Leaving Theism

[jbehan]

Much to my own chagrin, I am considering leaving Christianity for a strong agnostic / weak atheist position (basically the thought is that God could exist, but it’s very unlikely). As you might imagine, I am not at all happy about this turn of events, and I am very willing to be persuaded back into the Church. I’ve laid out my argument below – and would really appreciate any responses or criticisms you have.

Some Important Assumptions I’m Making:

1. Reason is the process of creating explanatory accounts. We come up for different explanations for phenomena, and then we adopt the best ones. Good explanations possess (1) explanatory power, (2) simplicity, and (3) coherence.
2. “God” is the being that Christians refer to when they use the word “God.” He is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient.
3. Strictly speaking, it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. However, if we establish that the existence of God is highly unlikely, it would be rational to live assuming He does not exist.

Syllogism:

*Major premise: *The simpler philosophy is the rational position.

• Atheism and Christianity have roughly the same explanatory power. In other words, I don’t think that Christianity explains any phenomenon better than atheism (although there are several phenomena that neither explain well).

-Neither philosophy is self-refuting (approximately equally coherent).

-Therefore, we should prefer the simpler philosophy.

*Minor Premise: *Atheism is a simpler philosophy.

-At the very least least, atheism posits one fewer object in the universe (no God). And, most types of atheism posit many fewer types of objects (no souls, no objective moral laws).

*Conclusion: *Atheism is the rational position.

Thanks!

 

[LilyM]

Yup - and it’s far more rational for human beings to reproduce asexually like amoebae rather than all the mess, complications and risks of sexual reproduction. In fact it’s totally irrational that any species would reproduce sexually at all. Yet we and they still do.

All the rationality in the world doesn’t help when you’re faced with the fact that we don’t reproduce by the most efficient means, neither will it help you when you die and come face-to-face with God.

Ever heard of a little thing called Pascal’s Wager? At its essence is the idea that the consequences of choosing not to believe in God and then finding out after death that He exists after all, are infinitely worse than the consequences of choosing not to believe in Him and finding out after death that He doesn’t.

 

[jbehan]

Dear LilyM,

Thank you for your reply.

All the rationality in the world doesn’t help when you’re faced with the fact that we don’t reproduce by the most efficient means, neither will it help you when you die and come face-to-face with God.

I’m not quite sure I’m understanding you here. I think you are saying this: Rationality would dictate that we reproduce by the most efficient means. Asexual reproduction is the most efficient means. Yet, it is absurd to try to reproduce asexually. Therefore, we should not attempt to use reason as a guide.

If this is what you are saying (please correct me if I am misinterpreting you), I don’t think your analogy holds. Reason does not demand that we use means that are unavailable to us. Could you maybe elaborate on why you say that it does?

Ever heard of a little thing called Pascal’s Wager? At its essence is the idea that the consequences of choosing not to believe in God and then finding out after death that He exists after all, are infinitely worse than the consequences of choosing not to believe in Him and finding out after death that He doesn’t.

I am familiar with Pascal’s Wager, but I don’t find it persuasive. We can talk about it a little bit more, if you are interested, but I’ll just make one argument to start.

Pascal’s reasoning rests on utilitarianism. The problem with utilitarianism is that either it makes an indefensible empirical claim (everyone seeks sensible pleasure) or makes a vacuous non-statement (everyone should seek happiness).

As a side note, I think if you do a bit of investigation, you will find that the Catholic Church has repudiated utilitarianism.

Thanks again for your quick reply.

 

[mahoneyt]

Much to my own chagrin, I am considering leaving Christianity for a strong agnostic / weak atheist position (basically the thought is that God could exist, but it’s very unlikely). As you might imagine, I am not at all happy about this turn of events, and I am very willing to be persuaded back into the Church. I’ve laid out my argument below – and would really appreciate any responses or criticisms you have.

