructure masking material interests. Ludwig Wittgenstein, in his later work, saw belief as embedded within language games and forms of life, a move that located it in social practice rather than private mental content. Finally, postmodern thinkers like Jean-François Lyotard deconstructed belief as a "grand narrative" or totalising story used to legitimize power structures. The trajectory is clear: a shift from universal reason to contextual, often cynical, interpretations, leaving belief a hollowed-out and suspect notion.

Current Flashpoints

Today, the nature of belief is contested across several fronts. Neuroscience asks whether belief can be fully explained by firing neurons and brain processes, or if its subjective, world-constituting power points to something irreducibly ontological that a physical description cannot capture.^[5] In our 'post-truth' era, we grapple with how belief functions when traditional anchors—objective truth, institutional authority, shared epistemic norms—have corroded, leaving a landscape where belief often feels unmoored and tribal.

Simultaneously, the rise of Artificial Intelligence forces a provocative question: can a complex language model be said to 'believe' the statements it generates? If this seems counterintuitive, you're in good company. The answer hinges on our definition. If belief is merely a functional state of information processing, perhaps. But if it is an ontological commitment, a 'granting of leave' to reality, then AI belief would imply a form of consciousness and participatory agency we are far from attributing to machines. This directly informs the ethics of belief: what are our responsibilities in forming and holding beliefs? Is there a duty to believe responsibly, and on what grounds could such a duty rest?

Towards a new understanding of Belief

Against this complex backdrop, the Gospel of Being offers a radical redefinition. It strips belief back to its ontological core, framing it not as assent but as the fundamental action to 'grant leave'. This is the permission that allows potential synergies to actualize, enabling a conference of difference where diverse beings interact and co-create without being forced into uniformity.^[6]

Following Exposition 20.1, belief is this very act of permitting potential synergy. It is the ontological condition for a conference of difference to occur. Per Exposition 20.2, this belief is inherently a belief in incompletion. It does not seek perfect realisation or final truth but affirms the absolute nature of each being as separate from perfection. This very lack is what enables continuous becoming. As Exposition 20.3 details, belief grants leave to continuous movement or "motility," casting being forward as inherently "problematic" and dynamic. The conference of difference $\{\Delta\}$ is not a static meeting but a kinetic process sustained by this belief.

Think of it not as a mental state, but as a relationship. Exposition 20.4 frames belief as the exemplar of granting leave, a posture sustained by faith (the support for what is realising) and trust (the consolation for what is yet to be realised). This is not blind hope but a grounded orientation toward the future. Exposition 20.5 further refines this by showing that belief operates in a hierarchy of gradated potential: it favours ability over mere probability, and probability over mere possibility. It is the ontological force that grounds realising in actionable potential, shaping the dynamics within the conference of difference.

Perhaps most powerfully, Exposition 20.6 reveals belief as co-petition—a 'petitioning together' rather than a competing against. This is the antithesis of a zero-sum game; it is the collaborative act of fostering mutual realising within the conference of difference. Finally, Exposition 20.7 makes the ultimate claim: belief is not merely a human faculty. All existence embodies belief. Every action, every movement toward being, is an Amen to the Godspell—a participation in the ongoing, cosmic grant of leave that constitutes reality itself. To be is to believe.

Convergence & Divergence

This vision of belief both converges with and radically diverges from the classical positions. It finds a resonance with Ancient pistis in its emphasis on relational trust, but it extends this trust beyond the human and divine to encompass all beings participating in a conference of difference. It shares with the Medieval synthesis a conviction that belief is foundational to reality, but it decisively rejects the need for divine infusion, locating the capacity for belief within the fabric of being itself. From the Enlightenment, it converges in valuing discernment—its hierarchy from possibility to ability mirrors a demand for rigor—but it diverges profoundly by rejecting the premise that belief is primarily a mental or propositional state.

The divergences are stark. The Gospel of Being stands against propositionalism, reframing belief as an ontological permit rather than intellectual assent. It stands against finality, rejecting the medieval and Enlightenment dreams of belief culminating in certainty or perfect knowledge, insisting instead on inherent incompletion as the engine of reality. Finally, it stands against individualism, contrasting with modern psychological views by framing belief not as a private, internal state but as a cosmic, participatory act—the very medium of the conference of difference.

Take-away

The philosophical implications are profound. Belief is redefined as the primordial ontological gesture—the "granting leave" that enables being to unfold, differ, and realise synergistically. It challenges static, representational, and individualist accounts, offering a dynamic, relational, and participatory alternative centred on the conference of difference.

For us as humans, this is liberating. It frees us from the exhausting burden of certainty and the pursuit of perfection, inviting us to embrace our own incompletion as the very ground of creativity and connection. It encourages a shift from competitive striving to co-petition—working with others to petition the future together within the great conference of difference. Ultimately, it inspires a posture of active trust and consolation amid the inherent uncertainty of becoming, recognising that our every act to be is a sacred participation in the ongoing Gospel of Being. To believe is to grant the world permission to be more than it is, and in doing so, to become more ourselves.^[7]

The Gospel of Being

by John Mackay

A rigorous yet readable exploration of how existence functions—and how that relates to you.

Discover the book