Theory number 3.

[Angrboda]

If one is asking the question of how A led to B, be very carefully that you have a good handle on both A and B. In particular, many people assume or adopt a traditional B, or endpoint, and then become logically frustrated when they can't build a bridge between A and B. We see this a lot in ethics and atheism with people trying to prove that you can have objective ethics without religion or God, when they should first be asking just what an objective ethics would be, and if that even does or can exist.

I'm in a little different boat. I'm not so much interested in a specific A or B, I'm interested in what makes an A an A, its A-ness and so forth. So I don't worry about the question of belief much, except to steer my own personal religious experience. I'm interested in deep structure, structure which itself is agnostic to the question of whether X exists, or Yahweh is merciful.

Don't take my harsh words the wrong way. I like you. You just seem very 'stuck'. Some days that's harder to take than others. I've experienced a lot of heavy losses of late, and am probably not as ebullient as I typically would be. I've been referred to as a curmudgeon. That fits. Consider the source.

Anyway, back to the point, I don't worry about the truth content of my religious beliefs much, as that's not what matters to me. It's the deep questions, independent of theism or atheism, which get my attention, love, and ministrations.