Is Christianity Irrational? (Especially for Satori)

[Pate]

Dear Satori, you have repeatedly asserted that Christianity is irrational and intellectually damaging and that Christians are credulous and ignorant. I would like to see you justifying your assertion. I will be glad to have a formal debate on this subject with you after my debate with Steven Carr is finished. (It will take at least a couple of weeks.) But I recall that you have not indicated any interest to participate in formal debates. Therefore, if you haven't changed your mind, perhaps we should just discuss the issue here.

So, please tell us, why Christianity is irrational and intellectually damaging?

[TenDimensions]

03-17-2003 @ 12:31 PM
Pate:
So, please tell us, why Christianity is irrational and intellectually damaging?

If he's not willing to take this on, I'd be willing to. :smile:

While I don't necessarily use the same provoctative language that Satori uses I do think the idea that one can believe in Christianity as a logical proof is irrational. One can believe anything they wish on a matter of faith, but to think you are believing in something like religion with logical proof is irrational and just simply wrong. In addition, I'm willing to say that continued support of the idea that Christianity can be logically proven is intellectually damaging as it effects the believer by convincing them that certain illogical arguments are in fact, logical.

Just to recap, I don't support the notion that Christianity itself is irrational or it never would have spread as successfully as it has. However, not accepting the starting point for Christianity as a complete leap of faith is irrational and I'd be willing to debate that.

[Zakath]

Aren't all religions irrational to some degree?

Christianity certainly has no corner on the market in this deparment.

[Pilgrim]

I think that ten Deminsions is confusing terms. Of course Christianity can be logically proven in terms of existance and following. It is after all merely an institution. What might not be able to be proven rationally is the doctrine or dogma of Christianity.

[TenDimensions]

Yesterday @ 04:19 PM
Pilgrim:
I think that ten Deminsions is confusing terms. Of course Christianity can be logically proven in terms of existance and following. It is after all merely an institution. What might not be able to be proven rationally is the doctrine or dogma of Christianity.

Yes, that is what I meant. I think I tried to clarify it in those last two sentences.

[CriscoDisco]

Irrationality, would suggest, not only a complete absence of rationality-- but the opposite of rationality. In a sense saying that christianity is irrational is to say it is insanity.

What of the terms unreasonable, or non-rational?

Would you characterize christianity as unreasonable ( what a normal reasonable person would believe given the same experiences) or would you call it merely non-rational, a belief held because of ways of knowing that are not rational-- revelation, faith etc...

[Pate]

03-21-2003 @ 12:43 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41483#post41483)
TenDimensions:
If he's not willing to take this on, I'd be willing to. :smile:

OK. Sounds good. :smile:

Are you especially interested to debate this formally? If so, we can't start right away, because I'm unwilling to commit myself to two formal debates at the same time and my debate with Steven Carr is not even halfway throught yet. If we're just going to discuss the issue here, we can start right away, because in that case, I will not be the only person to represent the Christian point or view. Or additionally, if you can accept longer time limits than 5 days to each post, then I could consider starting a formal debate with you even before my other debate ends.


While I don't necessarily use the same provoctative language that Satori uses I do think the idea that one can believe in Christianity as a logical proof is irrational. One can believe anything they wish on a matter of faith, but to think you are believing in something like religion with logical proof is irrational and just simply wrong. In addition, I'm willing to say that continued support of the idea that Christianity can be logically proven is intellectually damaging as it effects the believer by convincing them that certain illogical arguments are in fact, logical.


My position would be, that Christianity can be believed in, in such a way that a believer does not violate any intellectual obligation, (if such a thing exists) and possibly even so, that the believer rightly comes to view Christianity as having more rational warrant than any competing worldview.


However, not accepting the starting point for Christianity as a complete leap of faith is irrational and I'd be willing to debate that.

OK. I have enough disagreement with that in order for there to be a real debate. :smile:

Today @ 01:34 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42715#post42715)
CriscoDisco:

Would you characterize christianity as unreasonable ( what a normal reasonable person would believe given the same experiences) or would you call it merely non-rational, a belief held because of ways of knowing that are not rational-- revelation, faith etc...

There's a hidden assumption here, that revelation and faith cannot be rational ways to knowledge. But this is an issue that can't be decided independently of whether or not Christianity is true. If Christianity is true, these ways of knowing can be rational, because in that case they probably are cognitive processes which are designed to properly function in a way that produces mostly true beliefs.


Notification: For some weird reason, my reply to CriscoDisco always becomes part of this previous message, even though I post it separately. I can't understand this. Has anyone else experienced this kind of problem?

[TenDimensions]

Yesterday @ 08:34 PM CriscoDisco:
Irrationality, would suggest, not only a complete absence of rationality-- but the opposite of rationality. In a sense saying that christianity is irrational is to say it is insanity.

Well, I think the term insanity has some negative connotations to it that I'm not trying to imply. But do I think there are Fundamentalist Christians who honestly feel that they can't make important life affecting decisions without praying on them? Yes. Would I characterize these people as having a serious break from reality due to their inability to make a responsible adult decision without first consulting with (what to them is) a higher authority? Yes.

