= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
cupholder comments on Five-minute rationality techniques - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (231)
They're saying "I love you" in an irrational way. This can hurt because there is no easy way to quibble with the second part and not violate cultural conventions about how to express your acceptance of the first.
This is well-understood by irrationalists. Once in a discussion about the necessity of evidence, I got landed with "But you don't demand evidence that your wife loves you, right? You just have faith..."
A clever move. Now arguing the point requires me to... deny that I have faith in my wife?
'Why would I need to demand evidence? My wife freely gives me evidence of her love, all the time!'
I had a similar discussion with a family member, about the existence of the Christian god, where I received that exact response. My wife was sitting right there. I responded with something along the lines of, "True, but my 'faith' in her love is already backed up by evidence, and besides, I have plenty of evidence that she exists. If there was evidence for God and evidence of His love, I would happily put faith in that too."
But I agree - it definitely caused me to pause to consider a tactful response.
And the proper name for a wife that doesn't freely give evidence of her love is an ex-wife!
And for someone who doesn't require evidence to believe in that love - a stalker!
So religious people are all God's stalkers?
My reply was in this vein, essentially. But it's still a sneaky bugger of a question.