There is a big difference between acknowledging that we are all irrational to lesser and greater degrees and in different ways, and saying we should tolerate identified irrationalities. The point is to overcome irrationalities, not to find rationalizations for them.
Saying that religious beliefs should be shielded from rational inquiry (as long as we’re “willing to drop them...”) seems like a slippery slope that leads to being rational about the things you’ve always wanted to be rational about and keeping all the irrationalities that you happen to like.
You’re right: the point is to overcome irrationalities, not to find rationalizations for them. Still, given the prevalence of religious views, rational people should understand the source of religious views more fully—which would lead to more empathy for religious views than is shown, I think.
There is a big difference between acknowledging that we are all irrational to lesser and greater degrees and in different ways, and saying we should tolerate identified irrationalities. The point is to overcome irrationalities, not to find rationalizations for them.
Saying that religious beliefs should be shielded from rational inquiry (as long as we’re “willing to drop them...”) seems like a slippery slope that leads to being rational about the things you’ve always wanted to be rational about and keeping all the irrationalities that you happen to like.
You’re right: the point is to overcome irrationalities, not to find rationalizations for them. Still, given the prevalence of religious views, rational people should understand the source of religious views more fully—which would lead to more empathy for religious views than is shown, I think.