Some Important Assumptions I’m Making:

1. Reason is the process of creating explanatory accounts. We come up for different explanations for phenomena, and then we adopt the best ones. Good explanations possess (1) explanatory power, (2) simplicity, and (3) coherence.
2. “God” is the being that Christians refer to when they use the word “God.” He is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient.
3. Strictly speaking, it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. However, if we establish that the existence of God is highly unlikely, it would be rational to live assuming He does not exist.

Syllogism:

*Major premise: *The simpler philosophy is the rational position.

• Atheism and Christianity have roughly the same explanatory power. In other words, I don’t think that Christianity explains any phenomenon better than atheism (although there are several phenomena that neither explain well).

-Neither philosophy is self-refuting (approximately equally coherent).

-Therefore, we should prefer the simpler philosophy.

*Minor Premise: *Atheism is a simpler philosophy.

-At the very least least, atheism posits one fewer object in the universe (no God). And, most types of atheism posit many fewer types of objects (no souls, no objective moral laws).

*Conclusion: *Atheism is the rational position.

Thanks!

PM me, don’t quit too early. If you have serious question and don’t want the the “churched up” answers I can help you out.

 

[Nullasalus]

*Major premise: *The simpler philosophy is the rational position.

• Atheism and Christianity have roughly the same explanatory power. In other words, I don’t think that Christianity explains any phenomenon better than atheism (although there are several phenomena that neither explain well).

-Neither philosophy is self-refuting (approximately equally coherent).

-Therefore, we should prefer the simpler philosophy.

*Minor Premise: *Atheism is a simpler philosophy.

-At the very least least, atheism posits one fewer object in the universe (no God). And, most types of atheism posit many fewer types of objects (no souls, no objective moral laws).

*Conclusion: *Atheism is the rational position.

Thanks!

Actually, the most purely rational position is deism.

The atheist (typically, popularly) believes that far and away most of the conditions and situations we see in the universe are products of randomness / chance / utterly unintended events and laws.

The theist believes that (some, most, or all) of what we see is the product of intention - that some form of intelligence has orchestrated and intends/permits all that we see, with no “true” randomness in play.

The difference between the two positions is that we only have a priori experience with the theist’s force. We definitely orchestrate matter and energy towards final causes. Even though we ourselves are not perfect, in principle there could be a being (or beings) which orchestrate everything we know, from the universe’s origin, to events in our lives, to the motion of a single particle.

Meanwhile, randomness/chance is merely a postulated entity - we have no positive evidence of it existing, only philosophical assumptions and arguments. And since everything that is explained by chance could be explained by intelligent causation, rational reflection demands we set chance aside.

Deism, of course, could support talk of souls, objective morality, etc - but it doesn’t demand them. At heart, it simply acknowledges the explanatory power of the one thing with the most evidence (intelligence) and avoids the Flying Spaghetti Monster that is ‘primal, unintended happenstance’.

 

[Danuska]

The Bible says “Seek and you shall find”. You choose not to seek, becuase you think you have found. That’s OK. I do not understand why should anyone try to convert you against your own will, it is your own life, you have your free will.
If you are honest about being open to the arguments, make an effort yourself and seek, you are smart enough for that.

 

[Catholic_Dave]

Of course atheism is a simple philosophy. But consider the complexities of Christianity-then consider the reasons for the complexities. As we study Scripture, we discover deeper and deeper meanings of things, which draws us deeper into the mystery of God. It becomes clear that there is a God, because no human being, no group of human beings could possibly be capable of such depth and complexities.
But God knew that people would doubt. So consider the archaeology that has been done in the Holy Land; a short study of archaeological projects done there will amaze the student as to how accurate the Bible was.
Christ, too, knew that people would have doubts. So, to relieve those doubts, we have the Shroud of Turin, Veronica’s veil, and the writings of the Church fathers who were trained under the Apostles, who were direct witnesses to Christ’s life, his teachings, and his presence here on earth.
Atheism is easy; it’s a no-brainer. But for me, when life becomes too messy, or too stressful, or whathaveyou, there is solace in Scripture; there is comfort in the Eucharist; there is peace in feeling the very presence of Christ while we kneel before the tabernacle. This is how weknowthat the Atheists are in error.
Christ is here for all of us. Now. When he said “Kingdom of God is at hand”, consider that what he meant was that the Kingdom of God is literally “at hand.” It is here. So, wherever you go, as long as Christ dwells within you, there also goes the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is within us.
Take care and know that you are being prayed for.
Dave**

