Should we challenge beliefs we do not share, or should we accept the beliefs of others as in situ realities even though beliefs are, by definition, not framed by facts?
For the purpose of this article, “Belief” is defined as
something someone accepts as true or existing even though there are no
facts or scientific evidence to back up the opinion or conviction.
Are there dangers in challenging beliefs if they are used to influence
people and events and history beyond the singular self?
If so, how do we defend against pressing belief systems that may harm
the best interests of society?
If we accept “I believe in God” must we not also accept “I believe in
Allah” as equal beliefs?
What happens when those two opposite beliefs meet in the marketplace of
public facts and ideas?
If we accept “I believe in Santa Claus” must we not also accept “I
believe in a Big Blue Alien Baby Maker” on the same level of
Are belief systems ever dangerous?
Is it our vested duty as humans in the world to gather together to test
and challenge all belief systems as a means of adding impartial factual
stability across cultures and nations?
Sometimes there can be no larger offense than to reply to someone’s
belief statement with “Why?” — because that word alone puts the
believer on notice they are being asked to move out of the realm of the
emotional mind and body dyad and into the lonesome area of a logical
defense where most assuredly a non-factual and non-scientific argument