I asked him to start a new thread, since it seemed like he wanted to debate whether or not Christianity is logical, and not what I had put forth in the OP.
So here it is, Ben. I challenge you to qualify your assertions and explain exactly why you believe that Christianity, in particular, is illogical.
You can, but Ben didn’t say Creationism. He said Christianity.
I’d like to point out that there are many aspects of Christianity that are illogical. The trinity, for instance. Or basically anything that is dubbed a “divine mystery.” That doesn’t mean they are necessarily false, just illogical.
Creationism’s strict denotation means “I believe in a creator.” That’s it. All Christians are creationists, because they believe God created everything. It doesn’t exclude evolution.
Biblical creationism is the more common connotation of “creationism.” It means “I believe creation happened exactly as the Bible says.”
Well, I’d say you have to decide what your basic premises are before you can decide if something’s illogical. For example, if I say:
[ul][li]If a, then b.[/li][li]and state that the premise is a[/ul][/li]
then you come to the conclusion that b is/exists.
Now I realize that some people believe that you have to start from the Bible and “work backwards” to get to the Trinity. Others consider the Trinity to be the premise, thus Trinity = a and that the teachings and the logical deductions from their acceptance of the Trinity and the logical deductions gleaned from the Bible given that they hold the Trinity to already exist all constitute b.
But I’m LDS so I have a different view of the Trinity than other Christian groups.
I disagree. Christians have used this term to defend themselves in front of the supreme court. I think Christianity already encompasses the belief that God created everything.
I can find a cite for the supreme court case if you want. Although to be fair, from what I remember I think it was Creation Science.
Sure, Christianity is illogical. For me, the biggest flaw is the problem of evil. Christians say that God is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful. Yet horrible things happen every day to the innocent and to believers. Now I can understand that God would restrict his power to allow humans free will, so that we have to the power to choose good or evil and to suffer the repercussions of our choices.
But what about the suffering of the innocent? Children with leukemia, or believers prayers for the welfare of their families going unheard?
And what about salvation? According to Christian doctrine, faith in God comes from God’s grace. so what about people who use their reason and are denied faith by god? Why are they damned when god could suimply grant them faith if He chose? What about people, many of them here, who desperately asked for faith and were denied?
Sorry, but rationalism, the use of reason, makes a lot more sense than blindly clinging to a mutated form of Mesopotamian mythology.
From what I have learned about Christianity, this is explained away with the concept of Original Sin. Basically, sin is so horrible that it is passed down from the first people all the way to you and me. We are all sinners, therefore, we all suffer the consequences.
I agree, at first glance, this appears illogical and unfair. I’ve been pissed at God about this several times. I’d be thinking, “I never did anything wrong. Why is this happening to me?” But then, I start thinking about that candy bar I stole from 7-Eleven, or that lie I told my (now) ex-girlfriend or father.
“For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”
What do you mean exactly when you ask, “So what about people who use their reason and are denied faith by god?” Can you clarify this question for me a little?
So are you saying that an infant born with a crippling deformity or a five-year-old with bone cancer is suffering the consequences of sin? Any god who commands that children suffer for the misdeeds of their parents is indistinguishable from a demon.
Well, take Isaac Asimov, for example. He was by all acounts a good man, yet he was a rationalist who saw no evidence for the existence of god and much evidence against the proposition. According to Christian doctrine, Dr. Asimov is even now writhing in agony in the hottest pits of Hell. Why didn’t God give Asimov the gift of faith, which the Bible says can only come from God and cannot be achieved through the will? Why should a good person suffer eternally for following the dictates of reason and logic?
Isn’t this a little presumptuous? Does this mean that all people are inherently bad with spots of good, as opposed to vice versa?
So you and the rest of humanity have to suffer forever because of mistakes you made? Is there no amount of right or good you can do that will ever make you NOT a sinner (or feel guilty about being a sinner, as the case may be)? This seems to go against the concept of forgiveness.
Aren’t those lies you told your gf or father between you and them?
If you 'fess up and make reparations, are you still required to bew punished by god?
People screw up. It’s inherent in their nature. It doesn’t mean that they’re deserving of all of the bad crap that might happen to them or someone else in their lifetime.
Sins are also subjective. Apart from the 10 commandments, you’d have trouble convincing most people that other sins (premarital sex, eating meat on Friday, and other “administrative” sins or “victimless” sins) are worthy of punishment.
How about people who live their lives as perfectly as possible for them but are struck with disaster and hardship throughout their lives? They do exist–would a just god punish those who live exemplary lives just to prove that “no one gets off easy?”
