The failure here is that human behavior is not dictated by the rules of logic.
A man may choose to believe that his wife will never leave him for the rest of his life, but the android rationalist would cite that he has no "right" to hold that belief because he cannot prove or disprove the uncertain future. At best, some evidence - such as his wife seems to love him - may suggest a probability towards lifelong happiness. But feh! It's proof of nothing!
Nonetheless, most who are married proceed forward under the provisional belief that they can and will be happy for the rest of their life. As human beings have discovered, the other alternatives are no way to live, and there's along line of desperate and unhappy objectivists to back that up. In point of fact, "delusion", as the pedantic rationalist would see it, is a necessary survival trait.
People must be able to believe in things that are not in front of them, and a person who claims they literally have no belief in anything not objectively true is likely a liar at some level. The caveman must believe that he can find food in desperate, uncertain times; he must be able to live in a "delusional" world where he knows he is good enough to mate without what you'd call proof.
What is commonly dismissed as irationalism, like spirituality, are not really about depending on the existence of things like spirits. It is the human animal constructing a framework in which it can live and translate its subjective experience with the natural world.
There is a misguided battle being drawn up between the rational and the "superstitious". What's needed is a rational grasp of the subjective human experience and a prudent application of those ideas.
One of the greatest rational thinkers of the 20th century said, before his death, that as a scientist he could not comment on the existence of the soul or other planes of existence. As a human being however, he could not believe that such rich experiences were not, in some way, echoed, transmitted, reflected, or recorded somewhere in the amazing framework of reality.
You're a smart kid; it's not hard to figure out who it was.
The failure here is that human behavior is not dictated by the rules of logic.
A man may choose to believe that his wife will never leave him for the rest of his life, but the android rationalist would cite that he has no "right" to hold that belief because he cannot prove or disprove the uncertain future. At best, some evidence - such as his wife seems to love him - may suggest a probability towards lifelong happiness. But feh! It's proof of nothing!
Nonetheless, most who are married proceed forward under the provisional belief that they can and will be happy for the rest of their life. As human beings have discovered, the other alternatives are no way to live, and there's along line of desperate and unhappy objectivists to back that up. In point of fact, "delusion", as the pedantic rationalist would see it, is a necessary survival trait.
People must be able to believe in things that are not in front of them, and a person who claims they literally have no belief in anything not objectively true is likely a liar at some level. The caveman must believe that he can find food in desperate, uncertain times; he must be able to live in a "delusional" world where he knows he is good enough to mate without what you'd call proof.
What is commonly dismissed as irationalism, like spirituality, are not really about depending on the existence of things like spirits. It is the human animal constructing a framework in which it can live and translate its subjective experience with the natural world.
There is a misguided battle being drawn up between the rational and the "superstitious". What's needed is a rational grasp of the subjective human experience and a prudent application of those ideas.
One of the greatest rational thinkers of the 20th century said, before his death, that as a scientist he could not comment on the existence of the soul or other planes of existence. As a human being however, he could not believe that such rich experiences were not, in some way, echoed, transmitted, reflected, or recorded somewhere in the amazing framework of reality.
You're a smart kid; it's not hard to figure out who it was.