Give me a nickel for each time I’ve witnessed Christians described as dogmatic and I might not get rich, but I would likely afford a subscription to Freethought Today magazine. Followers of Christ are often singled out as the only remaining adherents to a dogma in the civilized world. They say we are confined to an antiquated epistemology of bygone times. Contrary to the dogmatist are the freethinker; a sort of modern-day intellectual warrior and slayer of traditional views. Empiricism is their weapon, evidence their ammunition. “We don’t blindly assert, we prove it,” says the disciple of freethought. The popular view today does seem to hold the dogmatist in contempt. As a Christian I have on occasion been labeled as such; accompanied by the usual “fundamentalist” and “zealot.” Although we may ignore and even laugh off this sort of stereotyping, the question remains of how we ought to respond as Christians when our faith is attacked as outmoded, irrational and dogmatic.

In most cases I recommend we do not respond while maintaining an unwavering confidence in the Truth. Merely defending ourselves from criticism is contrary to the teaching of Christ: “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” [Mat 5:39] Although the biblical command in 1 Peter 3:15 tells us to always be prepared to give an answer for the reason of our hope, it also says “to everyone who asks you to give.” It does not say give an answer to those with no desire to receive it. In such situations we are not to get caught up in futile discourse: “Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge.” [1 Tim 6:20] Many so-called freethinkers cannot help but froth anti-Christian bias and the idea of reasoning together reminds me of throwing a certain kind of shellfish nacre to a certain kind of hoofed mammal[1] In other words, we should avoid quarrelling on message boards at www.infidels.org or responding to malicious emails. It offends God when we debate for the purpose of winning arguments.

In the more congenial cases where we choose to respond, I propose a thoughtful approach. In 2 Corinthians 10 we read: “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” Sound philosophy and evidence from science can be effective tools for answering the skeptic. Yet the Scripture says our response is to be motivated by love for the unbeliever and filtered through a mind obedient to Christ. It is far too easy to devise arguments merely to build up our intellectual confidence and become wise by worldly standards: “Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a ‘fool’ so that he may become wise.” [1 Cor 3:18] Besides, earthly knowledge without godly wisdom is impotent. Proverbs 9:10 reminds us that, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom…” Not only impotent is such knowledge, but a catalyst for pride when used to rebut the critic[2]. Such rebuttals are not Spirit-directed activities done with “gentleness and respect[3]” but personal challenges fraught with sin[4]. As one having struggled with this, I am well aware of how pride quickly overtakes us when operating solely on our abilities. When we step out to defend ourselves, we run alone with motives prejudiced by self-interest. Let us not forget the Lord is our defender!

Given the few legitimate opportunities for discourse and the hazards I scarcely touched on, why should we even consider responding to our critics? The answer is not so much why we ought to respond in general, but rather to whom in particular. Occasionally I run into an acquaintance looking for God out of the corner of their eye. Every so often I see a coworker eavesdropping on a voice of wisdom in the world of noise. Ironically these seekers are more apt to possess the virtues of freethought than the alleged disciples of the movement. The problem however is the peddlers of false philosophy are on center stage. They are the ones prevalent in today’s music, movies, television, books and schools. It is oftentimes difficult to assimilate the many contradictory viewpoints we are barraged with. I went through a period not so many years ago accepting the view of scientism[5]. I believed science was the sole paradigm of truth and was persuaded by the icons of our time where ape morphs into man and primordial soup begets life. And why should today’s unbeliever be any different since he does not recognize the One who now leads me in Truth? Who will be his advocate when the onslaught of false philosophy comes upon him? We clearly need workers of the harvest first to plant the seeds, but is there also a place for those who weed the field? Certainly the Spirit can do His work amongst the sea of falsehoods, but is Machen’s warning valid at all - are false ideas the greatest obstacle to the reception of the Gospel?

