From: Jeffrey D Koperski <jkopersk@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: A Christian Who Thinks
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:04:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Ohio State University

>When dealing with something as basic and important as
>a view of how the universe is and how it should be   
>made to become, arbitrariness and dogmatism are      
>insidious nemeses.  Dogmatism & arbitrariness define 
>religion.  (For example, science is not a religion   
>because it's neither dogmatic nor arbitrary.)        
>Therefore, naturally, truly open-minded persons scorn
>religion. This does not mean they scorn what         
>religions say; it means they scorn what religion is: 
>a set of arbitrary beliefs which must be accepted    
>without question.                                    

Well, I really can't let this one go by without a
reply.  First, the notion that science is a non-
arbitrary legislator of truth and knowledge is itself
an unsupported article of faith.  Thomas Kuhn's work
is no longer in vogue, but we should all have learned
something from his _The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions_.  That science somehow builds up
theories from raw observations with no sociological
influence or value-laden assumptions is naive and
false.  

Second, not all theists, or even all Christian 
theists for that matter, are close-minded.  To say so 
is to label a large number of philosophers, 
scientists (including some Nobel laureates), and 
other academics as close-minded. 

Third, it's true that many Christians are defensive 
fideists whose only defense of their faith is that 
"Jesus lives in my heart"--hardly an argument.  
However, as a Christian graduate student in 
philosophy, I am constantly questioning my beliefs.  
The charge of arbitrariness is simply not warranted.  
I am not a Christian because religion helps me make 
it through my days.  I am not a Christian because 
religion is psychologically useful.  The 
philosophical arguments and historical evidence for 
Christianity provide justification for my theistic 
beliefs.  

Unfortunately most Christians do not know or cannot 
convey adequately either the arguments or the 
evidence.  I am often embarrassed by the Christian 
community and it's penchant for slogans ("Know 
Christ...", "I've found it", etc.) instead of honest 
discussion with respectable arguments.  Note, 
however, that this is true of Americans in general.  
We are for the most part an anti-intellectual culture 
more interested in appearance and feeling good than 
in substance and thinking well.  Christians have not 
successfully bucked this trend, nor have atheists for 
that matter. 

2
As for the arguments and evidence I mentioned above, 
I won't try to condense them here.  The classical 
arguments are the (kalam) cosmological argument, the 
teleological argument, the ontological argument, the 
argument from the existence of consciousness, and the 
argument from the existence of moral value.  All of 
these have current, sophisticated defenders that go 
far beyond what most of you heard in your intro. to 
philosophy classes.  None of these are proof for the 
existence of God, but outside of mathematics and 
formal logic, there is no such beast as proof.  
Justification is the most we can hope for. 

More compelling is the historical evidence, which is 
much stronger than what conventional wisdom leads us 
to believe.  In fact, Christianity lives and dies 
over the question of the resurrection.  A challenge: 
examine the evidence for the resurrection and then 
put forth a naturalistic explanation that covers only 
the data that critical historians and biblical 
scholars will allow.  That is, I'm not asking you to 
believe the Bible is true a priori.  The best, modern 
Christian defenses take what the _critics_ accept as 
historically accurate and still show that no 
naturalistic explanation for the resurrection (plot, 
hallucination, etc.) is adequate. 

Finally, as a philosophy student, most of the books I 
read are written by atheists, not Christians.  I know 
what goes on in your camp and can still rationally 
stand by my theism.  For an effective dialogue to go 
on, you need to have some familiarity with the 
arguments and evidence I've mentioned.  Otherwise 
you're little better than the slogan-fundamentalists 
you so often deride.  Here are some very readable and 
respectable sources: 

J.P. Moreland, _Scaling the Secular City_ 
        -Moreland has a doctorate in philosophy from 
         USC. 
Gary Habermas, _The Verdict of History_ 
        -Habermas has a doctorate in religion from 
         Michigan State. 

For two contemporary debates see: 
Moreland and Nielsen, _Does God Exist?_ 
        -Kai Nielsen is a name most atheists should 
        be familiar with.  As a Christian, I think 
        he's a very fair atheist and represents your 
        interests in a respectable manner. 
Terry Miethe, ed., _Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?_ 
        -This is a debate between Habermas and Antony 
        Flew, one of the most prominent and well-   
        respected atheists of our century. 

3
Well that's my salvo.  I don't plan on posting to 
this board often, perhaps ever again.  I apologize on 
behalf of the Christian community for those of you 
who have been accosted in one way or another.  Please 
judge Christianity by its merits, not by Christians 
who trivialize it and fail to have both zeal and 
sensitivity.  Both sides could do with a lot less BS. 

Thank you, 

Jeff 
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:57 alt.atheism:14587