Would you characterize christianity as unreasonable ( what a normal reasonable person would believe given the same experiences) or would you call it merely non-rational, a belief held because of ways of knowing that are not rational-- revelation, faith etc...

I'd agree with that. It does seem reasonable on the surface which is why there are so many moderate Christians out there. It seems reasonable that there must be a master power who governs all this chaos and complexity. And I definitely would say non-rational, although I think you might be splitting hairs with non-rational vs. irrational, but that's okay, I don't think that's germane to the topic at hand.

Today @ 05:43 AM Pate:
Are you especially interested to debate this formally? If so, we can't start right away, because I'm unwilling to commit myself to two formal debates at the same time and my debate with Steven Carr is not even halfway throught yet.

I'm still pretty new to this forum so I'm not sure how comfortable I am yet to debate you formally. Let me think about it, but I think I might be willing. :smile:

My position would be, that Christianity can be believed in, in such a way that a believer does not violate any intellectual obligation, (if such a thing exists) and possibly even so, that the believer rightly comes to view Christianity as having more rational warrant than any competing worldview.

I really would love to take you on based on that second half of that sentence! :smile: I definitely disagree about that and like I said, while I think Christianity can stay within the bounds of logic once the premise has been accepted it all falls apart when you look at any of the possible starting premises.

There's a hidden assumption here, that revelation and faith cannot be rational ways to knowledge.

I suspect we might want to keep our debate to either A) revelation and faith can be acceptable and rational ways to knowledge or B) Christianity can be logically shown to be the one true faith. Personally, I feel better equipped to handle the first issue. In order to argue the second issue I would feel more comfortable having all my knowledge regarding a handful of religions sharpened beforehand.

But this is an issue that can't be decided independently of whether or not Christianity is true. If Christianity is true, these ways of knowing can be rational, because in that case they probably are cognitive processes which are designed to properly function in a way that produces mostly true beliefs.

Or we could debate this point too! :smile: If I understand you correctly you're saying that revelation and faith may be hard wired into the brain as a result of Creation and therefore are valid means of deducing Creation? Are you sure you want to debate that? :huh:


Notification: For some weird reason, my reply to CriscoDisco always becomes part of this previous message, even though I post it separately. I can't understand this. Has anyone else experienced this kind of problem?

Sounds like it might be a bug in the YaBBS software? Note: Whoa! The same thing just happened to me!

[Pneuma]

>> So, please tell us, why Christianity is irrational and intellectually damaging?

Any 'faith'* that asserts itself as the only "true" path to liberation, heaven, or eternal peace is fundamentally irrational. What comes from such doctrines is little more than a topical example of positive ethical virtue.

* The etymology of the word "faith" implies "A hunger for the truth", not "I know the truth: everything else is false."

As such, Christianity (as far as I am aware of it's dogma) involves no faith, only desire. Desire, as we all know, is at the root of all suffering.

[Megane]

"Any 'faith'* that asserts itself as the only "true" path to liberation, heaven, or eternal peace is fundamentally irrational."

Hi...can you explain how that is so? Such a claim could be amazingly wrong I would think, but how is the making of such a claim irrational in a fundamental way?


Thanks,
Megane

[Pate]

It will take few days before I'm able to answer to this thread and to the one about consciousness. I'm involved in a discussion in another forum and I also haven't finished my reply to Steven Carr yet. And I even have some life outside the web. :eek: Sorry for the delay. And thanks for your patience.

[CriscoDisco]

Thanks for the reply Ten

You said:
Yes. Would I characterize these people as having a serious break from reality due to their inability to make a responsible adult decision without first consulting with (what to them is) a higher authority?

If there is no "higher authority" what is this mental activity they are actually doing, and why isn't it rational? Is rationality just proper sound inferences given a set of experiences-- in which case this is just a reflective moment, while the brain processes experience?

Is prayer some sort of cognative program, and if so, how is it not rational?

Could you clarify "break from reality?"

Are all imaginations therefore, non-rational?
How do you distinguish between reasonableness and rationality?

And I definitely would say non-rational, although I think you might be splitting hairs with non-rational vs. irrational, but that's okay, I don't think that's germane to the topic at hand.


I would probably call it Black/white logical fallacy.
To say christianity is irrational, is to say it is the opposite of rationality-- or at least it encourages improper understanding of the argument?

Non-rational is a better word to describe what i think you're trying to say. And it places the burden on the Christian to properly describe the christian experience not as just reasonable thinking, but actually Rational thinking.

[TenDimensions]

Today @ 03:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43862#post43862)
CriscoDisco:
If there is no "higher authority" what is this mental activity they are actually doing, and why isn't it rational? Is rationality just proper sound inferences given a set of experiences-- in which case this is just a reflective moment, while the brain processes experience?

Yeah, that's kind of a tough question to answer. The brain has been documented as being able to do lots of loopy, crazy things that one would think is not possible. For instance, it's been shown how a Ouija board operates through the subconscious mind. I've actually experimented with this myself as I tried to guess what the "spirit" was going to say next. Things stopped working after that and I can only assume it was because I was consciously thinking about it even though I was not moving my hands consciously. I really wanted to do more experimentation, but the people I was with got too weirded out.

