I'm just saying it follows the pattern Keller describes. It's interesting to me because it illustrates how and/or what you have been influenced by/ what leads you to hold the rational positions in your head. Discussing etc with our peers has an influence in some form on the person we become/ beliefs we hold.
Like the cultural analogy, we come to the table with different opinions not necessarily being right or wrong because to each of us we logically substantiate those positions because we have to. To not do that would be to lie to ourselves - ultimately impossible I'd think.
The reasoning behind your standpoint is entirely the issue I think. How you reached your reasoned position is crucial. The God question is dependent upon this arrived at status.
We're all born atheist/ agnostic I think. But still we consider this stuff and arrive at a conclusion. There seems to bean awful lot of interest in it, even in places like this, that surely shouldn't be interested in such non scientific questions.
Like the cultural analogy, we come to the table with different opinions not necessarily being right or wrong because to each of us we logically substantiate those positions because we have to. To not do that would be to lie to ourselves - ultimately impossible I'd think.
The reasoning behind your standpoint is entirely the issue I think. How you reached your reasoned position is crucial. The God question is dependent upon this arrived at status.
We're all born atheist/ agnostic I think. But still we consider this stuff and arrive at a conclusion. There seems to bean awful lot of interest in it, even in places like this, that surely shouldn't be interested in such non scientific questions.