As I write this, the sermon this morning was titled “Listening to the Shepard’s Voice.”[6] The pastor talked about how through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ we are compelled by the Holy Spirit who calls us out and brings us into quiet pastures. There the Word becomes meaningful and dogma becomes Truth. Now I know only the Spirit will effectively contend with unbelievers on this front. Yet it is my sincere hope an apologetic approach removes a few weeds from the harvest field and clears a path for the honest seeker. Paul writes: “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.” [Col 2:8] So I do not wish to offer a new philosophy in place of the old but rather refute a popular view. One notion seems to stand out amongst the web of freethought philosophy today: Traditional Christian belief is held dogmatically and it is irrational to accept such ideas without empirical evidence. Some who are entering a period of truth-seeking have this artificial barrier to breach.

So what is the problem with being a dogmatist? What is dogma and what does it mean to be dogmatic? According to The American Heritage^® Dictionary of the English Language (4^th edition 2000) Dogmatic means:

1) Relating to, characteristic of, or resulting from dogma
2) Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles

In a popular college text on logic[7], Copi et al writes:

“One who accepts an unscientific explanation is dogmatic; the account is regarded as being absolutely true and not capable of improvement…An unscientific explanation is taken simply as true, revealed from on high, perhaps, or because ‘everyone knows’ it is so. An unscientific belief is held independently of anything we should regard as evidence in its favor.”

The word dogma has its origin in:

Dogma - 1541 (implied in dogmatist), from L. dogma "philosophical tenet," from Gk. dogma (gen. dogmatos) "opinion, tenet," lit. "that which one thinks is true," from dokein "to seem good, think."

Three schools of thought have existed for over two millennia: those who claim to know the truth (dogmatists); those who are doubtful and suspend judgment regarding truth (skeptics) and those who believe truth is unobtainable (dogmatic skeptics.) Formerly, one holding a firm position on a matter or a philosophical tenet was called a dogmatist. Now it refers to those who authoritatively proclaim their view without evidence - especially, scientific or empirical evidence. Copi takes it a step further and suggests the perceived origin of an unscientific belief is from “on high” or from what we sometimes refer to as “common knowledge.” Some freethought writings broaden the meaning to include “irrational” and “uncritical” thinking. In all fairness, others are using the term dogmatic to describe those who rampantly assert philosophical naturalism and neo-Darwinism. So this is not to criticize any particular group for their use of the term. Instead I want to look at dogmatic thinking and how it relates to the Christian worldview and worldview in general. When used to stereotype the Christian thought process, dogmatism often implies one or more of the following characteristics:

1. Uncritical Thinking – forming a set of belief by an epistemically unsatisfactory means excluding anything we should regard as evidence

2. Inflexibility – holding a set of belief with an unwillingness to change his or her view in light of contrary evidence

3. Pontification – prescribing a set of belief in an authoritative or arrogant manner

Now at face value, uncritical, inflexible and pontificated assertion is clearly not attuned to what most of us view as rational. We tend to disdain the inveterate individual who refuses to consider the so-called “facts” as we see them. Inflexibility in the face of contrary evidence potentially leaves one mired in false belief. It is even worse when we are intellectually dishonest with ourselves. As Shakespeare wrote: “This above all: to thine own self be true…” – and if we cannot be honest with ourselves how can we do so with others. Therefore if dogmatism means pontificating something we do not even hold ourselves in sincerity, then it is an undesirable quality to be sure. The problem is Christians are often stereotyped as dogmatic without much thought being given to the matter.

Uncritical Thinking:
What we see is a double play against the dogmatist where belief is formed without evidence and stubbornly held in light of contrary evidence - although what is contrary to one is often disputed by another. And the sort of evidence we are talking about is the empirical or scientific kind. Empirical evidence is obtained by means of observation and sense experience. Whereas scientific evidence goes further by employing such methods as the hypothetico-deductive and tests for falsification - keeping in mind there is no universally adopted methodology of science. It seems the general consensus among the freethinker movement is one ought to take an evidentialist construal of rationality. According to this view, a belief is epistemically permissible or justified if and only if it is derived from other justified belief, supported by evidence or is properly basic. Otherwise, one is flaunting their epistemic duty, behaving irrationally and not thinking critically.