In any event, I'd probably characterize it as a meditative state. You pray for understanding or for whatever and the next morning you wake up feeling differently than when you went to bed. I'm not sure this is how it works for everyone, but this is one way I've heard from a number of people. In my opinion, this is you setting up your brain to react a certain way. What I think isn't rational about it is the loss of control the person is allowing over themselves. You're essentially giving in to whatever subconscious desires pop up - or worse yet, not taking responsibility for the moral actions you need to take.

For example, let's say you need to do something the next day that you feel would be difficult to do, but you know intellectually it's the right thing to do. But in your heart you just can't agree with it - it doesn't "feel" right. So right before going to bed you pray on it and wake up the next day feeling completely changed on the matter and now you can go ahead and act on it. What happened?

At the very least, you've given up your sense of control to your subconscious mind and divorced yourself from being responsible for your own actions. By praying for strength the night before you're essentially saying that you're not strong enough to deal with it and so you're going to put the entire matter into someone else's hands. In the meantime, what's really happening is that you're just turning over conscious control to your subconscious. In effect, your fooling yourself into doing the "right" thing rather than facing it head on, doing the deed, and taking responsibility for the action.

Is prayer some sort of cognative program, and if so, how is it not rational?

I could see it being some kind of cognitive program. I'd be interested to hear if any neurological or psychological research has been done on people to see what the effect of prayer is on the brain. And like I said, I don't think it's rational because it let's you not make a real decision! You just let your subconscious brain pick up the slack that you're not willing to take hold of.

Could you clarify "break from reality?"

A person who is deeply religious and who prays for guidance for any large life affecting decision has "broken from reality" in the sense that they feel they are incapable of running their lives on their own and therefore must have a spiritual guide to help them. Try this - instead of using the Western notion of God how about imagining what it would seem like to you if they were praying to the Greek gods to bring strength during the night. Would that seem odd to you?

Are all imaginations therefore, non-rational?

I'd have to agree with that. That's not to say that imaginations don't have their place - most truly innovative ideas come from non-rational thoughts. But nothing is ever produced from those thoughts until they are harnessed by rationality.

How do you distinguish between reasonableness and rationality?

Are you saying those are two different things?


I would probably call it Black/white logical fallacy.
To say christianity is irrational, is to say it is the opposite of rationality-- or at least it encourages improper understanding of the argument?

Non-rational is a better word to describe what i think you're trying to say. And it places the burden on the Christian to properly describe the christian experience not as just reasonable thinking, but actually Rational thinking.

Okay, I think you've convinced me on this point. And like I said, I usually don't go around calling Christians irrational in the first place.

[Pneuma]

Megane,

Simply put, we do not know with any decisiveness what is after (or before) this life. We do not, nor will we in our lifetime, know the origins of our universe, the causes for existence, conciousness.

Even with all the hints we can extract from various accounts of near-death experience, historical coincidence, visions, or paranormal phenonmenon, we can only settle on a vauge picture wide open to debate from countless angles. It is a question that cannot be settled. Truly, something that can only be asked of oneself.

To assert as a faith to millions of people spanning generations that any intellectual idea borne of the mind is "the way" to acceptance, heaven, liberation, whatever -- is, in my opinion, irrational. Either that, or incredibly arrogant. For the sake of optimism, I choose to settle on the apparent irrational way of thinking natural to an underdeveloped society as the cause for such a conclusion.

[Megane]

Yesterday @ 06:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44939#post44939)
Pneuma:

Megane,

Simply put, we do not know with any decisiveness what is after (or before) this life. We do not, nor will we in our lifetime, know the origins of our universe, the causes for existence, conciousness.

Even with all the hints we can extract from various accounts of near-death experience, historical coincidence, visions, or paranormal phenonmenon, we can only settle on a vauge picture wide open to debate from countless angles. It is a question that cannot be settled. Truly, something that can only be asked of oneself.

To assert as a faith to millions of people spanning generations that any intellectual idea borne of the mind is "the way" to acceptance, heaven, liberation, whatever -- is, in my opinion, irrational. Either that, or incredibly arrogant. For the sake of optimism, I choose to settle on the apparent irrational way of thinking natural to an underdeveloped society as the cause for such a conclusion.

Ah. I see where you are coming from. Thank you for the explanation.

cheers,
Megane

[HemofHisGarment]

~dogma -- intellectually damaging...not necessarily, well the arrogance involved like someone else mentioned would, yes, stunt one's intellectual growth..but, more common would be mental/emotional damage in my opinion; possibly because of the idea of faith as desire/cause for suffering as previously mentioned also...

~ ..."the apparent irrational way of thinking natural to an underdeveloped society"...... I choose to seek to fill my hunger for truth as well, but while I agree that it is the path of optimism amidst our lack of hard facts I'm not sure it is really "settling" nor that it is an "underdeveloped" society's way of thinking - who is to say that the simplest things are not the most profound?