From: pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: A Christian Who Thinks
Organization: University of Louisville
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:42:26 GMT

In article <92Jul30.020818edt.47880@neat.cs.toronto.edu>, tgk@cs.toronto.edu (Todd Kelley) writes:
>  > >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.

Close-mindedness does not engender good science, either.

>  > 
>  > 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 not a requirement of Christianity to pledge that one will
never question one's Christian beliefs.  Christians have enough experience
to know that such a pledge would not only be destructive, but impossible to
carry out.


> 
> It is silly that people claim Christians can question
> their beliefs.  

This means:  the original poster is mistaken, he is not actually a 
Christian and questioning his beliefs at the same time.  Good thing
Mr. Kelley came along to set him straight.

>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.  

Sheer Malarky!   Would you mind posting something to back this up?
         
> 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.

And we should all rely on Mr. Kelley for the principle that we
shouldn't rely on others.  What?
                                
> Todd Kelley                                 tgk@cs.toronto.edu
> Department of Computer Science              (416)922-9326
> University of Toronto

Joe Deasy
Newsgroups: alt.atheism