 

[RobNY]

Much to my own chagrin, I am considering leaving Christianity for a strong agnostic / weak atheist position (basically the thought is that God could exist, but it’s very unlikely). As you might imagine, I am not at all happy about this turn of events, and I am very willing to be persuaded back into the Church. I’ve laid out my argument below – and would really appreciate any responses or criticisms you have.

Being honestly open to being persuaded is absolutely necessary for dialog of any sort to work-- you’re already half-way there. Keep up the fight.

Some Important Assumptions I’m Making:

1. Reason is the process of creating explanatory accounts. We come up for different explanations for phenomena, and then we adopt the best ones. Good explanations possess (1) explanatory power, (2) simplicity, and (3) coherence.

This sounds reasonable.

1. “God” is the being that Christians refer to when they use the word “God.” He is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient.

Indeed.

1. Strictly speaking, it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. However, if we establish that the existence of God is highly unlikely, it would be rational to live assuming He does not exist.

How do you feel about people who try God proofs in the opposite direction, e.g., by trying to show a high likelihood?

Syllogism:

*Major premise: *The simpler philosophy is the rational position.

• Atheism and Christianity have roughly the same explanatory power. In other words, I don’t think that Christianity explains any phenomenon better than atheism (although there are several phenomena that neither explain well).

-Neither philosophy is self-refuting (approximately equally coherent).

-Therefore, we should prefer the simpler philosophy.

*Minor Premise: *Atheism is a simpler philosophy.

-At the very least least, atheism posits one fewer object in the universe (no God). And, most types of atheism posit many fewer types of objects (no souls, no objective moral laws).

*Conclusion: *Atheism is the rational position.

Thanks!

The question would have to be, does theism really not have any better explanatory power than atheism? The structure of most arguments for God’s existence is that certain characteristics of the world are best explained as the result of a creator.

If you don’t find any reasoning regarding God’s existence compelling, then indeed, I can see why you wouldn’t want to be a theist.

The real question is, have you read serious formulations of various arguments for God’s existence? Would you like to have any authors or philosophers pointed out to you so you can examine their thought?

 

[bilop]

Much to my own chagrin, I am considering leaving Christianity for a strong agnostic / weak atheist position (basically the thought is that God could exist, but it’s very unlikely). As you might imagine, I am not at all happy about this turn of events, and I am very willing to be persuaded back into the Church. I’ve laid out my argument below – and would really appreciate any responses or criticisms you have.

Some Important Assumptions I’m Making:

1. Reason is the process of creating explanatory accounts. We come up for different explanations for phenomena, and then we adopt the best ones. Good explanations possess (1) explanatory power, (2) simplicity, and (3) coherence.
2. “God” is the being that Christians refer to when they use the word “God.” He is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient.
3. Strictly speaking, it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. However, if we establish that the existence of God is highly unlikely, it would be rational to live assuming He does not exist.

Syllogism:

*Major premise: *The simpler philosophy is the rational position.

• Atheism and Christianity have roughly the same explanatory power. In other words, I don’t think that Christianity explains any phenomenon better than atheism (although there are several phenomena that neither explain well).

-Neither philosophy is self-refuting (approximately equally coherent).

-Therefore, we should prefer the simpler philosophy.

*Minor Premise: *Atheism is a simpler philosophy.

-At the very least least, atheism posits one fewer object in the universe (no God). And, most types of atheism posit many fewer types of objects (no souls, no objective moral laws).