Not sure how any religion can posit a supernatural and transcendent being and use logic to defend a concept, that by definition, is illogical. Something outside the scope of reality and knowledge, is unkowable. And if something is beyond the range of human experience or understanding, how can he/she/it have attributes? Never mind that the common theistic practice of making said attributes “unrestricted” only furthers the unintelligibility of “godspeak” – to the point of making it meaningless to all involved except the proponent who fails to see the irrationality of the claim. I.E. “God is love”
As for Christianity and more specifically, The Problem of Evil, one must remember that this conundrum already existed prior to the propagation of said faith.
Greek philosopher, Epicurus, eloquently stated it thusly:
**
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Then again, I’m no Epicurus
Getting back to the OP, I must say that I feel that Christianity is inherently illogical in that it requires faith. Logic has no use for faith.
Anyway, what’s so hot about logic? Love is illogical. Enjoying beauty is illogical. Fine dining is illogical. Sex after the age of reproduction is illogical. But they’re all essential parts of my life experience. Logic is a useful tool at times, but reality doesn’t always conform to it.
No. But as we all sin, so must be pay the penalty for that. In other words, we are mortal and physical. One’s sins do not return upon you, but the mistakes and evils of man are all our responsibility.
But its not all bad. Pain is temporary, passing with this world. Yet we have the chance for great joy as well, a joy that we and God can create, if we are willing. In truth, most pain and anguish are human creations. We hurt others and ourselves. That which is a consequence of the world we live in is trivial by comparison.
You apparently have no freaking idea oabout wat Christian means. SOME sects would agree with that statement. Most Christians would not.
Faith is a wonderful thing. But it is not all that is required. From what little I know, Asimov was accounted a decent man, and always sought to learn the trueth of any matter. That is more than enough, I believe, for him to enter the graces of heaven.
Asking Epicurus for moral guidance in relation to God is like asking a Social Darwinist to risk his life for you.
Anyway, the ditty requires a foolish and incomplete logic. You assume that pain is considered, by God, to be the worst, or at least, bad, thing that can happen to us. This is not true. God feels sorrow, though for somewhat different things than we. You also assume that Evil is either his creation, rather than the consequence of his gift to us.
But all suffering is not evil. Some suffering occurs because we are mortal beings and frailty and death occur for everyone in some continuum. The illness or death of a child is terribly sad but it isn’t God allowing some evil to happen, or even choosing to mete out evil. It’s just part of our living as mortal beings.
Now suffering caused by someone’s else actions, now that may be evil, but that is that person’s choice.
And I would agree that a belief system based on faith without a way to prove it is in some sense illiogical. But that’s not a bad thing.
I agree with RedFury in that logic really has no place in discussion of religion.
logic: a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning
The very notion of “faith” flies in the face of logic. Faith is conciously willing oneself to suspend disbelief for the purposes of “knowing” that something completely unsubstantiated (at least as far as science is concerned) is true.
Faith is illogical.
Faith is the cornerstone upon which Christianity is built.
Christianity is illogical.
I’m not sure what that proves. You either know somewhere deep inside that there is a God, or you don’t.
Since the conversation is kinda shimmying around anyway… Whats the deal with reconcilliation between old/new testament. That has always seemed particularly illogical. On one hand, you have stern, somewhat vengeful, “kill this”, “sacrifice that” God. On the other hand, you have meek, loving, “hold hands and sing” God. What happened? Did a cosmic Vallium emerge from the void?
(No, this isn’t supposed to be insulting. I’m genuinely curious. As stated above, I don’t think logic can really be used to determine the value of religious belief.)
No. What it requires is twisting and turning definitions until they have no meaning.
Don’t belive me? Read your post again, it’s full of the ‘godspeak’ I alluded to earlier. Of course we assume unnecessary pain/evil to be the “worst.” Your typical counter argument amounts to saying: “God works in mysterious way” i.e. “I don’t know why”
Hardly compelling wouldn’t you say?
Not only that, you are also guilty of trying to explain and attribute a “personality” to a deity that is, again by definition, beyond understanding.
You God = All good (why?)
Evil = Our fault (why?)
Try again. Though I doubt it matters. I don’t speak your language anyway. That they are the main selling points of your religion doesn’t make them any less irrational.
I don’t have a problem with “religious faith”…as long as it is not sold as rational proof of the mumbo-jumbo contained therein.
I agree. The biggest problem I have with Christianity is the question of how an omnipotent being of pure good could justify creating evil for the sake of free will, to satisfy it’s own desire to see if humans that it created choose good. Sorry, but that’s the actions of an evil being, causing suffering for its own curiosity or desire to be loved.
And YES, creating this world in the way it was created, allowing evil and suffering, would indeed be the FAULT of its omnipotent creator.