In "The Ethics of Belief," William Clifford claims it is: "wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” Is Clifford right in saying this? Do I need evidence, perhaps even scientific evidence, to fulfill my epistemic duty as a rational thinker? It seems the obvious answer is no. First of all, to say one either forms belief based on scientific evidence or one forms belief uncritically is a false dichotomy. There are many things rational people believe without scientific evidence. In fact the philosophical presuppositions of science itself are not founded on scientific evidence, yet scientists are not labeled dogmatic for believing them:

• The uniformity of nature where science presupposes physical laws apply beyond the range of direct observation and verification
• The existence of a theory-independent external world where science presupposes it to be objectively real and not an illusion fitting the theories we devise
• The orderly nature of the external world where science presupposes future like-causes will result in similar effects
• That “nothing” cannot cause “something”
• That simple and elegant scientific theories are preferable and more apt to reflect reality[8]
• That scientific activity ought to be practiced with integrity and honesty

Although these presuppositions are widely accepted and reasonable enough, they are not derived from scientific evidence but are formed on the basis of induction and experience. And of course rational people believe all sorts of things without empirical evidence as well: 

• Belief formed by our memory of past experiences
• Belief formed through introspection
• Belief formed by the testimony of reliable people
• Moral beliefs such as honesty being a virtue; racism a vice, etc.
• Belief about other’s minds, feelings, and thoughts
• Belief about the future based on induction

Whether or not any of the above classifications are epistemically justifiable is independent of the veracity of any particular instance. That is to say; simply because you may have a false belief does not necessarily mean an epistemically unacceptable means was used to arrive at it. Even those who apply scientific methods make mistakes! As strict verificationism is widely rejected in contemporary philosophy,[9] the evidentialist will likely argue justified belief does not require evidence if it is properly basic or derived from other justified belief. Since Christian faith at its foundation is not derived from other beliefs, and according to the freethinker is not supported by evidence, then it must be either properly basic or unjustified. Although I believe there is in fact a good deal of evidence supporting theism in general and Christianity in particular, we may omit this facet of the argument for the sake of simplicity as it is not necessary to justify Christian belief.

So what is a properly basic belief? One strict interpretation says: A properly basic belief is one that is self-evident, evident to the senses or incorrigible. It is known in an immediate way or where one cannot be mistaken (for example: “2+2=4” or “I feel pain!”) Most would agree with these qualifiers for proper basicality including the epistemologist Alvin Plantinga who developed his three-volume series on warranted belief. In his third volume “Warranted Christian Belief” Plantinga expands on the strict interpretation which he sees as insufficient and untenable. First off, the strict interpretation is itself not properly basic, nor is it derived from evidence – so why should we believe it! Second, the strict interpretation does not accommodate the various ways rational people regularly form belief such as those listed above. Plantinga offers a definition for proper basicality with respect to performing your epistemic duty along these lines:

A belief P is properly basic with respect to justification for person S if P is the result of S having fulfilled his epistemic obligation and not produced in S on the evidential basis of other propositions.[10]

Fulfilling your “epistemic obligation” has to do with S honestly deliberating on P taking into account any known defeaters[11]. In other words, you do your level best to assess the veracity of P based on your background knowledge, experience, etc. along with an honest consideration of known counter beliefs. Say for example; of sound mind I consider the proposition “God created the universe.” I do this in light of my experience and background knowledge; the untenable position of a universe beginning to exist without cause or reason; the weaknesses of philosophical naturalism; the awe inspired by my observation of the diversity and grandeur of life, etc. If after taking all of this into account I conclude the proposition “God created the universe” to be true, then I have fulfilled my epistemic obligation and this belief is justified for me. This is so even if empirical evidence is unavailable to me at the time. I may also be wrong in this case, but it is irrelevant to the issue of epistemic justification and the criticism of uncritical thinking.

But then I did not come to believe in God’s existence or a relationship with Christ by such route. I did not build a faith through piecemeal-logic but was suddenly drawn out of darkness by the Spirit of God. G. K. Chesterton expresses this concept well when he said: "You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.[12]" Having once an implacable heart I understand the inaccessibility of God’s truth by purely rational means. Freed by the Truth, I am now free to see it from a venue once blind. Describing this epiphany in terms of proper basicality to the unbeliever is hardly practical. It might be like the Apostle Paul trying to rationalize his Damascus road conversion to his pharisaical peers. To refute the notion the Christian is somehow derelict in his epistemic duty is a far less ambitious goal.

