What to know why Christianity has foreground in logics?

Question by Rooker: What to know why Christianity has foreground in logics?
Christianity can be seen as an explanatory hypothesis to account for certain phenomena we observe in the world: the origin of the universe, the design of the universe, and the universality of morality. The explanations that Christianity provides to this empirical data provide a cumulative case for the rationality of Christianity, and in fact, the superiority of Christianity to other belief systems. Monotheistic religions (namely Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) enjoy a special rational advantage over other kinds of religious beliefs in their explanatory power, but, as will be shown, Christianity is the most rationally satisfying. Three criteria can be applied to developing the positive case for Christianity and simultaneously the negative case against other religious belief claims: logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and existential viability.

Logical consistency seems to be more “cut and dry” than the other two criteria. Logic is a natural function of human minds and is universally practiced. In fact, the universality of logic itself needs to be explained in a religious worldview. Many religious beliefs can be dismissed at the outset because they fail this first criterion, for example eastern religions that deny rationality and logic. They not only cannot account for logic, they fail the test of rationality since they hold contradictory beliefs.

Christianity is sometimes accused of being illogical, but on closer inspection is rigorously logical. The doctrine of the Trinity is often dismissed as illogical, but is only done so because it is misunderstood or mis-defined (sometimes by ill-equipped Christians). The charge that the Trinity entails a contradiction fails from a category fallacy because the doctrine is sometimes defined as “three gods and one god,” or more simply “three in one.” The doctrine of the Trinity was carefully and meticulously formulated by the early church with great attention to the laws of logic and metaphysical categories. In fact, much of the first 1500 years of the history of Christianity was marked by great intellects who recognized that, if God created the world, then rationality was one of the features of the creation and it must be brought to bear on the development of doctrine.

Monotheistic religious beliefs also explain the existence of rationality and logic. The laws of logic seem to have a different feature than the laws of nature. The laws of nature are a posteriori inductive observations about how the world functions. There does not seem to be an necessity to them though they are regular, nor is the violation of them in a supernatural act really the same as if the laws of logic were violated. In fact, it is impossible to imagine a real world scenario where the laws of logic could be violated. The laws of logic are discovered a priori, they are features of the mind that bear on our thinking before it even begins. There is an incumbency to them that we cannot escape. The best explanation for this seems to be a rational Designer of the universe Whose own rationality is reflected in the operation of our minds.

Morality is the same kind of case. There is an advance incumbency to morality that is not just an a posteriori observation about how humans tend to function. There is an obligation feature to morality that cannot be reduced or explained away by naturalistic theories. Other religions than Christianity, and even atheists, can offer explanations for morality, but none seem to capture our true experience of morality as monotheistic religions do. Morality cannot be explained adequately in functional or reductionistic terms because they omit a central feature of morality, namely the obligation and quality of morality. Naturalist explanations for morality have a much less satisfying explanation of the grounding requirement of obligation. Obligation seems best understood in terms of minds and persons. A “thick” naturalism, as Plato’s, may be able to account for non-physical features of the universe, such as morality, but the obligation feature is still troublesome. Obligation seems to beg for another person to be obligated to. Morality may be a natural feature like health, but it is normative in a different kind of way than mere observation of proper functioning. The obligation is best understood in terms of persons, which narrows the field of religions that can account for this feature.

Empirical adequacy is a second criterion that should guide the evaluation of possible religious explanations. Science is a deprived discipline without the possibility of theistic explanations. There are good scientific and philosophical reasons to believe that the universe had a beginning and that that cause was personal. Clearly this would rule out natural explanations for the origin of the universe. This also rules out some religious beliefs that maintain that the universe is infinite. The personal cause must be adequate for the origination of the universe, and the mo

Best answer:

Answer by DJAY
christianity is logic from a thousand years ago. Now we have better hypothesises

Add your own answer in the comments!