*Conclusion: *Atheism is the rational position.

Thanks!

Have you investigated the proof of God’s existence from cause and necessity. Aquinas explains it among his 5 proofs of God.

Hers is the link. Check it out.

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

God Bless

 

[VociMike]

I’m curious, how will your life change if you become atheist/agnostic? What will you do that you didn’t used to do? What will you not do that you did used to do?

 

[Contarini]

*Minor Premise: *Atheism is a simpler philosophy.

-At the very least least, atheism posits one fewer object in the universe (no God). And, most types of atheism posit many fewer types of objects (no souls, no objective moral laws).

*Conclusion: *Atheism is the rational position.

Thanks!

Jbehan,

You are raising a lot of important issues and I don’t have time to address them all. However, let me pick out what I think is the most problematic section of your argument. The word “simpler” can mean a lot of things. It’s not clear to me that numerical paucity is “simple” in a philosophical advantageous way. I would say that the number of “objects” in the universe is trivial for the purposes of the kind of simplicity you’re concerned with (a simplicity that amounts to greater explanatory power). Furthermore, God is not one more “object” in the universe according to classical theism (I think this is the major mistake made by most atheists–what they are refuting is not classical theism at all but a sort of quasi-Mormonism). God is the underlying reality of the universe. Therefore, it is in fact atheism that lacks simplicity. Theism posits a single explanatory cause for everything that exists (which is why the problem of evil is such a serious difficulty for theism). All secondary causes can be traced back in one way or another to God (evil agents are acting in a manner opposed to and yet derived from God). God is not one being among others but Being itself. Modern materialistic atheism denies Being and thus has to explain everything in the universe by means of a multiplicity of contingent factors. I thus consider materialistic atheism to be a highly unsatisfactory position from a rational point of view. Whether classical Western monotheism is the best alternative–that’s another debate! And of course whether Christianity is rationally preferable to other forms of monotheism is yet another debate again. . . .

Edwin

 

[LilyM]

Dear LilyM,

Thank you for your reply.

I’m not quite sure I’m understanding you here. I think you are saying this: Rationality would dictate that we reproduce by the most efficient means. Asexual reproduction is the most efficient means. Yet, it is absurd to try to reproduce asexually. Therefore, we should not attempt to use reason as a guide.

If this is what you are saying (please correct me if I am misinterpreting you), I don’t think your analogy holds. Reason does not demand that we use means that are unavailable to us. Could you maybe elaborate on why you say that it does?

Of course I am not suggesting that we even attempt to use means of reproduction that are unavailable to us, since we literally cannot do so. That should be a given. What I am suggesting is the very fact that we (or at least our bodies) are designed and created along ‘irrational’ lines suggests that there are some points upon which pure rationality is not the best or truest guide.

Rationality doesn’t allow for a lot of things. Things like love, especially the sort of love people claim as a justification when being unfaithful to their spouses, wrecking their families, running off to join circuses or cults and so on. And it doesn’t explain hatred such as Hitler surely had for the Jews to lead him to exterminate some six million of them.

It doesn’t even explain why red (or whatever colour) is most people’s favourite colour for their cars. And it surely doesn’t explain belief in God and whether He exists or not.

 

[cpayne]

Dear jbehan:

You don’t say much about your own relationship with God. Kierkegaard once said, “How can there be no God, since I know that He has saved me?” The strongest and most compelling proofs are usually existential in nature: “I know there is a God because His presence is in me.” How about giving this a try: If God is a Person, as the theists say, He should be open to conversation. How about just asking Him, “If You are real, would You reveal Your presence to me in some way?” The worst that could happen would be you simply stay in the same situation you are now, right?

 

[jbehan]

Thank you everyone for your responses. I’m going to try to address everyone, so I apologize if this post is overly long.

The atheist (typically, popularly) believes that far and away most of the conditions and situations we see in the universe are products of randomness / chance / utterly unintended events and laws.

