Widespread acceptance of an idea is not proof of its validity.

"Because we cannot discover God's throne in the sky with a radiotelescope or establish (for certain) that a beloved father or mother is still about in a more or less corporeal form, people assume that such ideas are "not true." I would rather say that they are not "true" enough, for these are conceptions of a kind that have accompanied human life from prehistoric times, and that still break through into consciousness at any provocation.

Modern man may assert that he can dispose with them, and he may bolster his opinion by insisting that there is no scientific evidence of their truth. Or he may even regret the loss of his convictions. But since we are dealing with invisible and unknowable things (for God is beyond human understanding, and there is no means of proving immortality), why should we bother about evidence? Even if we did not know by reason our need for salt in our food, we should nonetheless profit from its use. We might argue that the use of salt is a mere illusion of taste or a superstition; but it would still contribute to our well-being. Why, then, should we deprive ourselves of views that would prove helpful in crises and would give a meaning to our existence?

And how do we know that such ideas are not true? Many people would agree with me if I stated flatly that such ideas are probably illusions. What they fail to realize is that the denial is as impossible to "prove" as the assertion of religious belief. We are entirely free to choose which point of view we take; it will in any case be an arbitrary decision.

There is, however, a strong empirical reason why we should cultivate thoughts that can never be proved. It is that they are known to be useful. Man positively needs general ideas and convictions that will give a meaning to his life and enable him to find a place for himself in the universe. He can stand the most incredible hardships when he is convinced that they make sense; he is crushed when, on top of all his misfortunes, he has to admit t

Why do you keep maintaining your ideas are right if you can't prove them?

Just because something 'happens', because it is 'true', because the 'facts' are correct, does not ensure that it is the truth.

For me, the response is simple. All ideas are false, that is to say contradictory and irrational, if one takes them in an exclusive and absolute sense, or if one allows oneself to be carried away by that sense; all are true, susceptible to realization and use, if one takes them together with others, or in evolution.

if you can’t prove something wrong, you can’t really prove it right either.

Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it isn't true.

...logical validity is not a guarantee of truth.

[...] provability is a weaker notion than truth

I didn't understand: you don't believe what you believe on purpose. Could you be punished because certain ideas come into your mind?

...the fact that a conclusion does not follow from its putative premise is not sufficient to show that it is false.

But failure to disprove something is not a good reason to believe it.

There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.

I mean, you could claim that <i>anything's</i> real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody's <i>proved</i> it doesn't exist!