Is Christianity Illogical?

[spockrates]

I think it shows that those in the know, know better than those who are not in the know. You know? Can you find one reputable translation based on sound scholarship that translates the Greek word as rope, rather than camel? If someone wants to believe Jesus said rope, that's OK. But I'm unsure how a view not supported by any reliable translation prooves a vast majority of modern scholarship wrong.

Lets look at it logically shall we, the word Rope or cable is almost identical to the word Camel, looking at the context the word rope is a much better fit.

But hey maybe it was camel, it dont mean shit.

But errors do occur in the bible.

My favourite is the "wicked bible", where the important word "not" was ommited from thou shalt NOT commit adultary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible

It would be committing an informal fallacy to adopt the opinion of an amateure when it contradicts that of the vast majority of professional scholars. Such would be illogical.

---

What do you think you are doing here?

I think I'm asking why others believe Christianity to be illogical and then asking why the reasons given are true.

[CliveStaples]

It would be committing an informal fallacy to adopt the opinion of an amateure when it contradicts that of the vast majority of professional scholars. Such would be illogical.

...no, that doesn't contradict logic. Trusting the professional opinion of a vast majority of scholars might be a useful heuristic--that is, it might lead you to true beliefs more often than it leads you to false beliefs--but that doesn't make it illogical to disagree with a vast majority of professional scholars.

A layperson (in the sense of not being a scientist) in, say, 1600 who believes that something like black holes exist...is not committing an error in logic merely because a vast majority of members in the set of "professional scholars" disagrees with his belief.

And when you really think about it, your argument would lead to some absurdity. Suppose that at time t, a vast majority of scholars believes that p. If your argument is true, then it entails contradiction for an amateur to assert ~p at time t.

Now suppose that at some time t' > t, a vast majority of scholars believes that ~p. If your argument is true, then it does not entail contradiction for an amateur to assert ~p at time t'.

Isn't this an absurd result? If ~p entails contradiction at time t, shouldn't it also entail contradiction at time t'? That is, either p entails contradiction, or it does not; why should this vary over time?

[spockrates]

Faith in science works, hence faith works!

Your saying this betrays abysmal ignorance of science and scientific method.

---

If so, please explain why. If not, please explain why a logical person should still not become, or remain Christian.

Nice straw man you got there. What do you call yourself doing here?

Scientists don't have any faith in the scientific method? I believe the straw man fallacy is one where the argument of another is misrepresented and the misrepresentation is then refuted. Whose logical argument did I misrepresent in the OP? I was unaware I was citing any argument in the fist post.

[FallentoReason]

Agreed about so-called modern miracles. There is much hype, rather than miraculous healing, in some Christian circles.

When it comes to Jesus, however, he appears to be the real deal. Telling a crippled man who has not moved his legs in years to get up and walk and seeing him do so in front of a crowd of skeptics and enemies, and causing a man born blind to see for the first time are two that come to mind. I think it is worth noting that the enemies of Jesus who sought to discredit him never said his miracles were faked. Instead, they accepted the reality of them, but claimed they were caused by demonic powers. This claim is made in both biblical and non-biblical writings.

I think Jesus and the Gospels in general are very much in dispute in this discussion we've been having, so I can't really see much logic in terms of an argument for miracles here. You might as well say because the Bible is supposedly infallible it means God exists. You know what I mean? I understand where you're coming from but it does nothing for the discussion.

What were the non-biblical claims?

I don't follow you, yet. Please explain how Matthew tried to explain away Mark.

So pretty much my take on the Synoptic Gospels in a nutshell is that Mark was writing allegorically about the devastating times the Jews went through. This was done through the use of the OT and also the works of Josephus that were already penned down. Matthew and Luke were then from cults that believed in a physical Jesus as opposed to a spiritual one. What they saw in Mark they took as literal history. I have evidence of this from Matthew of where he completely misunderstands an allegorical interpretation by Mark. Matthew rewrote this section and the link to the OT is completely lost. If you're interested let me know and I'll post that when I'm on the computer (on my phone right now).

