Is anti-rationalism the biggest problem in Christianity?

[AgnosticBoy]

I think the biggest problem in Christianity is not external but rather it's internal. Christians tend to harm Christianity more than anything else, and I'm mostly referring to their anti-rational approach to their beliefs and life, in general. To be clear, I've met plenty of Christians that value reason and evidence, and they don't seem superstitious. A lot of those in this group tend to be Christian apologists. The first rational Christian I came across as a teen was from an AM radio show hosted by apologist Hank Hanegraff. But the vast majority of Christians that I've encountered don't value reason and science. Instead, these types tend to rely on personal revelation, feelings, and authority (pastors, the Scriptures), etc. These types have probably not even read up on the historical and cultural context of their religion. I refer to this crowd as the anti-intellectual or anti-rational crowd.

If the majority of Christians were rational, then I think Christianity would be much more respected today. We wouldn't have had the Salem Witch Trials, they'd be less superstition, less harmful behaviors towards the LGBT community, etc. Whenever I encounter a difficult passage in the Bible, I often find that you'll get a satisfactory answer from a rational Christian than an irrational one. I'm sure there are many other areas where rational Christians could benefit Christianity if they were in the majority.

For Debate:
1. Have you encountered the two types of Christians that I brought? What's your experience with them?
2. Is anti-rationalism the biggest threat to Christianity? If no, what is? Christian doctrine itself?
3. If the majority of Christians were rational, would Christianity be in a much stronger place?

 

[2Dbunk1]

There are rationalist Christians along the way: Unitarians and Quakers. Had I been raised in either faith, I may have never questioned religion. They are rationalist Christians to be sure -- though I would not consider joining them now, I have contributed to their efforts in the past.

For example, Quakers have no clergy and they don't proselytize. Pennsylvania's Philadelphia (founded by Quaker William Penn) was for some time the only port city in the world where ANY religion could be worshipped. Because they don't proselytize their numbers are now dwindling!

 

[bbyrd009]

How does one define “Christianity?” As humans we are big on redefining (relabeling) concepts to update them, or more often to make them more palatable, and i think most ppls definition of Christianity would include the belief that one might become an immortal after they have died, with the assumption of ascending to heaven, right?

”The best cure for Christianity is reading the Bible“ SClemens

 

[AgnosticBoy]

How does one define “Christianity?” As humans we are big on redefining (relabeling) concepts to update them, or more often to make them more palatable, and i think most ppls definition of Christianity would include the belief that one might become an immortal after they have died, with the assumption of ascending to heaven, right?

I think that's a big problem for Christianity, as well. There are probably thousands of Christian denominations out there, each giving you some distinct version of Christianity. Is it a bigger problem than the anti-rational sentiments? I think the latter is a bigger issue, although following reason may not lead to Christianity surviving either.

 

[2Dbunk1]

There are over 30,000 different X-tian sects in the world last I checked. That was ten years ago; there may be 40,000 now, for all I know.

Anti-rationalists are indeed a major problem; conspiracy theories abound from people who choose to be stupid.