I think the most relevant point Bill is trying to make (not that he needs me to speak for him, and if I speak incorrectly for him, I'm pretty sure he will let us all know) is simply that it can be very important to distinquish between what is belief and what is fact. To assert that something is a belief as opposed to a fact simply means there is not objective proof of its truth or validity and makes no statement about the actual validity of the belief.

Having said that, people all over the place, probably all of us, hold beliefs for which there does exist objective proof that invalidates those beliefs. We just are not aware that the proof exists. I mean, there is a whole bunch of information and objective knowledge out there that I simply have never run accross. If I recognize my notion as belief, then I am always open to the possibility that some information may come along that may require some revision on my part. If I do NOT recognize a notion as belief, but mistake it for fact, then I will ignore or even deny any evidence that may come down the pike that is contrary to that belief. If I fail to distinquish belief from objective truth, I may decide it is reasonable, logical, (not to mention holy,) to hijack an airplane and fly it into the World Trade Center. I may think it is irrefutably logical and correct to murder an abortion doctor. I may decide there is irrefutable logic in trying to kill all the Jews in Europe, or I may think that kidnapping and enslaving Africans and bringing them to work in the sugar cane fields is warranted without any question. In other words, instead of being rational about those beliefs, I rationalize my actions in service to those beliefs. When I fail to understand my beliefs to be beliefs but think they are truths, then when you believe differently from me you are necessarily an infidel, an apostate, a creep, or at best, sadly but absolutely wrong, 'cuz both of us can not be right.

LOve,
Janie