The randomness aspect of atheism is problematic. If I were to become an atheist, I would not buy into that aspect of atheism.

The Bible says “Seek and you shall find”. You choose not to seek, becuase you think you have found.

I’m trying to seek as best I can. I promise you that I am open to all argument.

It becomes clear that there is a God, because no human being, no group of human beings could possibly be capable of such depth and complexities… a short study of archaeological projects done there will amaze the student as to how accurate the Bible was… So, to relieve those doubts, we have the Shroud of Turin, Veronica’s veil, and the writings of the Church fathers who were trained under the Apostles, who were direct witnesses to Christ’s life, his teachings, and his presence here on earth… there is peace in feeling the very presence of Christ while we kneel before the tabernacle. This is how weknowthat the Atheists are in error.

OK, so I think there are three arguments here.

1. The Bible is too deep to have been created by people.

It’s true that the Bible is an unbelievably profound book, but why exactly couldn’t it have been created by humans?

1. Archaeology and recovered objects prove how accurate the Bible was.

Again, you are right - the Bible is pretty accurate. But, we don’t really have a “smoking gun” from that period (I don’t think the Shroud is genuine). We need some proof that Christ performed some miracles or was resurrected.

1. We find a profound peace in the Eucharist.

Many people I love and trust testify to this, so I know that some people are feeling something. But, to be honest, I attended daily Mass for two years and I just couldn’t feel it.

How do you feel about people who try God proofs in the opposite direction, e.g., by trying to show a high likelihood?

No problem with them at all.

The real question is, have you read serious formulations of various arguments for God’s existence? Would you like to have any authors or philosophers pointed out to you so you can examine their thought?

Have you investigated the proof of God’s existence from cause and necessity. Aquinas explains it among his 5 proofs of God.

I’m pretty familiar with the literature, but I’m always looking for new stuff to read so any suggestions will be appreciated. I used to believe based on Plantinga’s formulation of the Ontological Argument, but I think that other philosophers have given good responses to it. I’ve also read Aquinas, but I don’t think that the arguments work.

I’m curious, how will your life change if you become atheist/agnostic? What will you do that you didn’t used to do? What will you not do that you did used to do?

I have no idea. If I decide to leave the Church, it will require a complete re-evaluation of my beliefs.

I would say that the number of “objects” in the universe is trivial for the purposes of the kind of simplicity you’re concerned with (a simplicity that amounts to greater explanatory power).

This is a really interesting line of thought. What kind of simplicity do you think I should be looking for? What kind of simplicity gives us greater explanatory power?

Furthermore, God is not one more “object” in the universe according to classical theism (I think this is the major mistake made by most atheists–what they are refuting is not classical theism at all but a sort of quasi-Mormonism). God is the underlying reality of the universe.

I’m not sure I’m understanding you. Are you equating God with Being? If so, what keeps the atheist from agreeing that Being exists but denying that Being has the attributes traditionally ascribed to God - goodness, omniscience, omnipotence, being Three Persons in One, etc.?

Of course I am not suggesting that we even attempt to use means of reproduction that are unavailable to us, since we literally cannot do so. That should be a given. What I am suggesting is the very fact that we (or at least our bodies) are designed and created along ‘irrational’ lines suggests that there are some points upon which pure rationality is not the best or truest guide.

Rationality doesn’t allow for a lot of things. Things like love, especially the sort of love people claim as a justification when being unfaithful to their spouses, wrecking their families, running off to join circuses or cults and so on. And it doesn’t explain hatred such as Hitler surely had for the Jews to lead him to exterminate some six million of them.

I’m really sorry. I just don’t understand what you are getting at. Could you maybe put it in the form of a syllogism?

How about giving this a try: If God is a Person, as the theists say, He should be open to conversation. How about just asking Him, “If You are real, would You reveal Your presence to me in some way?” The worst that could happen would be you simply stay in the same situation you are now, right?

Trying this. Nothing so far.

