Well I would argue that those that have a law degree have a far more indepth understanding of the academic history/structure of the Constitution. Having said that, I also know that those with a law degree tend to have blinders on and lack the creativity way of viewing issues. The Constitution and laws are not for lawyers and really, lawyers often make the situation worse.
I didn't follow this whole debate, but I would just point out that people are inherently not rational, no matter how much we like to think we are. Our every day decisions are generally irrational - Predictably Irrational is a brilliant intro book on this topic. There's no reason to assume that our belief systems should or would be any more rational than anything else we do in life.
Given that the amount of information we take in weekly is a thousand times more than someone would in the same span a 150 years ago pretty much means that most of us make more snap (emotional) judgements more than ever before. Of course, some judgement could be grounded in prior training (looky me at my B.S. degree!) but it's more likely that your education isn't as well rounded as you think it is and your mind is giving you the appearance of continuity much like your eyes falling prey to optical illusions. I'd rather be lazy and reactionary like some insecure Conservatives here, but I guess my personality and neuroses has to figure things out as much as I can even if I don't like the answers. I recommend Black Swan Event for more examples...
If you understand how someone comes to the conclusions they have - that is how they rationalized a decision, than it clearly is not irrational. Irrational means there is no cognitive process to arrive at an end state. But believing in god is rational if for example: 1. I can not explain the existence of the universe 2. Something must have put the existence of the universe forward 3. Whatever that was must be all powerful and omnipotent 4. It would also explain why I exist and why I die 5. Therefore there must be an all powerful god That is a rational thought process. It might have holes in it. Rational does not equal fool proof or scientific.
I think the irrational starts from points 3-5. As in there's no evidence of why 3 is true because of 2. I could easily say this: 1. I can not explain the existence of the universe 2. Something must have put the existence of the universe forward 3. I'm not saying it was aliens 4. But aliens 5. Therefore aliens. I think people are irrational/emotional, especially when their belief system is challenged. Few thousand years ago, we didn't know what caused lightning, and so we made a god out of it. We didn't understand suns rotation or gravity, and so we made a god out of it. So it's perfectly understandable why thousands of years ago, people worshiped such things. Now, not so much because we have access to a lot more information on how the world works, and so it's no longer rational to believe in such things.
Irrational means there is no logical thought process. But if there is, it is rational. I think you guys are struggling to understand that rational doesn't mean scientific proof. Irrational behavior is random and inexplicable behavior. Jumping off a building for instance would be considered irrational. However, if that person jumped because the building was on fire, than it becomes rational. Also, if the person BELIEVED the building was on fire even though it wasn't, it still could be rational.
We need to differentiate "rational", "logical" from "empirical" because those are frequently mixed up. Scientific proof is based on empiricism or what can be proven through observation based on sensory perception. Rational pertains to the mind and mental understanding. Both are tied to logic. In terms of believing in god that could very well be rational while not empirical. It is based on a mental construct from questioning reality.
After seeing several posts in this thread and others I agree with the OP. In both this and other threads I am seeing a continual pattern of both misunderstanding science including the oft stated "It's just a theory so that means that it isn't right" and also that scientists are just in it for the money which is ludicrous on face of it when you consider how much money is in the fossil fuel industry. What perhaps is more disturbing is the attack which goes that scientists and those who follow science are arrogant and that we shouldn't trust those who go through things like getting credentialed and peer reviewed. That right there is truly anti-science. What is more disturbing is the criticism of those who argue that scientists are arrogant are being made by people who themselves admit they lack full understanding yet have certainty that the scientists are wrong.
I want to keep in mind that there are many conservatives who do not share the beliefs above. That Evolution is the most likely explanation for the diversity of species and that human activity is affecting the climate isn't really conservative or liberal. How those might be translated into policy is. The problem though is as this thread and others show there is a very strong trend to politicize these issues and frankly embrace an anti-intellectualism that calls learning arrogance, that is more prevalent among conservatives.
