With so many different, often incompatible, messages out there, does any one belief pull ahead? Is anything worth believing? Or is it better to hold back from believing anything?

Check out our Topic Page for videos and clips!
http://www.veritas.org/Topics.aspx/is-anything-worth-believing

It would seem unnatural to me to make an attempt at not believing anything. It would be no more difficult to make an attempt at not thinking at all. If someone said to me that they don't believe anything I would not believe them. However, if they have, in fact, obtained a spiritual state of no belief in anything, then I would suspect they first obtained a mental state of not thinking much at all about anything. A friend of mine, a philosopher and Buddhist, calls these people "surface runners." I can imagine the life of a person who believed in nothing would be fairly accurately described by that term and, not only shallow, but not even braking the surface. It seems to me such a humanly impossible thing to do, to believe in nothing, that I don't suspect very many such people exist, really.

Perhaps, in all the "different" and "incompatible" offerings of "anything worth believing," there isn't anything worth believing. But new ideas and perspectives are popping up all the time, not only in the world without my head, but also the world within my head. As I listen to discussions here and elsewhere I find my mind is working. I can almost feel it churning and computing the data being fed into it. What has helped me is the adoption of the notion as a belief that "The Truth Out There," as I whistle a familiar tune, and also that my mind is fully capable of comprehending it as much as anyone else. This way I'm not discouraged by it all. I just keep listening and thinking. There has to be something worth believing.

I think the initial question is superb and I have been struggling with it for some time. I was interested in the response; however, I do not believe Knight ever sighted what in fact might be "worth believing" even though he seems to lead to the conclusion that it IS worthwhile to believe in 'something'. Is believing in 'something' albeit it potentially erroneous, worth more than believing in nothing at all? This is one way of reframing the question. I think I would be naturally inclined to answer yes; however, I think it takes courage to believe in anything unseen/that is not backed by scientific data in the midst of a (Western) world which sometimes critiques blind faith (and in my opinion the Western world considers "blind" anything lacking scientific confirmation). I guess this comes down to an issue of maintaining dignity and pride. Any thoughts?

Yes, I am quite sure there are more than a few things to believe in. The love given a kiss. The heartfelt acknowledgement of a child's, "I love you." And other such things unable to be measured by science.

But, perhaps this is not the gist of the question. Perhaps a better way to phrase it might be, "Are any world-views better than another?" I rephrase this purposely as I think most all world-views find their foundations based upon assumptions which cannot be proved one way or another. Take a moment to read Goedel's proof to understand this basic rule.

Hayley brings up the idea of "scientific confirmation." But what is scientific confirmation but confirmation based upon the scientific method or reason. At the heart of this world-view is the truth of the scientific method. But how do we know the scientific method to be true? One cannot prove the scientific method by using the scientific method. Circular reasoning was left in the dust a very, very long time ago. A person assumes the viability of the scientific method and then proceeds forward building a world-view upon it.

As a Christian, I base my world-view on the assumptions that God exists, God reveals truth, God empowers humankind to study the world and work within it. None of these are provable in the scientific sense of proof, but I am comfortable with that. There is a place for science in the Christian framework testified by the fact that many of the earliest and greatest scientists were Christians themselves.

I would fall into the following of Timothy Keller who suggests a criteria of sorts when it comes to judging world-views: how do they best help us treat those who do not share our particular world-view? The past shows beyond a doubt that all world-views have fallen far short of the ideal, so which particular view has at its heart a mutual respect and the honoring of human dignity? Christianity's ideals are very clear on this point, and I strive to abide by them.

Of course, this criteria is pretty subjective, but hey, I'm open to other suggestions. :-)