Believing in Christianity is Irrational!

Let's try this again folks. The evidence for Christianity is historical evidence from the ancient superstitious pre-scientific past. That's it. Private subjective experiences do not count, since all believers claim to have them. Miracle claims in today's world do not count either, since the evidence for them doesn't even convince believers in the same faith tradition, much less other faith traditions. Just think Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, and Oral Roberts, or the many claims coming from Asia and the Southern Hemisphere which only convinces Pentecostals and Charismatics. The evidence does not convince many or even most evangelicals, much less moderates, even less so liberals. The evidence for them certainty doesn't convince people outside one's own faith tradition. Protestants don't accept the Catholic miracle claims at Lourdes, France, at the hands of the Virgin Mary, while Christians don't accept the Hindu claims of being healed in the Ganges river. Philosophical apologetics isn't evidence at all. This is merely argumentation that should be based on solid objective evidence or discarded as special pleading, as I have argued in some detail right here. For a Christian to say, "okay, but these kinds of things are still evidence for me," is quite plainly irrational. There is no such thing as privately convincing evidence. Evidence, if it's to be considered as such, is objective evidence, public evidence, evidence that can convince other rational people.

Through the process of elimination then, the evidence for Christianity is historical evidence from the ancient superstitious pre-scientific past, and that's it. Period. I don't see how any sane informed person can disagree. Really. This evidence is supposed to be good enough to convince rational outsiders that God sent his incarnate son to this planet, via a virgin, to atone for our sins, who subsequently was raised from the dead and will eventually reward believers and condemn nonbelievers. I have looked at this supposed evidence and it doesn't produce a scintilla of a reason to accept it. So let me take a different, surprising tact, to help believers see why this is the case.

I've written a whole chapter in my book, Why I Became an Atheist,titled, "The Poor Evidence of Historical Evidence," which I consider essential reading if any believer really wants to know the truth. It's chapter 7.

The nature of the historian's honorable task is extremely difficult, and fraught with so many problems that the farther back in time they go, then more often than not, the less likely they can claim with any degree of probability their conclusions are correct ABOUT ORDINARY MUNDANE MATTERS. How much more so when it comes to non-repeatable extraordinary events that are contrary to the laws of nature, that by their very nature are near impossibilities!

Let's just mention a few mundane ordinary events that historians debate, off the top of my head. Who killed JFK, and why? Did President Roosevelt know in advance the Japanese were coming to bomb Pearl Harbor? Did John Brown's failed raid at Harpers Ferry start the American Civil War? What happened at Custer's Last Stand? Was there even a last stand? Who wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare? What was the cause of the Black Death Plague in the 14th century? Was emperor Constantine truly a believer? Did Brutus act alone when he stabbed Caesar?

Some of these issues have a higher consensus among historians than others, of course. But the debates about ordinary mundane historical events are LEGION! No one can say the historians who debate these particular issues, and the numerous others, are adversely affected by anti-supernatural biases. They just disagree.

If this is the case when it comes to ordinary history, then how much more is it the case with non-repeatable extraordinary events that are contrary to the laws of nature, that by their very nature are impossibilities!

Now, isn't it obvious at this point, that believing in Christianity is irrational?