To what follows, our moderator has already answered the charge of  arrogance more ably that I could have done so, so I will confine myself to answering the charge of illogic.   In a previous article, Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno) says:  >>If I don't think my belief is right and everyone else's belief is wrong, >>then I don't have a belief. This is simply what belief means. > >Unfortunatly, this seems to be how Christians are taught to think when >it comes to their religion.   This is how everyone in the western intellectual tradition is, or was, taught to think. It is the fundamental premis "A is not not-A". If a thing is true then its converse is necessarilly false. Without this basic  asumption theology and science as we know them are alike impossible. We should distinguish the strong and weak meanings of the word "believe", however. The weak sense means I am not sure. "I believe Tom went to  the library." (but he could have gone to the track). The strong sense means I am so certain that I use it as a basis of thought. "I believe  that nature operates according to certain fundamental laws." (despite  the fact that nature *appears* capricious and unpredictable). Christian belief is of the strong kind. (Though Christians may well hold beliefs of the weak kind on any number of theological and ecclesiological  topics.)   >Some take it to the extreme and say that >their religion is the ONLY one and if you don't accept their teachings >then you won't be "saved".   Note that these are two separate ideas. Most hold the first view, but the  majority do not hold the second. Is is again a matter of pure logic that if Christanity is true, then Hinduism (for example) must necessarilly be false, insofar as it contradicts or is incompatible with, Christaianity.  (And, as a matter of *logic*, vice versa.)   >It takes quite a bit of arrogance to claim >to know what God thinks/wants.   It is arrogant to claim to know what *anyone* thinks or wants, unless  they have told you. Christians believe God has told us what he thinks and wants.  >Especially when it's based upon your >interpretation of a book.   Most Christians do not base their belief on the Bible, but on the living tradition of the Church established by Christ and guided constantly by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is simply the written core of that tradition.  >The logic in the above statement is faulty >in that it assumes two people with differing beliefs can't both be >correct.   If depends what you mean by differing. If I believe Tom is six feet tall and you believe he weighs 200 pounds, our beliefs differ, but we  may both be right. If I believe Tom is six feet tall and you beleive that he is four foot nine, one of us, at least, must be wrong.   >It's all about perception. No two people are exactly alike. >No two people perceive everything in the same way. I believe that >there is one truth. Call it God's truth, a universal truth, or call it >what you will. I don't believe God presents this truth. I think it is >just there and it's up to you to look for and see it, through prayer, >meditation, inspir- ation, dreams or whatever. Just because people may >perceive this truth differently, it doesn't mean one is wrong and the >other is right.   Thus you believe that there is a single truth but that no human being  can find it. You assert that anyone who believe that we can find  absolute truth is mistaken. In short, you believe that anyone who does not share your belief on this point is wrong. QED.  >As an example, take the question, "Is the glass half >empty or half full"? You can have two different answers which are >contradictory and yet both are correct. So, for your belief to be >true, does not require everyone else's belief to be wrong.  Here I begin to suspect that your real difficulty is not with the knowability of truth, but simply with language. Saying that the glass  is half empty is not a contradiction of the statement that it is half full: it is the same fact expressed in different words. (The whole point of this phrase is to illustrate the different ways the pessimist and the optimist express the *same* fact.)   It is, of course, quite true that different people may express the  same belief in different words. It is also true that they may fail to understand each other's words as expressions of the same belief and may argue bitterly and believe that they are miles apart. Great scisms have occurred in just this way, and much ecumenical work has been done simply in resolving differences in language which conceal agreement in belief. This does not mean, in any sense, that all beliefs are equally valid. Since some of the beliefs people hold contradict some other beliefs that other people hold, after all obfuscations of language and culture in the expression of those beliefs have been stripped away, some of the beliefs that some people hold must, **necessarilly** be false, and it is neither arrogant nor illogical to say so. If I believe X and you believe Y we may both be correct,  but if Y is equivalent to not-X then one of us is wrong and as long as we hold our respective beliefs, we must each regard the other  as in error.