Is Christianity Irrational?

Christianity is not based on rational thinking. It's based on 'faith.'

Yes
hmm, i think you miss the point - i cover the fact that it is non rational in the argument - just because it is not based on reason does not mean that it can contradict it. Please try to make a criticism that i dont actually say in the argument.

Bible scholars put the age of earth at 7,000 years old, but we know from current science that this world is over several hundred million years old. If the basis of the earthl's creation is wrong in the bible, one must also question the reliability of all the other "historical" record of the bible.

thanks...but...again, this is somewhat irrelevant - im not asking for empirical evidence for the truth or falsity of Christian doctrine - im arguing that it neccesarily contradicts reason.

Any belief based on faith by definition is going to ignore reason, particularly when reason contradicts the basic 'truths' of that belief. This does not necessarily make any belief irrational, there are many places in the world where people still belive in magic, not a scientifically sound assumption. These people are perfectly satisfied with their belief. But when compared to science, functionally, magic does not measure up.

Again....
thanks, but i did bring this up in my essay - the very purpose of my argument is to show that Christianity is not only Non Rational but also irrational. You tell me that this is not the case, please read the argument and tell me what it is that you disagree with.

Hi Spleen,

Welcome to A2K

I think the only constructive criticism I can provide is that your argument is unecessarily complex. As you yourself, as well as others here have mentioned, religion is not based on reasoning and logic, it is based on faith; an intentionally irrational foundation.

It seems to me that providing the definitions of Christianity (a religion), and irrationality, are sufficient to prove the argument.

Best Regards,

Spleen

You do a much better job of showing Christianity not to be rational -- than you do of showing it to be irrational.

You seem to understand the distinction, but observing that showing something not to be rational is not the same as showing it to be irrational -- you still end up depending on the fact that it is not rational to argue that it is irrational.

(Got a doctor's appointment in a little bit, so I'm not going to be able to develop this criticism as much as I would like, but I think you should be able to fill in the blanks on your own.)

Your arguments that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 are simplistic -- and you would do better for your general theme to toss that part out.

Hope this is closer to what you were looking for.

If I get a minute later, I'll add a few things.

I don't understand your distinction between not rational and irrational at all, Frank. As far as I understand it, rational = consistent with reason -- irrational = the opposite. Am I missing something there?

Just got back from the doctor's office.

Without trying to do a complete development, Monger, let me see if I can at least give you a taste of what I am trying to say -- and it may be enough. If not, I'll go a bit further into it.

Liken it, if you will, to someone saying that a particular essay "does not give a conservative perspective on the issue being discussed."

That does not perforce mean that the essay gave a liberal perspective -- just that it did not give conservative perspective.

I am trying to suggest that although Spleen makes an excellent case that Christianity is not rational as (I think properly) defined by him/her...

..."able to demonstrate that it conforms to strict criteria of logic and reason"...

...the fact that it doesn't -- is not an adequate case for suggesting that therefore it is irrational.

Spleen anticipates this reservation when he/she writes: "Some would consider the mere absence of deliberate cogitation as adequate grounds for deeming a particular proposition to be irrational."

But then Spleen uses the argument that since rationality cannot be demonstrated in Christian belief -- and I agree that it cannot -- it is "irrational."

I suggest as an alternative that he (I'll stick with masculine pronouns for how) stick with simply noting the absence of rationality -- and leave the conclusion "therefor it is irrational" out of the picture.

Of course, his initial question would probably have to be reworded to something like "Is Christianity rational?"

But I would suggest to him that doing so would eliminate a debating rebuttal on an obscure point -- that is unnecessary.

In any case, as Spleen notes, "in order for an idea to be considered irrational therefore, is to show that it contradicts logic in some way."

I don't know that Christianity truly contradicts logic -- and I certainly would not want to defend that assertion rather than simply defending the assertion that it does not demonstrate that it conforms to strict criteria of logic and reason (the criteria for rational.)

Hope that all made sense, Monger. Now that you've called on me to explain my point, I realize how difficult the concept is to share.

It made sense. We're just a little different in that I don't see this as analogous with liberal/conservative or fat/thin, but rather as something more comparative with relevant/irrelevant. (ie: not relevant) Religious/irreligious. Rational/irrational.

Yeah yeah I'm just arguing semantics and all so I'll stop now, but anyhow I do understand the point you're making here, Frank.

ok
It seems to me, that you think i have only made a case for the non rational nature of Christianity, rather than its irrationality. If you are correct, then my argument is largely futile, as i think that most people would accept from the outset that Christianity is non rational.

However, what i tried to point out, was that Christianity directly contradicts reason. The best example of this in my argument is the Trinity example. To say that three are one but still three, contradicts the very meaning of the words 'one' and 'three'. 1+1+1=3 is not true because of an operation, it is true because 1+1+1 means the same thing as 3. To say that 1+1+1 can in certain circumstances = 1 is not simply ignoring reason - it is directly opposing it.

I hope this deals with your point. Thankyou very much for the feedback though - i need it!

Do ya think that the one technicality you mention makes Christianty more irrational than, for example, monotheistic Islam? After all, things don't work the same way in the spiritual realm, so I think it's just as reasonable as saying there are 3 discrete deities.

One of the problems in developing "proofs" for this sort of thing is in how you read and interpret things. In the inital post you said:



"Dismemberment in this way"? Which "way" is that? What is meant in the original quote passage by "offend"?

