Editor:

Normally, I read John Keisling's column only for the humor that is produced by his inept attempts at trying to be the next Rush Limbaugh. However, his column entitled "God brings peace and comfort" (April 17) has finally driven me to action. Keisling starts this column with an incredible statement; "Earlier in this space I explained why atheism is no more empirically likely to be true than Christianity."

I read the earlier column that Keisling refers to, and I was as amused as always with his attempts at reasoning and logic. However, the one thing that struck me about the above quote and Keisling's earlier column was his assertion that his arguments for the existence of God are in anyway connected to Christianity. I do not recall Keisling mentioning Christ or any other specific religion in his earlier tirade against atheism.

Now, suddenly, in his latest column, he has declared that not only has he made the existence of God a reasonable and logical assumption, but he has identified that God as Christian. John, please enlighten me as to how your powerful and logical mind made that connection. As someone who professes a desire to have a strong and logical argument for his beliefs, please layout the steps needed in arriving at the conclusion that if God exists, He or She must be a Christian God. I am sure that other secular humanists (as well as Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.) would like to know the logic behind this momentous theological discovery.

As with most religious apologists, Keisling's provincial thinking has betrayed him. He assumes that any argument for the existence of God proves the existence on his particular God. It is usually at this point that most Christian apologists have to take a leap of faith and leave reason behind.

Brian Grove
media specialist, College of Education