A common misconception

-Nick
Let me start with a little bit of a long preface.  First, let's assume for the sake of argument that everything I am about to say is true.  There are many things that I will say that you may not agree with, which is partially the point of the article, so sit tight and put on your listening pants...  Or reading glasses, or whatever you people do...   Second, for the sake of the article I am going to misuse some terms, such as religion, to mean what's commonly referred to.  Please do not think that I don't comprehend the meaning behind the terms.  The reasoning behind this is simple, I don't want to type out every exception.

Now we can get started.  I was pondering as I usually do, when a question came to me, "How come people are so scared of being wrong about what they believe?"  The obvious answer came to me as: if you were to change what you believe as your core values, you would have to change almost everything you view about the world.  That is a very uncomfortable position to be in, and we like comfort.  Upon further examination an interesting idea was formed.  What we "believe in" is theoretically defined by the following inverted pyramid.  Facts are the top layer.  They make up arguments, adding justification to assumptions.  Assumptions, the second layer, are what are necessary to proceed with any argument.  The only way to logically convince someone of something is to boil the issue down to the most basic assumption, and then build from that assumption.  Where do those assumptions come from?  Our Beliefs.  Formulated usually at a young age, these are the basis of our assumptions.  This is where things get messy.  If two people's core beliefs differ, it would be very difficult to come to a logical conclusion.  Let me for a second back up and explain some things.  No one knows all the facts about an issue.  In the end you must make a choice, based on the evidence provided.  This means that accuracy will never be 100%.  Our interpretation of these facts are based on our assumptions.  Our assumptions are based on our beliefs, which comes from anecdotal evidence.  My conclusion of this pyramid?  It doesn't work.  Everything I believe is concluded from logically invalid methods.  This does not mean however I think truth is malleable.  Just because no one can prove something, doesn't mean it's not there.  This is where my main topic comes in, faith.  People has this odd notion that faith is somehow only intertwined in religion.  In truth faith is merely believing something without knowing.  This is the glue that holds the pyramid together.  Without faith we wouldn't believe in anything.  Regardless of point of view we all have faith in things, so it is ridiculous to think that somehow faith is arguable.  The existence and necessity of faith are neither debatable.  So if everyone believes what they believe through faith, how can we therefore instantly negate the possibility that we could be wrong?  A philosophy that does not question itself, is inherently fallible.