From: Todd Kelley <tgk@cs.toronto.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A Christian Who Thinks
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 02:08:34 -0400
Distribution: usa
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto

 > >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.                                    
 > 
 > [statement about science deleted]
 > 
 > 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. 

Closed-mindedness does not preclude talent and Nobel
prizes.
 > 
 > 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.  

You are confusing religion (in this case Christianity)
with philosophy.  I did not say that theism is dogmatic
and arbitrary, I said that religion is dogmatic and
arbitrary.  I would say that you are a philosopher
whose rational beliefs at this point in time coincidentally 
are consistent with those of Christianity.  If you now
tell me that your beliefs will never change, no matter
what, I would then tell you that you are a Christian,
and not a philosopher.

It is silly that people claim Christians can question
their beliefs.  To various questions there is only one
answer which will allow them to remain Christian.  A
Christian who believes there is a possibility that
he or she will in future not be a Christian is not
a Christian.  (Of course here we run into the problem
of defining particular religions.  I once met a person
who claims to be both a devout Jew and an atheist.)
You cannot be said to question something if your
religion has ruled out all but one of the possible
answers before asking the question.  If there is only
one answer, there is no question.

If you are secure in your beliefs, why should you
care whether you are called a philosopher or a Christian?
A person should be secure in his or her beliefs because
of rational justifications; a person should not rely on
an institution to dogmatically assert his or her beliefs.
Any need to call yourself a Christian indicates that you
feel you must embrace the institution of Christianity,
dogmatism and all.  When you remove the dogmatism and
arbitrariness from Christianity, you no longer have
Christianity, you have a philosophy whose beliefs are
consistent with those of Christianity.

> [justification for theism deleted]

Todd
-- 
Todd Kelley                                 tgk@cs.toronto.edu
Department of Computer Science              (416)922-9326
University of Toronto
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:21 alt.atheism:14477