Although the immediate experience of Salvation was compelling for me; the living-out of my faith provides multiple opportunities to fulfill my epistemic responsibility. Certain aspects of my faith have been strengthened through this process while other areas have required a greater dependence on the Holy Spirit. I now find the atheistic position untenable on philosophical and evidential grounds whereas my relationship with Jesus (the great stumbling block) could not have been obtained, or now sustained, by the same route. God does reveal himself in nature [Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:20] and yet no one can say Jesus is Lord except by the power of the Holy Spirit [1 Corinthians 12:3].

Now the freethinker will likely take issue with this and say something like: “Given this model one might be justified in believing just about anything.” And in fact with respect to epistemic justification this is true as there is an endless sea of scenarios one might conceive where beliefs are justified. Therefore we might consider going further into the concept of warrant.[13] Warrant is that which turns mere true belief into knowledge. In fact Plantinga’s project goes on to show not only is Christian belief justified (which is trivial) but that it is also warranted. Yet such further refinement is probably unnecessary for our purposes. The real challenge herein is best delineated by what Plantinga calls the de jure and de facto objections. The de jure objection has to do with the criticism of uncritical thinking; being irrational; flaunting epistemic duty, etc. The de facto objection has to do with veracity of a belief; arguments for and against the truth of a proposition, etc. The bottom line: the de jure objection against Christian belief does not hold as we have seen. As Plantinga argues; there is no valid de jure objection to the Christian faith apart from a de facto objection. In other words, those who level a de jure charge against Christian belief do so irrationally or they smuggle in a de facto element in the process.

Finally there is what is known as the presumption of atheism. This view attempts to trump justified Christian belief by asserting the burden of proof is on the theist and one’s epistemic duty is to presume atheism in the absence of evidence. The idea is often expressed by the statement: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” If theism is an extraordinary claim founded on something other than evidence, then presumably we are to reject it in favor of atheism[14]. Again, granting the false assumption there is “no evidence,” this tactic fails on several fronts. First of all, the atheist claim to know “God does not exist” is an extraordinary claim requiring more justification than the claim to know God exists.[15] Given this sort of reasoning we should perhaps presume theism! Furthermore the evidentialist needs evidence to assert the atheist-claim according to their own standard for epistemic justification[16]. Given the lack thereof, the atheist must rely on proper basicality to justify their foundational position on God’s nonexistence. Finally, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. For example, if you suddenly found yourself without a wallet in a busy public area, you would not likely rule out the existence of a thief merely due to a lack of evidence. There may not be a thief in this case (you may find later you had misplaced your wallet) but you would not initially rule out the possibility of theft on philosophical grounds. Absence of evidence is only evidence of absence where one can show a reasonable correlation between the absence of specific evidence and nonexistence[17].

In an attempt to overcome the weaknesses in the presumption of atheism position, there are those like Anthony Flew who have redefined themselves to be more akin to the nontheist. The new atheist no longer positively asserts the nonexistence of God but rather claims simply to not be a theist (a-theist meaning not-theist.) But this position is hardly a position at all and such a redefinition now qualifies babies as atheists. If the new mantra is: “I’m not making an extraordinary claim, I simply do not believe,” then why would these nontheists prescribe their view to others; why all of the books, websites, debates and arguing? If one honestly has no belief in P and no belief in ~P, one is really an agnostic. And if you truly have “no belief” on a matter then you in fact have no knowledge on the matter[18]. "Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!" was Bertrand Russell’s famous reply, when asked what he would say if he found himself in the presence of God after dying. Yet when asked what evidence would be sufficient, he was unable to give a sustainable answer[19]. You have to wonder if it is a desire for evidence or an obstinate heart holding the nontheist in its grip.

