When discussions take place between worldviews, and sometimes within worldviews, charges of being "illogical" or "irrational", or "contradictory" are often tossed about without any real effort to prove those charges. This is often done in discussions about miracles, the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, God's sovereignty vs. man's responsibility, etc. Calling someone "irrational" has become an easy way to blow off an opposing viewpoint without actually have to refute it. Even worse, some Christians actually agree that certain doctrines are contrary to reason, and ask us to "take it on faith". I have little use for a worldview that would ask me to take irrationality on faith. Just what does the term "illogical" mean?
1.) Something is not “illogical” simply because it goes contrary to normal human experience.
The doctrine of the Resurrection, as well as other miracles, are often referred to as "illogical" or "unreasonable". Thomas Paine famously argued against the possibility of miracles in his 1794 "Age of Reason".
Aside from the fact that has cannot justify what "we have never seen" (only "he"), Paine certainly makes no argument against miracles. (At best, it’s merely a million-to-one gamble.) Just because something happens that we don't experience, that does not make it irrational. Empiricism cannot be the foundation for knowledge, as it cannot even justify itself. Something that is illogical must, on its base level, involve a logical fallacy or logical contradiction. In the statement, "Jesus Christ rose from the dead", there is neither a fallacy nor a contradiction. (One may be accused of being circular, but on the metaphysical level, all worldviews are circular, including naturalism.) The Doctrine of the Trinity, likewise, is perfectly rational. We may not encounter any one being consisting of 3 persons in our normal everyday routines, but there is no logical reason why God cannot consist of such.“Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is, therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.”
2.) Something is not “illogical” simply because we cannot explain all of it's intricate detail and workings.
No one can fully explain why a ball falls to earth when it is dropped, but the fact that it happens does not make it illogical. In recent discussions concerning God's Absolute Sovereignty vs. Man's Responsibility, age old questions appear in attempts to solve the apparent contradiction. But there is no contradiction, or even an apparent one, especially for those whose minds are renewed by the Word of God. In the first place, since the Bible teaches both, then both are true, since the Bible is the absolute authority on all things. Second, there are no logical binds or contradictions in believing both to be true. In fact, the logic works out quite nicely.
P1: God is absolute sovereign over all things, including the salvation of saints and the sinful acts of the wicked.
P2: God, in His absolute sovereignty, has decreed that man is responsible for the actions he takes.
Conclusion: Man is responsible for the actions he takes.
We may or may not ever understand the intricate detail of how P2 works, but that doesn't make it irrational or illogical. We may never understand the details of how the two natures of Christ can work together, but there is no logical reason not to believe it. Such failures in knowledge are a testimony the our own human shortcomings.
3.) What irrationality looks like.
At its base, an irrational statement would either involve some sort of logical fallacy (see list here), or, if the logic is sound the statement would result in a contradiction (P=~P). If i were to claim that my car is in the parking lot, and at the same time claim that my car is not in the parking lot, that would be an irrational position, with two opposite premises claiming to be true. We may continuously be charged with being “irrational”, but until the person making the charge can express it in this form, he has not shown anything to be irrational.
Note: Something can still be logically sound and be false, but at least we should be able to deal with the "irrational" charges of irrationality in future discussions, both with believers and unbelievers alike.
