1) Is believing in two mutually exclusive beliefs possible? Or is it really believing in nothing.

2) Is it morally wrong or unjustly intolerant to subscribe to mutually exclusive beliefs?

3) Should social and cultural norms/morals ever inform our beliefs? Or should testable evidence (and perhaps experiential evidence) be the sole basis of our faith?

I think these questions determine the validity of postmodern thought. I wonder if the verb "believe" has evolved into a word that means "to associate with." That would explain why so many people subscribe to multiple mutually exclusive beliefs as a mere semantic miscommunication.

I've heard some people get angry at those who believe their own belief system to be true and every other belief system to be false. This is the very nature of mutually exclusive beliefs. I cannot believe that something is a circle and a square at the same time. It is a circle or it is a square--it's not both. The soundness of discussion is riding on this core issue.

------------------------------------------------------------------

In this case I'm defining Mutually Exclusive as a belief system that inherently implies the falsehood of all other belief systems, necessitating a choice between the two possibilities.

Protestant Christianity is clearly exclusive of all other belief system:

Galatians 1:8, 2

Corinthians 11:4

Isaiah 43:10-11

------------------------------------------------------------------

I speculate that it is possible to hold to two mutually exclusive beliefs because someone may choose to ignore or be ignorant of conflicts between the two systems. However, it is not reasonable to hold to two mutually exclusive beliefs. Those who say things like "all religions are equal," at their core, do not actually believe in the validity of any well-defined belief system (especially with regard to historicity) but rather, it seems that they believe that comparing religions is like comparing genres of art, one is never absolutely superior to the other. However, the moment belief becomes a matter of fashion, it ceases to be belief at all.

Is it unjustly intolerant to believe something that is mutually exclusive? Of course not, and to say that it is is to misunderstand the meaning of tolerance. I think that in general the postmodern pockets of our society have equated tolerance with equal rights. It's always good to promote equal rights (I think?) but it's not always right to be tolerant.

Social and cultural norms/morals should never inform our beliefs. How can anyone build their faith on such a weak foundation? Norms change over time, but the truth is the truth is the truth. It never changes in actuality, though from our perspective, being subject to time and limited knowledge, it may appear to change. When the Egyptians were placing fresh “bricks” on the pyramids truth was truth, and today that same truth is truth.

Empirical evidence and tacit knowledge gained by experience seem to be our only option when it comes to rationally discovering truth. But even opinions on science seem to "change" frequently. I think history, archeology, paleontology, etc. are probably the best sources of reliable information when it comes to testing religion. Granted, many of the experts in these fields would direct  a searching heart toward macro evolution and biogenesis, however, the true facts do not point to these atheistic conclusions, rather they point directly to God. It is a great assurance that the natural world agrees with the spiritual world on matters of truth. Neither one can deny the inherent truth that is as permanent as days gone by. Reality proclaims the name of its creator, the One who exists, the exclusive God who exclusively has rights to all of creation and all jurisdiction and all glory.