Anyways, that's my view. Mark takes priority and it is assumed Matthew and Luke based their Gospels on Mark's and then tweaked certain bits and added new material.

I believe there are two predictions, here. Since the Day of the Lord (or the day of Jesus' return to earth in physical form) has not occurred, Malachi 4:5 has yet to come true. It is entirely possible the Elijah of the Old Testament will return, and there are some Jewish families even today who keep an empty chair for him at their dinner tables during a certain annual Jewish religious observance.

I think you've blurred the line here between a Jewish and a Christian understanding of this passage. To say that Jesus' second coming has yet to occur and that's what the passage refers to is not right because that's a Christian understanding of a Jewish book. Clearly it refers to the coming of the Messiah for the first time because this is in the OT. In saying that, I believe because you call yourself a Christian you have no option but to say this has been fulfilled.

That leaves us with Malachi 3. Are you saying Jesus was mistaken in saying the prediction was of his cousin, who was a type of Elijah?

I believe Matthew was trying to twist what Mark wrote which was an allegorical construct of J.t.B. Matthew used the figure of Jesus to turn the symbolism of the character of J.t.B. into a supposed historical figure. Let me give an example: someone writes a purposely fake account about president Obama talking about his lunch with Luke Skywalker in an attempt to pull Skywalker away from his role (a character in an obviously fictional movie) into the real world.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Lets look at it logically shall we, the word Rope or cable is almost identical to the word Camel, looking at the context the word rope is a much better fit.

But hey maybe it was camel, it dont mean shit.

But errors do occur in the bible.

My favourite is the "wicked bible", where the important word "not" was ommited from thou shalt NOT commit adultary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible

It would be committing an informal fallacy to adopt the opinion of an amateure when it contradicts that of the vast majority of professional scholars. Such would be illogical.

What do you think you are doing here?

I think I'm asking why others believe Christianity to be illogical and then asking why the reasons given are true.

And who in this thread had asserted that claim before you posted in it?

---

Your saying this betrays abysmal ignorance of science and scientific method.

spockrates Wrote:
If so, please explain why. If not, please explain why a logical person should still not become, or remain Christian

Nice straw man you got there. What do you call yourself doing here?

Scientists don't have any faith in the scientific method?

My question was about your strawman OP, which has nothing at all to do with scientists. Non Sequitur.


You are equivocating the word "faith". To be specific, "faith" is belief without evidence. This is the antithesis of the scientific approach, which doubts and attempts to disprove any hypothesis it generates and comes away with confirmed confidence through examination of evidence, as distinguished from your utterly blind, unreasoning "faith". Having been publicly alertrd to this now, you would only be demonstrating your intellectual dishonesty by continuing on this tack.

I believe the straw man fallacy is one where the argument of another is misrepresented and the misrepresentation is then refuted. Whose logical argument did I misrepresent in the OP? I was unaware I was citing any argument in the fist post.

Whose argument indeed? Thus the straw man.

[spockrates]

It would be committing an informal fallacy to adopt the opinion of an amateure when it contradicts that of the vast majority of professional scholars. Such would be illogical.

I think I'm asking why others believe Christianity to be illogical and then asking why the reasons given are true.

And who in this thread had asserted that claim before you posted in it?

---

Scientists don't have any faith in the scientific method?

My question was about your strawman OP, which has nothing at all to do with scientists. Non Sequitur.


You are equivocating the word "faith". To be specific, "faith" is belief without evidence. This is the antithesis of the scientific approach, which doubts and attempts to disprove any hypothesis it generates and comes away with confirmed confidence through examination of evidence, as distinguished from your utterly blind, unreasoning "faith". Having been publicly alertrd to this now, you would only be demonstrating your intellectual dishonesty by continuing on this tack.

I believe the straw man fallacy is one where the argument of another is misrepresented and the misrepresentation is then refuted. Whose logical argument did I misrepresent in the OP? I was unaware I was citing any argument in the fist post.

Whose argument indeed? Thus the straw man.

Yes, I would be committing the informal fallacy of equivocation if I was using the word faith in two different senses in these two statements:

Scientists have faith in the scientific method.

