Is Christianity Irrational?

I have a debate coming up shortly - and i'd like to know how strogn you find my argument. Any criticism = more than welcome

Is Christianity Irrational?

In order to assess the rationality of any concept or belief, we must first have a clear understanding of what it means to be rational. Quite simply, in order for a proposition to be considered rational we must be able to demonstrate that it conforms to strict criteria of logic and reason. For an idea to be considered irrational therefore, is to show that it contradicts logic in some way. Some would consider the mere absence of deliberate cogitation as adequate grounds for deeming a particular proposition to be irrational, however we concern ourselves here with those ideas in Christianity that directly contradict reason when placed under logical scrutiny.

It would not be unfair to point out, that in many ways Christianity consists of a number of non rational beliefs and ideas. The very nature of Christianity is fideistic, that is to say, based on faith rather than structured logical deduction and inference. A simple way to highlight the non rational aspect of Christian teaching would be to mention the biblical story of Abraham and Isaac where Abraham is commanded by God to sacrifice his son, only later to be told by God to stop and that the whole affair was simply a test of faith. Had Abraham rationally deliberated his predicament then he might have arrived at a number of conclusions, for example that he was insane and that the voice in his head was not that of God. Supposing he were in fact mistaken about the divine nature of the command and had killed his son? Rational consideration of the situation could certainly have averted such a tragedy.

To point out the non rational nature of Christianity however, is not the purpose of this argument. What makes Christianity irrational, is that it takes these tentative, rationally void beliefs and mandates, and seeks to exalt them as absolute, and furthermore, exclusively true. To say ?'I believe X regardless of its rational standing' is one thing, however to go on to say ?'X is absolutely and exclusively true, and anyone who does not accept it is unquestionably wrong' is to take a wholly irrational step. Furthermore, given the content of Christian belief, not only does the believer claim exclusive and absolute certitude, but also maintains that individuals who do not do the same are headed for damnation. In order to achieve salvation in Christianity, one must accept Jesus Christ as saviour and redeemer of the human race - a concept which is utterly devoid of rational grounding.
Mark's gospel famously says:

"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched. Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" .

This quite clearly advocates a mindset which potentially goes against the temporal interests and well-being of the individual in favour of later salvation - another faith-dependant concept. I am sure that Mark is writing metaphorically when he talks of dismemberment in this way, but at the level of the analogy, would not any person disfiguring themselves in such a way be considered irrational even if they were to lay claim to some kind of higher, atemporal self interest?

Our second criticism of Christianity goes deeper than the acceptance of Christian teaching. This is because the actual Christian doctrines themselves, are fundamentally irrational. In its very teachings, Christianity contradicts logic, even at a basic, mathematical level.

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity affirms that while God is one, He exists as three persons: The unknown God, creator and source of all life; Jesus Christ who has revealed the Father, and the Holy Spirit, the bond of love between Father and Son, who is always at work in transforming the world according to God's purpose. Usually, the trinity is referred to as God the Father, The Son and the Holy spirit/ghost. There has been some debate as to the biblical foundation of the concept, however it has become widely accepted in Christian teaching across the world. The old testament makes no specific reference to the trinity, however the Hebrew word Elohim is plural. So the single Godhead comprises the majesty of divine plurality. The nature of God as it is shown in the book of Genesis implies that God is a family (Genesis 5:2-3); God is one (Deut. 6:4, Ex. 20:3).

The early Christians however had a Trinitarian experience. For them the Spirit of God was personal. In the fourth gospel, the divinity of Christ is explicitly stated (John 1:1, 1:18).

Origin of the concept aside, it is clear from any church service, that the Trinity is an accepted doctrine of Christianity. However eloquent, poetic and inspirational such a concept may be however, it cannot escape from the fact that it claims that 1+1+1 = 1. It claims that God, comprises 3 persons, but is still one.

There are a number of ways in which Christians have argued against this flagrant logical contradiction. Firstly, it is common to hear Christians citing the trinity to be 3 thirds of an overall whole. However to divide an infinite into equal parts is completely irrational, as infinity divided by three, is quite clearly still infinity. Furthermore, to say that there are three distinct, ultimate beings would be a tritheistic belief, and I very much doubt that any Christian would lay claim to possessing a belief in a plurality of deities.

Secondly, Christians have argued simply that the idea of the Trinity is a mystery, a truth which we must believe because God has made it known to us, but which we cannot perfectly understand. This of course, is understatement at its finest. The concept of three being one but still three is wholly unintelligible to any rational human being. To admit this, and then simply point out that a human mind cannot possibly understand the nature of God in this way is to lay claim to a level of omnipotence that most Christians would not even attribute to God, the ability to directly contradict logic. If God is completely unrestrained by the boundaries of logic and reason in this way, then he is wholly, and absolutely unintelligible in any limited way, shape or form. To discuss a God whose properties transcend logic in this way would be a purposeless and futile endeavour as nothing meaningful could conceivably be uttered on either side of the debate. A belief in such an incomprehensible deity would be equally nonsensical, as the concept of the believer could bear absolutely no relation to that which he or she believed in.

Almost the same contradiction can be found in the very foundation of Christianity - the belief in the divine incarnation of Christ. The doctrine teaches that Jesus was a man, but was also God - the temporal blended with the a-temporal, the contingent infused with the necessary. This concept is utterly incomprehensible due to the conflicting ontological statuses of man and deity, there is no conceivable way in which a material being can contain any element of ultimate reality without confessing again that God is completely and utterly incomprehensible in every way and that all discussion and insight into his nature or existence is meaningless rambling.

It seems clear then, that a system of irrational beliefs that are irrationally exalted as absolute and true, clearly cannot be reconciled with logical scrutiny. No system of doctrines whose only possibility of being true relies on belief in them being meaningless can possibly be exalted as exclusive truth, over and above all others. Christianity is therefore, unequivocally irrational.