There is, by necessity, a right "belief." An incident occurred or it did not, an argument is valid or it is not: that much is true. Anything to the contrary is false, and belief in a falsehood is an untenable position (i.e., a "wrong belief").There may not yet be sufficient evidence for external observers to differentiate between truth and falsehood on a given issue, but that does not mean that truth and falsehood do not exist. They simply have not been fully discovered, and until such a time as they are discovered it is acceptable for people to form their own hypotheses.People are not, however, "[supposed] to believe in what they choose." People ought to believe in what is right and true and good, and faced with a lack of conclusive evidence they ought to create the best possible working synthesis of whatever facts are known.Granted, there will always be a hole in the theory, but it need not be a gaping chasm. One of the underlying assumptions of all scientific inquiry is that nothing can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but the "holes' in Newton's theories regarding gravity and motion, for instance, are so small as to be negligible.Man seems to have a fundamental impetus to always decrease the gaps in his knowledge and holes in his theories, to work continually toward a more perfect understanding of the world and his role therein. Sometimes he inevitably arrives at wrong conclusions, but mistakes can almost always be corrected by further inquiry. To take the defeatist attitude that there is no absolute certainty in the world is an insult to generations of truly noble labor for understanding, not only in the physical sciences, but in history, mathematics, theology, philosophy, psychology and every discipline that gives mankind a deeper understanding of his world, himself and his obligations - ultimately, the goal of his existence.There is a right belief, and to deny that is to deny the significance of human life.   See 11 other replies