Clownboat wrote:
What leads you to believe that "Christian" theism could be a prerequisite? I can understand arguing that theism could be a prerequisite, but how do you conclude that your theistic version of a belief is the correct one?
Could indoctrination not be a factor?
Indoctrination certainly could be a factor. But I wasn't necessarily raised a Christian. I read my way into it at first, and only later had a conversion experience. I admit I'm only 27, so I read my way into it young, but I only irregularly attended church as a kid, and the church I went to was pretty watered down. They would just feed us snacks and teach us a short moral lesson. The sermon was full of stories and little substance. Still, I must admit that my becoming a Christian was much more likely given that I was born in a nation full of Christians. Still, given the Christian doctrine of providence, that need not be a hindrance to me. I just want to be up front.
That being said, Christian theism seems superior to me for several reasons, and I'll have to be brief here. It would take a series of books to argue this thoroughly:
(1)
The Trinity: Though it is common to suggest that there are trinities in multiple religions, I am not convinced of the same through my reading in comparative religion. A triad is distinct from a Trinity. I am convinced that teleology helps us overcome Hume's objection that we cannot deduce "ought" from "is". We can do so through this logical form: If moral agent A wants outcome O, A ought to do O. If outcome O is the teleological purpose of that agent, and if failing to act according to one's purpose is in fact self-destructive, then we can formulate a moral system based on a mutual desire of agent A for his/her own benefit, and of God G (from whom teleology originates). It is cooperative in the Christian metaphysic, and it truly can move from is to ought.
Now, suppose that you were to hold to a polytheistic view of the world, or an atheistic view. You could potentially run into problems with the teleological component of this whole metaphysic. If there were two distinct sources of creation, there could potentially be two distinct purposes, two distinct teleologies, and two distinct moral systems. Therefore, for moral coherence, we would need to posit a single source of teleology: monotheism.
Having done so, we run into the Euthyphro dilemma, which argues from a false dichotomy that morality would be meaningless if derived from God. I resolve this dilemma through the suggestion that God acts according to his character. In patristic thought, you could explain this by claiming that God's actions are Personal, and undertaken by the Three Persons of the Trinity, who are perfect hypostasizations of the divine nature and character. Thus, they work in perfect harmony according to a real moral standard that is not contingent on their will nor is external to their nature (thereby defeating Euthyphro as I understand it). The trinity is necessary first because without the three persons instantiating the same nature, there could be division and teleology would break down. But why not simple monotheism, as in Islam or Judaism?
The answer is in considering that "God is love." If we defeat Euthyphro by referring to God's character, then we would hope that God's character was loving in order to maintain any degree of morality as we know it. But to be loving, there must be relationality. In fact, I've read some sociological arguments (not by Christians or specifically talking about God) that indicates that to truly judge a social action, you must judge the action with respect to a minimum of three social agents. Hence the Trinity. Hence Christianity. (That's all very abreviated, but I hope it at least shows that my decision to favor Christianity isn't
only arbitrary.
(2)
The Incarnation: I'll be much briefer here, but there are many metaphysical ramifications for the transcendence and immanence of God. In God the Father, God is fully transcendent, in God the Son, God is revealed in His person, but hidden in his nature, and in God the Spirit, God is revealed in nature, but hidden in person. (This is incredibly oversimplified.) The point is, this is a very complex metaphysical scheme of immanence and transcendence that provides a lot of opportunity to address what I consider to be some of the major antinomies of important modern secular worldviews.
Above that, I find Christian theology to be internally coherent. I find Christian worship and practice personally edifying. I find some degree (limited) of historical evidence supporting various historical claims of Christianity. I find internal testimony within the Scriptures that seems to intuitively attest to their inspiration. I recognize that all of these things are very subjective. But coupled with the general arguments for an axiomatic theism in general, I find them compelling. I do not, however, expect everyone to do so.
I hope that was a satisfactorily long answer.
(Just ask Confused). 
