Here’s a question to ponder: How many of the positions that you subscribe to today related to theology, economics, politics, etc., do you subscribe to because you researched the competing perspectives, weighed the merits and demerits of each, and then adopted the best position? If you are a typical human being, chances are that the number is very small. Most of the positions we subscribe to we simply inherit from our family or community, unquestioned. When we do question those positions, we often seek out evidence to shore up what we already believe rather than seeking evidence both for and against our position.  Given this proclivity of human nature, and given the multiplicity of positions, there’s a high probability that we are mistaken in a number of positions we subscribe to.  After all, it would be highly unlikely that one just happened to be born into a family/community who just so happened to subscribe to all of the right positions in theology, politics, economics, and the like.

This isn’t to say that we should be skeptical of everything.  Rather, it’s to say that we should be less dogmatic on issues for which we have not examined the arguments for and against various positions. We should be more willing to challenge our own positions/assumptions, and be open to consider the merits of other perspectives. Our positions may or may not change through the process, but at the very least, we can better appreciate the weaknesses in our own position and the strengths of others. Remember, truth is our goal, not defending whatever positions we may have inherited.