If "offend" implies anything that is abnormal to the body then cancer could be included in that. (The original passage has been interpreted by scholars to be referring to "sin" which, in biblical times, was often seen as the cause of many illnesses) Aren't people "disfigured" pretty much daily in an effort to rid their body of cancers? Does anyone consider that to be irrational? Does it go against the well being of the individual?

I agree btw, with your premise that Christianity is, in the end, irrational. I'd mention though that since we are at a state in human developement where there are still many unanswered questions, everything is built on some level of irrationality. At some point you get to the end of the chain of rational thought where "proofs" no longer exist and you enter the land of the theoretical where anyone's guess is as good as the rest.

Re: Yes


Would criticising amount to slandering in my case, being from another Religion ?

Just a query only...

Spleen

Allow me a few further comments -- starting with a bit of juxtapositioning of something you said with something Fishin' said:

Fishin' said:



In the post above, you said:



My first comment: I agree with fishin' (and with you) -- that in the end, Christianity is irrational!

But we are not discussing what I think here -- we are discussing your preparation for debate on this issue -- and quite honestly, the fact that you, Fishin', and I agree that Christianity is, after all is said and done, irrational -- is not the same as saying that the arguments you presented establish that Christianity is irrational.

That is what you have to think about in debate -- what your arguments establish.

And I think a part of your problem in this area has to do with the mindset indicated by that quote of yours.
I'll repeat it:




That quote, Spleen, using the criteria you personally established for "rational" and "irrational"...

...is itself irrational.

Most people would NOT accept from the outset that Christianity is irrational. In fact, if you are speaking about the people here in the United States, my guess is that a huge majority are Christian -- and a huge majority of that huge majority think Christianity is very, very rational.

Get out of that mindset -- and don't assume that your opponent in debate will so easily concede victory to you simply because of what you "believe" -- and what a few others "believe."

If you want to make the case that Christianity is irrational -- I would suggest you do so -- and not depend on it being conceded as irrational simply because it cannot be shown to be rational.

Your debating opponent may end up being a dud -- and you may get away with this on that account. But I can tell you that if you were debating this question with some of the people who post here in A2K -- they'd eat you up alive on that point.

****

You went back to the "irrationality" of "believing" in the trinity.

That simply is not going to wash with anyone except someone of the same mindset as yours.

The trinity is much, much more than just 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 -- and if you try to use that as objective indication that Christianity is irrational, you are giving your opponent a shot at your jaw. He/she will easily argue that your take on this specific is simplistic.

Or at least, that is my opinion.




Feel free to disregard my observations -- but, if your debating opponent turns out to be someone of substance, don't be surprised to see these points raised -- and defended to your disadvantage.




Good luck.

Let us know how you do.

right...
ok...lets take this one bit at a time.



Right - i did not say that most people would accept that it is irrational. Rather that it is non rational. By that, i did not mean [and perhaps i should have clarified this] any person who has not even deliberated it. I mean, that it is quite easy to convincingly demonstrate that Christianity does not rely on reason - and few christians would see that as a significant problem, as any christians would admit that faith is neccessary.



I'm afraid that i simply cannot accept this criticism without further detail...simply saying 'you are wrong, and that is simplistic' is not likely to make me reconsider is it? If you can show me a reason why the Trinity can concievably not contradict human reasoning [which should be easy, given the 'simplistic' nature of my argument] then i will reconsider the point. However, as far as i can see, this particular doctrine is diametrically opposed to human reason - as is the concept of having a man/god - a being which is both ultimate and contingent - the two terms simply are mutually exclusive - christianity therefore contradicts tautological truisms on both mathematical and linguistic levels.

Please, show me why I'm wrong! Don't just say it!

Sorry you guys but "rationality" and "logic" are not synonymous, though the latter is sometimes used to evoke the former.

Rationality is essentially a "world view" which gives coherence and meaning to events. In as much that any religion serves this purpose it can be said by its adherents to be "rational."

I am reminded of the scene from Lawrence of Arabia where to the amazement of his Arab comrades Lawrence rides back across the baking desert to save a straggler with the words "nothing is written (fate)"...later of course Lawrence ends up by executing the same man, at which point his Arab comrade remarks "so it WAS written then !" This is the "rationality" of religion.

Although coherence and meaning are sought as the basis of all rational systems complete coherence is elusive and contradictions abound.
So the process of "rationalization" always includes sets of ad hoc hypotheses to tidy up the inconsistencies. E.g. " Q:Why does a benevolent God allow suffering of the innocent? A. "In order that we should learn from the experience." etc.

If by logic you mean mathematically correct, than no, Christianity isn't logical. But Christianity did originate with a great many religions that had many gods, and carried those beliefs into its own theology. So it's rational and logical that this duality should exist. The problem with most people examining Christianity for its rationality is that they look at it as they might look at the work of a philosopher - something that someone just came up with off the top of their head and which has been left mostly intact over the years. This is not the case. Early Christianity was influenced by the many religions of the time that it was born in, which were in turn influenced by other things, and it has changed a lot since it was first begun. It's silly to take the final product of thousands of years of social change and culture and analyze it by itself. There's no usefulness in it. Saying 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 is simply a way of taking the semantics at face value and simplifying them into something that had no hold over the development of that concept.