In the past, I have deferred to someone's faith when it is described as a belief in something that cannot be proved. That was a mistake. And, of course, to claim that I "know" would place me in the same presumptuous position of many of the religious people with whom I disagree.
However, I find inherently suspect a belief in something that cannot be rationally supported.
If a person who believes, for example, in the god of the Christian Bible does so based upon faith (belief in something that cannot be rationally supported), I have trouble not placing that person in one of three categories (which categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive):
1. Stupid (low IQ);
2. Ignorant (uneducated); or
3. Crazy (delusional).
While these categories may seem a bit coarse (and pardon the crude vernacular labels), my experience (be it necessarily anecdotal) provides some support. Of course, these categories reveal my own prejudices, and might be used by the religious in an attempt to explain atheism (used in the classical sense).
Thus, I am revisiting my usual position that I "respect" a person who professes faith as the cornerstone of the person's religion. It is just not enough for me. I am setting up the following to guide my further thought: "Why should I respect a person's belief in something that cannot be rationally supported?"
Perhaps my use of "respect" over the years has been the wrong word. Perhaps "acknowledge" would be more appropriate. While not at the end of this inquiry, at this juncture, I do not "respect" a person who relies upon faith as the basis of the person's religion. I "acknowledge" that the person has chosen to abandon reason, but I cannot "respect" that abandonment. While this word quibbling may be wasted time, I think not, at least not for me.
As noted above, more analysis and thought are required on this subject.
