Reply #14: I cannot speak for them. [View All]

[Skinner]

But I think it is doubtful that all believers would recognize their faith as irrational.

One possible "rational" explanation (and I put rational in quotes for a reason), right off the top of my head: Everybody around me believes this, so there must be something to it.

Or then there's Pascall's Wager:

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

If the choice is viewed this way, then it could be argued that the "rational" choice is to believe.

I am not arguing that faith is rational. I am arguing that many believers would not recognize their faith as irrational. And by setting up a test by which desrespect is permissable, it creates a situation where the other side is "free" to make a similar argument. When a non-believer says that disrespect is permissable, then wouldn't it (in effect) give permission to the other side to disrespect as well?