Logical Argument - Christian Style

Life Teen is a Catholic website for Christian teenagers - and back in 2014 Mark Hart wrote an article titled, 15 Logical Reasons to Believe in the Resurrection. I especially like #4: The tomb had a stone in front of it. What more logical reason could there be?

But I want to concentrate on the preamble to the article, where the author dumbs down his readers to the point where they will eventually be prepared to accept things like "The tomb had a stone in front of it" as a logical reason for believing that a dead man came back to life 2,000 years ago. 

(My comments in red)

15 Logical Reasons to Believe in the Resurrection

by Mark Hart (April 20, 2014)

Many people will tell you that “based on human logic” the Resurrection makes no sense. The first thing we need to remember is that “human logic” is not omnipotence. God makes it very clear that “(His) ways are not our ways, nor are His thoughts our thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9).

The author puts two words (human logic) inside shock-quotes because he is preparing the reader to accept the idea that logic can go only so far and then it is useless. The author also implies that if human logic reaches a conclusion that disagrees with the bible, then human logic is wrong and the bible wins by default. (His ways are not our ways).

What is illogical is to think that “man” is the center of the universe. The truth is that Christianity is far more logical than many people give it credit for, certainly more logical than atheism or agnosticism.

The author changes the subject in the very first sentence of this second paragraph. The real subject for discussion is the resurrection of Jesus, but the author is now talking about people who regard themselves as the center of the universe. He is attempting to plant the seeds of doubt in the mind of his reader. He is implying that what may seem logical at first glance will later turn out to be illogical. 

With the seeds of doubt planted in the reader's mind, the author now provides a solution to the problem by declaring that "Christianity is far more logical" than merely human logic.  In fact the author is repeating the message he gave in the first paragraph: If human logic disagrees with the bible then human logic is wrong and the bible wins by default. (His ways are not our ways).

In the last sentence the author also casts doubt on the logic of atheism but he is way out of line when he does that. Atheism is not a philosophy and it is not a world view. There is no atheist Constitution, no atheist dogma, no atheist leaders. Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief. It is not illogical to say, "I do not believe that god exists." It should be no more surprising than to hear a Christian say, "I do not believe the Tooth Fairy exists."

The second thing we should remind people is that any conversation about God is going to necessitate a degree of faith. If people are not willing to humbly admit that they don’t have all the answers then the conversation will go nowhere. God’s truth and human pride do not co-exist in the same space; that is the nature of sin. Humility and grace go hand-in-hand, as do pride and sin. So, let’s remember that any conversation about the existence of God or the truth about Christ’s resurrection necessitates a humble admission that “it is possible that God exists” and that “we are not God.”

Now the author brings faith into play. He implies that when human logic fails, we can always rely on faith to lead us to the truth. Well faith has led hundreds of millions of Hindus to believe that Ganesha (the human god with an elephant's head) actually exists. Somehow, I doubt that any Catholic will accept that as a reasonable faith.

This whole paragraph is nothing more than a guilt trip for the reader. The author implies that anyone who disagrees with the idea that Jesus was resurrected, is nothing more than a faithless, graceless, proud and arrogant, sinner.

Notice, by the way, that it is all implication. The author doesn't come right out and say that 'proud' atheists are liars. Instead he implies that they are liars when he declares that "God's truth and human pride do not co-exist in the same space." This gives him plenty of wiggle-room so that when I accuse him of calling atheist liars, he will condescendingly point out that never once has he ever used the word "liar" to describe an atheist. And neither has he - the cunning little bugger!

And the last sentence in this paragraph is a real doozy. The author is telling his readers that if they want to be truly sure that an all-powerful God raised Jesus from the dead then all they have to do is simply agree that the all-powerful God really does exist and he really did raise Jesus from the dead! Now that's logic, Christian-style.

Source:
http://lifeteen.com/blog/15-logical-reasons-to-believe-in-the-resurrection/