Priest–penitent privilege

[Charles]

Bertrand Russell once observed that "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way."

And there is no convincing evidence either for or against the existence of God. The fact that you strongly believe in one option does not indicate that the contrary is "irrational." It means only that you cannot understand the logic behind it. The fact that the majority believe it and you do not would give most people a cause for second thoughts unless, like yourself, they are blessed with Olympian self-esteem.

You cannot propose any more rational explanation for this material world than theists can. Your perspective is so weakly grounded that you can't even attempt to do so. Hence, your only basis for referring to one side as "irrational" is that you cannot understand the opposing side of the debate. F Scott Fitzgerald stated it as:

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

The reason we have these laws I explained to you in perfectly comprehensible fashion but - because you can't see beyond your own ideology - you can't understand it. There are certain issues that we as a society have decided transcend prosecution: the sanctity of marriage, the rejection of double jeopardy, the importance of diplomatic immunity, and the sanctity of religious belief.

You don't like it. Fine. I don't like speed limits. But the majority understand their importance and so I live with it.

Get over it, Charles.

You're wrong again. You keep making the same mistakes. I don't believe in anything.

Of course believing in god is irrational. How can it be considered anything different? It's not a matter of lack of understanding. Only someone who is completely brainwashed would use that as an argument. Writing that we don't understand the logic behind it is like someone who claims 2 + 2 = 5 rejecting being corrected because the person doing the correcting doesn't understand the logic of 2 + 2 = 5. christians don't believe in the muslim or hindu god(s) not because they don't understand them but because they haven't been brainwashed that way.

Just because the majority believe it doesn't make it true.

Just because some members of society have decided that the sanctity of religious belief transcends prosecution doesn't make it right or the best thing for society.

[oceanvue]

I hope there is a God because I bought everlasting salvation on the Home Shopping Network for 3 easy payments of $29.95

[Troglodyte]

You're wrong again. You keep making the same mistakes. I don't believe in anything.

Of course believing in god is irrational. How can it be considered anything different? It's not a matter of lack of understanding. Only someone who is completely brainwashed would use that as an argument. Writing that we don't understand the logic behind it is like someone who claims 2 + 2 = 5 rejecting being corrected because the person doing the correcting doesn't understand the logic of 2 + 2 = 5. christians don't believe in the muslim or hindu god(s) not because they don't understand them but because they haven't been brainwashed that way.

Just because the majority believe it doesn't make it true.

Just because some members of society have decided that the sanctity of religious belief transcends prosecution doesn't make it right or the best thing for society.

Much simpler than that, Charles. We all live up to the expectationas of our peer group, or the group we most identify with.
You joked the other day about kicking a puppy, but ended up saying you really wouldn't. Why??
You wouldn't leave the house without pants on, or even just in your jockeys.. Why??
You probably would get your Mother aq Mother's day card, or refuse to ralk bad about her.. Why??
You wouldn't tell a group of people that Hitler had some good points, as well as bad.. Why??
Because the people around you, or who know you would think less of you if you did these things.
Ask your neighbors if they are Christian.. Most would answer, yes. Even if they haven't thought about it for years.
All these things are irrational responses to completely rational acts.. We all are irrational in some ways, even if we don't like it.

[Charles]

Much simpler than that, Charles. We all live up to the expectationas of our peer group, or the group we most identify with.
You joked the other day about kicking a puppy, but ended up saying you really wouldn't. Why??
You wouldn't leave the house without pants on, or even just in your jockeys.. Why??
You probably would get your Mother aq Mother's day card, or refuse to ralk bad about her.. Why??
You wouldn't tell a group of people that Hitler had some good points, as well as bad.. Why??
Because the people around you, or who know you would think less of you if you did these things.
Ask your neighbors if they are Christian.. Most would answer, yes. Even if they haven't thought about it for years.
All these things are irrational responses to completely rational acts.. We all are irrational in some ways, even if we don't like it.

I don't like to unnecessarily hurt animals or at least feel guilty about doing so. (By the way, I can't remember anything I wrote about kicking puppies.)
I wouldn't walk outside with no clothes on - I would get arrested. I would get cold.
I wouldn't want to hurt my mom's feelings by missing a mothers day card. (And I do talk bad about her if it is the truth - for example, her cooking is horrible.)
If I was more familiar with Hitler's good points (his art???) I might write or say something good about him. However, if the environment was volatile (for example, around a bunch of holocaust survivors) I might not mention it - not because it is irrational but because I wouldn't want to hurt their feelings or worse, I wouldn't want one of them to attack me.

So, I think I disagree with your assertion that those responses above are "irrational responses to completely rational acts". However, I get your point and you are probably right - I just don't think you provided good examples. (I can't think of any at this moment.) There probably are things we do that are sort of irrational or are simply done "because we've always done it that way" or people would be really put off by it. Maybe dressing a certain way. It is expected to wear a suit at an interview - even if it is 100F outside. It is not the most comfortable attire, I'd be more comfortable in shorts and a t-shirt but I wouldn't want to not get the job. We dress up at weddings but we'd be more comfortable wearing casual. How about the guy who wears a tie to work one day. Why? Because he has a meeting and a tie for some irrational reason adds saleability (trying to sell something either cars or credibility). We all do it. But none of these are as irrational as religion. Of course some people are rational in their justification for believing in god - they want some sort of insurance policy for after they die "If I'm wrong nothing happens but if you're wrong Charles, you're going to hell."

Let's say I am at a social function, perhaps a dinner party with neighbors or a BBQ in the neighborhood. Personally, I find it boring to talk "sports with the guys" and generally the women are talking women stuff which may or may not be interesting to me. But I would like to talk personal finance or atheism or employment situations but that would could be considered rude and or controversial and I would avoid it.

[Luca]

Your analogy indicates that you miss the fundamental philosophical issue. We declare that 2+2 = 5 is irrational because we know that there is an alternative and correct answer. We know that 2+2 = 4, ergo, concluding otherwise is irratioal. We declare something irrational when we know that there is a demonstrably superior explanation.

As regards the existence of God, we do not know whether theism or atheism is more rational because we cannot demonstrate either case. To some, it seems that the incredible intricacy of biology and the apparent order in the universe indicate there must be a greater power behind it......but they have not been able to prove the existence of a divinity. To others, the idea of a divinity seems impossible.......but they cannot offer a better explanation for the origins of the universe or of life.

If you believe that theism is irrational, then you must explain how atheism is more rational and provide some believable explanation for how life and the universe came to be. This you cannot do, and the majority therefore would call you "irrational."

You claim you "don't believe in anything", which I can recognize as a dodge, a superficial attempt to avoid defending your own conclusions. You are by default either a theist, agnostic, or atheist. Clearly you are not a theist. If you were an agnostic, you would not claim that theism is "irrational" (or at least any more irrational than atheism). And if you are an atheist, you de facto believe that life and the universe spontaneously came into existence and you have absolutely no evidence to show this. This you call "rational"?

You have painted yourself into a philosophical corner and I'm not sure that you even understand that. Trying to rebut by saying that "I don't believe anything" is simply an admission that you don't understand the implications of your conclusions. Luca