> Joe Gladwin writes, in part: " Christianity has elements that are rational,
> elements that are irrational, and elements that transcend rationality.
> Could it really be reduced to any one view?"
>
> Probably have to agree with your last sentence (above). And certainly
> Xtianity has rational elements. And certainly elements that transcend
> rationality -- I would call those a-rational. But I find nothing irrational
> about any of it. Maybe I should. Give me (us) an example or two.
>
> Burgy
>
We need definitiona here, or we will be talking past each other. These
concepts are difficult to define, but as working definitions let me
propose the following, while welcoming any modifications from others:
rational = a pattern of inferential reasoning, beginning from premises
which are supported by either inductive or deductive methods, which
proceedes in accord with the canons of classical logic, containing no
formal or informal fallacies.
irrational = a pattern of reasoning which contains formal or informal
fallacies.
nonrational = a pattern of reasoning which begins from premises which does
not begin from premises which are supported inductively or deductively,
but which contains no formal or informal fallacies; or a pattern of
reasoning which is noninferential but which contains no formal or informal
fallacies.
Thus arguing from religious experience would be nonrational; arguing that
God is a Trinity based on infallible revelation is nonrational; but
arguing that Christ both is and is not God, or that Christ is the Way, the
Truth and the Life, and no one comes to God except through him, but that
there is at the same time genuine salvation in other religions, is
irrational.
Garry DeWeese