'Illogical' Doctrine? Prove It.

In a message board conversation I observed someone saying:

The idea of God, having a Son, who is born by a virgin, never sins, never makes a mistake while walking the earth, is crucified, resurrected in three days, and the result of this transpiration of events was the forgiveness of everyone's sins, with the possibility of eternal life with God, is fantastically illogical . . . and this is what makes it great! There is nothing logical in those remarks above. If you contend they are logical, then by all means, make the argument those events are "logical"

"Illogical," he said. An interesting charge, and one that we should not give a pass to. So here is the question that I want to deal with: "What should be the Christian's response to this?" It is a common enough attack, given the typical rhetoric dispensed by atheists, particularly those advocating the 'new atheism' advanced by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, et al.

I think the Christian's response should pay careful consideration to that word being used: "illogical." The response ought not ignore that word. If an atheist wants to claim that these beliefs are illogical, then he should be held accountable for that claim; he needs to present an argument that makes his case. One of two things would happen. The easiest option would be for him to notice how indefensible such an argument is and choose to employ a different, more defensible attack. Obviously that will invoke a different argument, which means this one was wisely abandoned and we can ignore it, focusing our analysis on whatever new attack he proposes.

The other option, of course, is that he will stick to his claim. And it is preferable that he does, I think, because it is the weakest argument he could raise, the easiest one to take apart. I enjoy disemboweling bad arguments, mostly because I enjoy making a spectacle of what 'bad arguments' are. So if he sticks to this attack then the first thing the Christian should do is point out that what we have here is a claim, not an argument. The atheist here has stated his case. Now he must make his case, such as reason obliges him to do. (We are assuming the atheist esteems reason, which they typically profess to do.)

You can see in this anecdotal example that he has tried to shift the burden of proof onto the Christian: "If you contend they are logical," he said, "[then] make the argument [that] those events are logical." He cannot be permitted to get away with this shifting of the burden. Such a tactic is an affront to reason, for by implication it commits the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. What he is essentially saying is, "My case is true unless you can prove it false." And there is nothing intellectually appealing or compelling about fallacious arguments. This is key: If he thinks there is any truth to his claim, then he needs to establish its truth. He must present his ratio veritatis. He cannot simply assume its truth, thinking that it carries weight by the mere force of his assertion (and it is therefore up to the Christian to prove it false). In the arena of critical thinking, that is called an ipse dixit, a Latin term to describe the fallacious sophistry of an unsupported assertion being presented as true by fiat.

Moreover I contend that Christians do not shoulder the burden because there is nothing obviously illogical about those beliefs. For example, there is nothing obviously illogical (i.e., contrary to logic) about a son being born of a virgin. In fact, parthenogenesis has been observed to occur naturally in a variety of species of certain plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates. And given our current understanding about mammalian reproduction, it may seem contrary to science that a virgin could give birth to a child but there is nothing contrary to logic about it. There is a very important difference between science (a posteriori knowledge) and logic (a priori knowledge); they are categorically different, such that when something is contrary to science it does not necessarily follow that it is contrary to logic.

(I would also note that prior to the dawn of the 21st century it was thought that parthenogenesis in mammals was impossible, on account of their imprinted genetic regions. But due to the work of South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-Suk in early 2004 and the Tokyo University of Agriculture shortly thereafter, plus the efforts of the International Stem Cell Corporation from 2007, etc., the creation of human parthenogenetic stem cell lines from unfertilized eggs has been achieved with tremendous success. Just imagine what we will 'know' ten years from now.)

How about the idea that Jesus never sinned? Again, there is nothing obviously illogical about it. (It is debatable whether or not Jesus "never [made] a mistake while walking the earth" because there was a definite religious status quo that he contravened almost routinely; but such does not determine 'sin'.) Something is 'illogical' when it runs contrary to logic qua logic. How exactly does a 'sinless life' run contrary to logic? What principle of logic does it violate? It is certainly not obvious; ergo, it must be shown to be illogical, and this test applies to the entirety of his above claim. Although I think he could make an argument for how certain doctrines run contrary to our common human experience, an entirely different argument is called for when claiming that they violate the laws of logic. Furthermore, to cite a doctrine (e.g., Christ's resurrection) as contradicting our human experience forcefully demonstrates its status as 'miraculous' but it pointedly fails to demonstrate it as 'illogical' because logic is a priori knowledge; it is neither defined by human experience nor a product of scientific inquiry (a posteriori knowledge). On the question of whether something is 'illogical' or not, human experience and science are irrelevant.

So the atheist here, having stated his case, must now make his case. This, reason obliges him to do. And if he wants to stick with his claim about these beliefs being "illogical," his burden is heavy indeed. I would look enthusiastically forward to such attempts because I cannot imagine how one would go about meeting that burden. It would be exciting to observe—or, more probably, anti-climatic.