# Christianity is irrational, but is being a Christian? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 18, 2013, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628 "2013-01-18T17:04:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![James52637](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@James52637](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/James52637)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2013, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/201 "2013-01-21T04:11:13Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > … > Humor me. No. Nobody is required to humor you. I believe we may all be willing to humor you with whatever you want if you can prove Christianity is logical. If you can do that, I will give you everything I own, I swear it. Good luck! _Thumbs up!_ ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2013, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/202 "2013-01-21T04:12:29Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > But you can use rationality and reason to come to the wrong conclusion. Agreed. Now, I don’t think that actually happens in questions of religion or irreligion with any frequency. What generally happens is that first people decide what they want to believe, and then they, if so inclined, hunt around for rational justifications. > [@simster](#): > > Please state the OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE (not proof) for GOD. Any explication of the argument from design includes objective evidence that is not proof. The big bang theory is objective evidence that that the universe has a beginning. It is, as you request, not proof of God, but it provides a rational basis for there being an uncaused causer. (If rationality drives atheism, there should have been more atheists in 1900, before relativity, quantum mechanics and astronomy damaged common-sense notions of causation.) Read [Philosophical Theology](http://books.google.com/books/about/Philosophical_theology.html?id=FtdXAAAAYAAJ) by James Ross. You won’t agree with much in it. I don’t agree with much in it. But it is still rational. Was Ross a Catholic because the rational reasons in his book? I doubt it. For one thing, his book is largely about whether God exists, and being Catholic is not necessarily linked to that. I’m pretty sure that large numbers of regular mass-goers are uncertain concerning God’s existence, even if they rarely believe it is helpful to proclaim their doubts. An example of something many people could be convinced of through objective evidence is the relationship between smoking and lung cancer. That’s due to the strength of the replicated statistical evidence. With religion, the evidence is all tied up in definitional questions like what are God’s essential characteristics, making it quite easy for even a highly rational person to believe whatever they want. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2013, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/203 "2013-01-21T04:13:41Z")
> [@James52637](#): > > No, Ashton Kutcher is not hiding in your closet. He is hiding in a fictitious closet that I am going to refer to as “Being a homosexual but not being public about it.” > > Anyway, besides the fact that your question sounds nice and, yes, goes along with Pascal’s Wager, it essentially means nothing. > > Anyway, stop questioning my reading comprehension. If I don’t understand it, guess what? That’s not the issue here. > > _ **YOU CLAIMED TO HAVE EVIDENCE THAT CHRISTIANITY IS LOGICAL/RATIONAL/WHATEVER.** _ > > Where is it? The answer—or one of them----is in Pascal’s Wager. Really. I’m not making that up. Pascal made, IMO, a reasoned, rational argument for faith, (and variants of that) and it is my position that it is but one of many example of a rational approach to Christianity. But you don’t understand that fact, it would seem. ---
**Author:** ![James52637](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@James52637](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/James52637)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2013, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/204 "2013-01-21T04:14:38Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > The answer—or one of them----is in Pascal’s Wager. Really. I’m not making that up. > > Pascal made, IMO, a reasoned, rational argument for faith, (and variants of that) and it is my position that it is but one of many example of a rational approach to Christianity. > > But you don’t understand that fact, it would seem. Opinion: Something that is in no way equal to or related to a fact. “Pascal made, _ **IMO** _, a reasoned…” ---
**Author:** ![James52637](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@James52637](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/James52637)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2013, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/205 "2013-01-21T04:17:58Z")
No, sacrificing logic to make a decision does not make logic. Pascals Wager for an Atheist: “I’m going to relinquish my logical thought processes and believe in God since he MIGHT be right.” That removes logic for a different… “Logic”. Nope. Doesn’t work. Do you believe that the earth’s core is pure, solid gold?? No? Prove it doesn’t. Right now. That, ^, is Christianity. Something that can’t be proved or disproved beyond a doubt. Fail. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2013, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/206 "2013-01-21T04:19:59Z")