Christians have faith in Christ.

I can see how you'd draw that conclusion, but the truth is that in both statements, I'm intending the word faith to simply mean trust. Therefore, there is no equivocation.

Regarding committing a straw man fallacy, it sounds as though you misunderstand what it is.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

And who in this thread had asserted that claim before you posted in it?

---

My question was about your strawman OP, which has nothing at all to do with scientists. Non Sequitur.


You are equivocating the word "faith". To be specific, "faith" is belief without evidence. This is the antithesis of the scientific approach, which doubts and attempts to disprove any hypothesis it generates and comes away with confirmed confidence through examination of evidence, as distinguished from your utterly blind, unreasoning "faith". Having been publicly alertrd to this now, you would only be demonstrating your intellectual dishonesty by continuing on this tack.

Whose argument indeed? Thus the straw man.

Yes, I would be committing the informal fallacy of equivocation if I was using the word faith in two different senses in these two statements:

Scientists have faith in the scientific method.

Christians have faith in Christ.

I can see how you'd draw that conclusion, but the truth is that in both statements, I'm intending the word faith to simply mean trust. Therefore, there is no equivocation.

You are still equivocating the meaning of whatever word you use, by disingenuously attempting to conceal the approaches behind each.


You still have not addressed my point of your misuse of the word "illogical", both in the quote I cited and in the strawman podition you propose in the OP.

[spockrates]

Yes, I would be committing the informal fallacy of equivocation if I was using the word faith in two different senses in these two statements:

Scientists have faith in the scientific method.

Christians have faith in Christ.

I can see how you'd draw that conclusion, but the truth is that in both statements, I'm intending the word faith to simply mean trust. Therefore, there is no equivocation.

You are still equivocating by disingenuously attempting to conceal the approaches behind each.

I suppose you might be correct, but my error is unintentional. Please explain how trust in a person is unlike trust in a method.

---

Yes, I would be committing the informal fallacy of equivocation if I was using the word faith in two different senses in these two statements:

Scientists have faith in the scientific method.

Christians have faith in Christ.

I can see how you'd draw that conclusion, but the truth is that in both statements, I'm intending the word faith to simply mean trust. Therefore, there is no equivocation.

You are still equivocating by disingenuously attempting to conceal the approaches behind each.


You still have not addressed my point of your misuse of the word "illogical", both in the quote I cited and in the strawman podition you propose in the OP.

I'm defining illogical as presenting an argument in which the premises do not support the conclusion.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

You are still equivocating by disingenuously attempting to conceal the approaches behind each.

I suppose you might be correct, but my error is unintentional.

I am not convinced of this. The reason why in 3...2...1..

Please explain how trust in a person is unlike trust in a method.

I already explained that you are concealing the approach to each. Obfuscation isn't going to work for you, either.

---

You are still equivocating by disingenuously attempting to conceal the approaches behind each.


You still have not addressed my point of your misuse of the word "illogical", both in the quote I cited and in the strawman podition you propose in the OP.

I'm defining illogical as presenting an argument in which the premises do not support the conclusion.

Precisely what I was talking about. Thanks for proving my point.

Did you claim to be familiar with formal logic? You keep using all these terms from formal logic, and yet you do not use the proper term for this?

[Erinome]

People are unpredictable liars with agendas. The methods of science are proven reliable. I think that's pretty obvious by the level of scientific advancement that our species has achieved in a very short time. You don't trust the scientific method? Find a new method. Blow our minds. First, I think you just need to learn what scientific method means. It's obvious you don't understand it. You benefit from it every day, in ways you probably don't even realize.

Here's Richard Feynman explaining scientific method. Maybe this will help you understand what scientific method is, and how it's incomparable to human beings. As you can see it is a very old video, but the method remains the same, and will until someone else can disprove it's competence. If you really watch it, you'll also understand why that is probably never going to happen. If it does, then the scientific method will change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

I don't understand why you would associate yourself at all with Spock. Ever seen Star Trek V: The Final Frontier? Just curious.

---

Here's a video for you, just in case Feynman is too steep for you-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA86dYxrg4Q