spleen - Personally, I think this debate is a setup. I don't believe either side can actually "prove" Chirstianity is or isn't irrational. Luckily, most debates are decided on debating style and points.
But, at issue here is your arguments and what you can do to strengthen them. Let me disect one paragraph and explain why I think it is weak.
Quote: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.
First off, never go into a debate stating any sentence off with "Simply...". What may seem simple to you may not be so readilly apparent to others. As you've seen already here, others have taken issue with your definition of "rational". You can't assume that everyone else shares your definition nor do you have the luxury of being able to redefine words for purpose of debate. If you want to define "rational" then quote the definition from a reputable source. (i.e. "According to Merriam-Webeter's..." or "As defined in the OED..."
Quote:For an idea to be considered irrational therefore, is to show that it contradicts logic in some way.
This is a false application of logic and a tangled web you're heading for. All it has to do is contradict logic
in some way? Contradict who's logic? Shouldn't it have to contradict
all logic?
Quote: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.
I see 2 problems here. Your original premise is that
Christianity is irrational but now you say you'll prove that there are
some ideas within Christianity that are irrational. Is the entire religion irriational if a few of it's ideas are irrational?
Other portions of your writing have similar problems and leave you open to being torn apart. For example:
Quote: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.
You argue yourself into circles with this one. Had Abraham "rationally deliberated" he would never come to the conclusion that he was insane. Being insane usually means that one DOESN'T think rationally. The fact that he was able to "rationally deliberate" would have pretty much automatically precluded insanity as an option. But, if he
had concluded he was insane then he wouldn't have been able to trust those conclusions would he?
Also, what tragedy would have been averted by rational consideration? Issac wasn't killed - there was no tragedy.
Ok, so anyway, I think that demonstrates some of the problems with your argument/style. You can't assume that anyone else agrees with anything you say in a debate. You have to base your arguments in fact backed by authorative references. You have to tell them why something is true and then prove to them that there is no way it
can't be true. Something isn't illogical or irrational just because
you don't see or state the logic. If the people listening or reading see another path from point A to point C that you don't cover then you are sunk. You have cover all the paths to "C" and demonstrate that they are all false paths.
