[Mad Dawg]

But one cannot ignore the fact that people can and do believe in that which is far from reality...(I cannot stress strong enough it is their belief)

Ab so LOOT ly!

Further, it is interesting to note which beliefs are verifiable and which not. For example, what we assert about the Eucharist is not directly verifiable. We would say we find corroborating evidence in the difference it makes in our lives, but that's all really 'belief', and will not stand up to analysis -- not before we die and the polls are closed.

But my belief that there's an architecturally interesting church on Lexington and 63rd in Manhattan is verifiable. You can show me wrong.

In the second case we can usually settle things by experiment. In the first, all we can do is look at the proposition and try to understand its relationship to other propositions with the hope that we will find some confirmation or, ahem, 'refudiation' in that process.

When somebody says, "God told me to do X," it's not exactly a conversation stopper, but the basic datum is unverifiable. Maybe God told him, maybe he's nuts, maybe a demon told him.

That calls for a very different sort of inquiry.

[caww]

But you are choosing to ignore the “experience” factor or of calling it that. Many can and do present the actuality and reality...evidence etc. and yet they refuse to see the truth because they cannot let go of the experience which confirms to them what they are doing and believe is of God...when in reality it is not.

My opinion is when one experiences a “feeling” or sees their life ‘better” or ‘worse’ for that matter....that does not, and should not verify the nature of the reality they believe in....unfortunately to many it does...and when they are in error it is very difficult for them to see this as so....because of what they perceive in what they practice and the seemingly reality of it.