[MD] Are theists irrational?

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Mark]
OK, I am a scientist, and I can tell you that my colleagues and I accept a lot
on faith.  

[Arlo]
If you were a halfway decent scientist, you would realize that the premises you
accept are done so conditionally, and always under constant revision as they
are tested against experience. If you are saying you just blindly accept stuff,
then it sounds to me like you are a poor "scientist".

[Mark]
I still do not understand your problem with faith and theism.  

[Arlo]
I do not have a "problem" with them. I have a problem with the absurd
"everything is a faith-based theism, no better and no worse". I have a problem
with the notion that plate-tectonics and "angry god smacking voodoo worshipers
around" are both "equal" and simply competing "theisms".

[Mark]
They are extremely high level thoughts.  

[Arlo]
Not often. Granted some of the metaphors deployed by Gnostic and esoteric
thinking has been very high quality analogies for pointing towards the
unseeable Void. In these cases, the narratives are artistic metaphors, and when
considered as such I feel they have great value.

[Mark]
And yes, I still do not understand the moral distinction between using plate
tectonics to explain something, or a benevolent god.  You still have not
explained this. 

[Arlo]
Geology is an intellectual pattern. Theism social. In the MOQ, intellectual
patterns are a higher evolution or morality. This distinction rests in part, as
I've said countless times over many emails, in the contingent and adaptive
nature, and their ability to predict and ameliorate actual experience. But,
honestly, asking me to explain this is like saying "I've never read LILA". I'd
say start there. Pirsig explains it better than I could.

[Mark]
So, call me stupid, explain it to me in moral terms.  Otherwise I have to
assume that you have no idea.

[Arlo]
You can assume whatever you wish. But asking me to explain a basic premise of
the metaphysics you claim to be familiar with is either disingenuous or
demonstrative that, like Ham, you are arguing from a wholly different
metaphysical perspective, in which case the dialogue is pointless.

If you can honestly tell me you've read LILA and have no idea why intellectual
patterns are placed morally superior to social patterns, then I really don't
know what I could say that would explain it to you better.