> [@James52637](#): > > Opinion: Something that is in no way equal to or related to a fact. > > “Pascal made, _ **IMO** _, a reasoned…” I think you might be in the wrong thread… I know I am! As Carol Burnett would sing, _“I’m so glad we had this time together…”_ ---
**Author:** ![James52637](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@James52637](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/James52637)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2013, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/207 "2013-01-21T04:22:05Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > I think you might be in the wrong thread… > > I know I am! > > As Carol Burnett would sing, _“I’m so glad we had this time together…”_ That came off to me as incoherent blabber. So, all I’m going to say, is that you related “IMO” to “… that fact…”. You can’t call an opinion a fact and expect to get away with it. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2013, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/208 "2013-01-21T04:42:23Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > It’s possible that I have a reading comprehension problem. Please type a bit slower, as that helps. > > But we’ll start with one thing at a time. You seem to building a case on “facts”----like the definition of faith-----and it just seems to me that if the premise is wrong, then the conclusions drawn from those premises are likely wrong. > > Just give me the definition of faith, and we’ll proceed. > > Humor me. asked and answered - try again. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2013, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/209 "2013-01-21T04:54:15Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Agreed. > > Any explication of the argument from design includes objective evidence that is not proof. > > The big bang theory is objective evidence that that the universe has a beginning. It is, as you request, not proof of God, but it provides a rational basis for there being an uncaused causer. (If rationality drives atheism, there should have been more atheists in 1900, before relativity, quantum mechanics and astronomy damaged common-sense notions of causation.) It does no such thing - it says it ‘happened’ - it does not provide a rational basis for a ‘cause’ or the ‘uncaused causer’ or anything of the sort. [QUOTE=[Big bang theory - definition of big bang theory by The Free Dictionary](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/big+bang+theory)] A cosmological theory holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature. [/QUOTE] People may ‘theorize’ that ‘something’ caused it, may even want to make that be something ‘outside the universe’ caused it - but the ‘Big Bang Theory’ does not require a cause - just the ‘event’. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2013, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/210 "2013-01-21T05:49:05Z")
Have you ever noticed that whenever you say > [@raindog](#): > > So…do I understand that.. _nobody ever says_ “Yes, you do”? Your ability to not understand what others say borders on the paranormal sometimes. ---
**Author:** ![Troppus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a587f6/32.png) [@Troppus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Troppus)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2013, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/211 "2013-01-21T14:08:47Z")
**raindog** , is the logic/reason/rationale you see behind Pascal’s Wager “What if you’re wrong; what have you got to lose?” “Your life will not be diminished by belief in a god, so why gamble on Armageddon?” I suppose if one believes strongly that religious affiliation has a net benefit as described by the OP such as fellowship, community, etc and/or has a deep fear of the unknown then the gamble on God is a “reasonable” option. Is that your angle? ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2013, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/212 "2013-01-21T18:59:26Z")
I suppose if Christians no longer take their stories literal, and instead treat it as other literature, mythology, fables, etc, then this is a good start for being rationale. But many Christians want the stories to be much more than that, and to be literally true. If so, how could one make a case that they are being rationale for believing in such? Hume paved the way for proclaiming extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. Ask for it until the cows come home, it will never be forthcoming. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2013, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/213 "2013-01-22T00:45:17Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > > [@Czarcasm](#): > > > > If we’re going to start anywhere, it should be with supposed evidence you claim has been here for centuries. Where’s that evidence? > > Easy… **simster** is scouring the internet for a definition that doesn’t make him look silly. That is not an answer to the question. It is nothing but an attempt at a nasty shopt. Knock it off. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2013, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/214 "2013-01-22T00:49:26Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > I suppose if Christians no longer take their stories literal, and instead treat it as other literature, mythology, fables, etc, then this is a good start for being rationale. Well, given the anthropological definition of mythology–a story that is told to express the held truth of a people–then some number of Christians have clearly made the “good start.” > [@razncain](#): > > But many Christians want the stories to be much more than that, and to be literally true. If so, how could one make a case that they are being rationale for believing in such? Hume paved the way for proclaiming extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. Ask for it until the cows come home, it will never be forthcoming. And? Based on your statement, some number of Christians have made a good start toward being rationale and some number of different Christians have not. _:::shrug:::_ ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2013, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/215 "2013-01-22T01:13:37Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > I suppose if Christians no longer take their stories literal, and instead treat it as other literature, mythology, fables, etc, then this is a good start for being rationale. But many Christians want the stories to be much more than that, and to be literally true. If so, how could one make a case that they are being rationale for believing in such? > [@tomndebb](#): > > Based on your statement, some number of Christians have made a good start toward being rationale and some number of different Christians have not. _\_ It’s being _rational_. Not _rationale_. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2013, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/216 "2013-01-22T02:39:32Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > _\_ > > It’s being _rational_. Not _rationale_. Being upset by someone with notoriously bad typing skills is irrational, whatever you might believe your rationale to be. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2013, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/217 "2013-01-22T03:52:36Z")
Imagine my surprise at signing in and seeing that **raindog** had time for the thread after all. As for Pascal’s Wager being a reasoned argument for the practice of Christianity, I disagree. > [@Pascal](#): > > If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is… > [@Pascal](#): > > But there is an eternity of life and happiness. Pascal asserts that the existence at nature of God is unknowable, but his conclusion assumes that this God rewards worship with eternal life and happiness, and punishes non-believers. By what basis can this be assumed? How is reason used to make this assumption? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2013, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/218 "2013-01-23T13:50:02Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Oh, I’m not, and I’m not advocating for it. I’m sorry if I left that impression. > > However one perceives “salvation”, my reading of the bible indicates you need to be “all in”, heart and soul. > > I don’t think you can find salvation through a hedging strategy. > > And, the OP wasn’t suggesting it either. He was suggesting there were compelling _temporal_ benefits to behaving as a Christian. How do you explain the quote from Jesus, that he told a woman(Non Jew) that he only came for the lost sheep of Israel? Didn’t mention that hecame to save the world. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2013, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/219 "2013-01-23T16:31:14Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > How do you explain the quote from Jesus, that he told a woman(Non Jew) that he only came for the lost sheep of Israel? Didn’t mention that hecame to save the world. It also does not say that he only came to save Israel. Mt 15:21-28. He only says that he was “sent” to the lost children of Israel. In other passages, of course, he speaks of the house of his Father having “many mansions” while referring to non-Jews, (and, in some interpretations, non-Christians), and in a somewhat parallel passage to the one from Matthew to which you alluded, Jesus speaks to a Samaritan woman, (John 4:4-42), and talks about both Jews and Samaritans giving up their practices and worshiping the Father in the same way, then goes to the woman’s village to preach to the Samaritans for two days. Quote mining and cherry-picking are fun, but no serious discussion is decided by such efforts. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2013, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628/220 "2013-01-24T12:57:48Z")
> [@April\_R](#): > > I am admittedly not a very rational person, so any argument for the rational existence of God just goes over my head, I don’t really care. > > But if any of you are interested and have the time and inclination to read these, this guy claims to have devised several rational arguments for the existence of (a) God. > > [Twenty Arguments God's Existence by Peter Kreeft (& Ronald K. Tacelli)](http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#1) > Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God > > Rationality is confusing, LOL > > [Twenty Arguments God's Existence by Peter Kreeft (& Ronald K. Tacelli)](http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#3) Does he also have an explaination of who, or what, created the place for God to be? A place to exist, must be there before any being can exist. If God is a being then he would first have to be in existence. or he wouldn’t exist! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-is-irrational-but-is-being-a-christian/647628.md?page=12)