Inflexibility:
The dogmatist is often charged with holding his belief stubbornly, even in light of undercutting evidence. Now this does not seem very surprising to me. What is surprising is the disingenuous notion inflexibility is a particularly Christian problem when it is in fact a human condition, and in some cases desirable. Consider what I refer to as substantive-worldview. This is an ingrained, comprehensive, momentous and cohesive framework of belief defining one’s overall view of the world and the basis of one’s actions. It is deep-rooted unlike modern relativism ever-shifting to suit the moment and our immediate desires. It is wide-ranging unlike the view of dogmatic skepticism which holds there is little to know outside of our meager observations. It is meaningful unlike apathetic agnosticism which says: “I don’t know and I don’t care.” Those who hold substantive-worldview desire consistency and minimal contradiction amongst their core beliefs. It has been my experience many so-called freethinkers embody substantive-worldview despite their criticism of the dogmatist. One can assess this easily by reading their books, essays, websites, etc. From what I have observed these folks have a lot to say! Therefore substantive-worldview is not only embodied by numerous people of faith but also by many unbelievers including the freethinker.

Substantive-worldview often deals with supporting ideas and interrelated principles on life’s most important matters including origin, purpose, destiny and morality. I like to think of it as a web of beliefs where each proposition interconnects and supports other propositions without contradiction. Some of our core beliefs are foundational and do not receive support from other beliefs. For obvious reason there is no perfect assemblage of ideas and everyone is guilty from time to time of holding a view with epistemic tension. We sometimes unwittingly hold a belief-set with contradiction or low degrees of certainty, and so forth. Of course from a Christian perspective I expect our cognitive faculties are designed properly for the purpose of obtaining true belief. After all, we are created in God’s image and God is rational. [Genesis 1, Isaiah 1:18.] Christian perspective temporarily aside, can you imagine a well-functioning cognitive system where foundational belief supporting other well-accepted belief is casually discarded? How about a cognitive system where a new idea contradicting other well-accepted belief is casually adopted? We all know from experience the more foundational and momentous a belief is, the more impact it would have on our worldview if suddenly found false. Likewise, integrating a new idea contradicting our core beliefs is not possible without potentially dismantling our worldview.

If the resurrection of Jesus is a cornerstone belief in my Christian worldview, other beliefs will follow - some of which inflexibly: Jesus’ authority was confirmed by God’s action; God has the power to overcome death; God acts in the physical world, etc. It is unreasonable to think I should suddenly become flexible on the matter of miracles and accept the precepts of philosophical naturalism. To reject the view supernatural cause exists in the physical world would be to turn my Christian worldview on its head. Likewise, if philosophical naturalism is a cornerstone view in the freethinker’s foundation, she will also hold other related beliefs inflexibly: such as, God does not act in the physical world or He does not exist; Jesus was only a man if he existed at all, etc. How could one in this case suddenly accept the resurrection of Christ without a complete rework of their foundation? Is there really any wonder why those with substantive-worldview are inflexible?

Here the freethinker is likely to claim they are more apt to modify their view based on evidence and this flexibility is what differentiates them from the Christian dogmatist. After all, having the liberty to go wherever the evidence leads is the charming attribute of the freethinker. But where does the evidence really lead? The worldview of the freethinking nontheist (freeNT) does not appear to shift as new evidence is uncovered. So I am guessing they see the evidence always pointing in the same direction? As the static universe theory died in the mid-twentieth century and science moved to a model astonishingly similar to the Creation account, did the freeNT budge? As philosophical naturalism continues to buckle under the work of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, one might expect a certain open-mindedness to be evident on the part of the freeNT. Yet talkorigins.org, a popular hangout for these folks, seems to have no interest whatsoever in engaging the ID movement other than to criticize and excommunicate them from the scientific community. Consider how unlikely DNA developed by unguided random processes. Given it has a higher information density than anything man has created, one might think the freeNT would at least consider design instead of rigidly holding out for unguided processes to fill the gaps – but not so. Instead, as abiogenesis[20] theory thrashes, some are now turning to panspermia or cosmic ancestry[21]. Given how unlikely primordial soup + time + chance leads to life, the freeNT demonstrates his flexibility by turning to cosmic spores and a closed universe where life has always existed. He is hopeful about what we will find from the scrapings of space dust from the NASA Genesis mission[22]. This is not flexibility but desperate action to maintain a rigid position.

