[craftsman]

You seem to be focused on the so-called common man and his inability to do anything more than just believe things. I think you do this common man an injustice.

Let’s say this common man is religious (pick one) and is going about his day and is injured in some accident. He is taken to a hospital, and one which he knows is aligned with his religious beliefs. Upon arriving the doctors triage him and tell him he’s bleeding internally. But then they tell him that they have assembled a team of highly respected members of the religion to which he adheres and these persons are revered among its followers. They are about to lay hands on him and pray for his internal bleeding to stop. He asks if they will also be performing surgery, to which they reply that no, their god is loving, caring, and will hear the prayers of the faithful and heal him.

Now if you really are talking about the truly common man, this common man will, with whatever strength that remains, object quite strenuously! He will insist that a doctor perform surgery on him immediately and stop the bleeding.

And why does this common man do this? Because what he really believes is that while his religious beliefs may provide some type of assurance and comfort, when the rubber meets the road, he’d like some science, please.

[tresqotheq]

Sure, the common man can belive one thing more than other. Does not mean that their actions are not based on belief in both cases...

Aren't you guys truly not getting this simple thing? I should probably get out of this thread..

[craftsman]

The difference being what those beliefs are based upon.

I'd recommend a read through Plato's Socratic dialog Theaetetus. Then think through whether the progression of sensation, true belief, and justified true belief does or does not form a sequence of increasingly better ways to think about the world.

As for your last sentence, although I could say the same, I think you will agree that it would serve no purpose.