Yes. I agree that
one may not know everything about something they believe, but they can certainly have valid, and rational reason(s) for believing it.
If I asked you,
why you believe in God, if you said you believed in God, because XYZ. You gave me an answer. Why assume that I would attack your answer? There is no need, unless one is afraid that they don't really know. They just believe?
I recall
someone saying that their faith was blind.
So, I can understand why such a person might feel somewhat threatened, but I think they ought to expect that... no matter where they go.
It may not be from me, but someone else will - not may -
will challenge any person's expressed view, so they had better be ready to defend it... and if their defense is weak, then expect it to be knocked down, or shown up as weak.
This is true, of all of us.
Here on RF, we learn our weaknesses, and strengths, especially, if we are limping.
To me, a person that can express their conviction and stand solid behind it, and defend it, is one whose conviction is solid.
Apart from the ones I know that can defend their faith without blinking - steel faced
, there are a few that I have seen show strong conviction. I am
tempted to name one, but I won't.
There is a difference between what is evidence, and what is proven.
I don't expect anyone to be able to prove what cannot be known without direct evidence, but I expect one can provide evidence for why they firmly believe something to be true.
So after saying all of that, what I am really saying is,
what is the big deal about saying why you believe what you believe?
That's different to a personal question. Isn't it?