On a more personal front I encountered the quintessential case of freeNT inflexibility. I recently engaged a colleague and professed agnostic on a flight back from business. This was the first time I had a chance to discuss core worldview issues with him. We talked about our beliefs and his skepticism was apparent. We discussed origins, neo-Darwinian evolution, cosmology, etc. Our conversation was very amiable and pleasant. My co-worker clearly had a good grasp of the subjects we discussed and embodied substantive-worldview from my observation. Although skeptical, he expressed views on origin, purpose and death. I got the feeling he was at least open to my position and he even conceded evidence such as the Cambrian Explosion[23] did not support the contemporary neo-Darwinian view. But it was what he told me at the end of our discussion that was astonishing. He said: “I am comfortable with my agnosticism” and “suddenly ceasing to exist [at death] is actually appealing to me.” As I reflect on this now, it seems to me no matter how good my arguments were at the time, they were not going to make an immediate impact. In the end it was not about reason, but his desire and level of comfort. Although there was minimal flexibility in his worldview that day, I do hope a seed was planted and perhaps a few weeds pulled as well.

Pontification:
Combine substantive-worldview with a bit of hubris and we are all prone to exhibit authoritativeness and arrogance when conveying our beliefs. This includes the freethinking skeptic despite how antithetical skepticism and authoritativeness may seem. At the very least, skeptics are authoritative about how doubtful they are of the dogmatist’s position. It seems no particular group is immune to pontification. Lest we think the freethinker is exempt; consider the following quotes and see if you can detect any authoritativeness or arrogance…

Note the 18^th century philosopher David Hume and his empiricist filter:

Ask of any book: "Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity of number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

Of course if we apply Hume’s filter on itself:

Write Hume’s filter down in the pages of a book and ask: "Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity of number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." 

How about Darwinist and writer Richard Dawkins?

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane…”

To which one quipped:

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims to believe evolution is a proven scientific fact, that person is ignorant, stupid or Richard Dawkins.”

I list these quotes only for levity as again we are all prone to arrogance and authoritativeness. It is only at times where my thoughts are made obedient to Christ do I tailor my response with humility. I cannot say I have witnessed the same kind of restraint from the other side. Although not everyone who claims to be Christian is consistent in this matter either. Only those operating in step with the Spirit of God will consistently act in humility and thoughtfulness. In fact I propose this as a litmus test during discourse to determine who is truly acting as an ambassador of Christ and who is acting on their own behalf.

So what drives us to get out there and share with those who do not see things the way we do? Given, we do not always operate within well-defined boundaries of our professed religious affiliation. But ideologically: The Christian is motivated by the Spirit to save the unbeliever from eternal separation from God; The Muslim is motivated to bring the world under the moral control of Islam and to repress the Infidel. Many atheists seem motivated to secularize society and eliminate God from all areas of life. The unrepentant sinner seeks the dark corners of political discourse where words like tolerance are used and where shame and guilt are hidden from view. Yet Christ calls us to a noble cause and to reject those contrary to God's purpose for His kingdom. Christ calls His followers to take up their cross and follow Him; to love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength and to love their neighbor as themselves; to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything He has commanded.

Conclusion:
We have seen the evidentialist requirement for justified belief is both unnecessary and inadequate. In fact even the freethinker forms belief in ways outside the accepted boundaries of evidentialism. We have also seen inflexibility is a natural byproduct of any substantive-worldview and often underneath the guise of freethought there is a rigid foundation of core beliefs. Finally, no particular worldview has a corner on the market regarding authoritativeness or arrogance. The Christian walking in step with the Holy Spirit is more likely to exhibit the virtue of humility. The bottom line: dogmatism crosses all worldview boundaries. As G. K. Chesterton wrote: “There are two kinds of people in the world: the conscious and the unconscious dogmatists. I have always found that the unconscious dogmatists were by far the most dogmatic.[24]”