Thanks to everyone for your prayers and support. This thread is really helping.

 

[cpayne]

Thanks to everyone for your prayers and support. This thread is really helping.

Hmmm. Not to be nosy but: Helping to move you? In which direction? Or just helping clarify matters? Anyway, may God bless you always.

 

[jbehan]

Hmmm. Not to be nosy but: Helping to move you? In which direction? Or just helping clarify matters? Anyway, may God bless you always.

Just to get things straight in my head.

 

[fdmilkis]

Story of Father Zosima and a woman

Zosima tells her that what she is experiencing is the most terrible thing that a human being can experience, (unbelief of God) and that he thinks he can help her. He cannot offer her some abstract argument proving the existence of God, but he can offer her a concrete demonstration. What she must do is go home and every day, very concretely and practically, love the people with whom she comes in contact that day. If she does this, he tells her, she will gradually, step by step, discover that she believes in God. And should she approach truly self less love - the agape of the gospel - she will find that she cannot not believe in God. “This way has been tried. This way is certain.”

 

[Franciscan]

Much to my own chagrin, I am considering leaving Christianity for a strong agnostic / weak atheist position (basically the thought is that God could exist, but it’s very unlikely). As you might imagine, I am not at all happy about this turn of events, and I am very willing to be persuaded back into the Church. I’ve laid out my argument below – and would really appreciate any responses or criticisms you have.

Some Important Assumptions I’m Making:

1. Reason is the process of creating explanatory accounts. We come up for different explanations for phenomena, and then we adopt the best ones. Good explanations possess (1) explanatory power, (2) simplicity, and (3) coherence.
2. “God” is the being that Christians refer to when they use the word “God.” He is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient.
3. Strictly speaking, it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. However, if we establish that the existence of God is highly unlikely, it would be rational to live assuming He does not exist.

Syllogism:

*Major premise: *The simpler philosophy is the rational position.

• Atheism and Christianity have roughly the same explanatory power. In other words, I don’t think that Christianity explains any phenomenon better than atheism (although there are several phenomena that neither explain well).

-Neither philosophy is self-refuting (approximately equally coherent).

-Therefore, we should prefer the simpler philosophy.

*Minor Premise: *Atheism is a simpler philosophy.

-At the very least least, atheism posits one fewer object in the universe (no God). And, most types of atheism posit many fewer types of objects (no souls, no objective moral laws).

*Conclusion: *Atheism is the rational position.

Thanks!

You seem very intelligent and very analytical-almost to a fault.
You said you have read the literature…Have you read CS Lewis?GK Chesterton? Newman? Also I highly recommend a book called A Severe Mercy by Sheldon Vanauken. In this true auto-biography the author decribes how he was led into the Faith on both a logical plane but also a spiritual plane.

At the end of the day --know this…The Faith is not passed on by logic alone but by the gift of Supernatural faith.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Much to my own chagrin, I am considering leaving Christianity for a strong agnostic / weak atheist position (basically the thought is that God could exist, but it’s very unlikely). As you might imagine, I am not at all happy about this turn of events, and I am very willing to be persuaded back into the Church. I’ve laid out my argument below – and would really appreciate any responses or criticisms you have.

Some Important Assumptions I’m Making:

1. Reason is the process of creating explanatory accounts. We come up for different explanations for phenomena, and then we adopt the best ones. Good explanations possess (1) explanatory power, (2) simplicity, and (3) coherence.
2. “God” is the being that Christians refer to when they use the word “God.” He is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient.
3. Strictly speaking, it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. However, if we establish that the existence of God is highly unlikely, it would be rational to live assuming He does not exist.

Syllogism:

*Major premise: *The simpler philosophy is the rational position.

• Atheism and Christianity have roughly the same explanatory power. In other words, I don’t think that Christianity explains any phenomenon better than atheism (although there are several phenomena that neither explain well).

-Neither philosophy is self-refuting (approximately equally coherent).

-Therefore, we should prefer the simpler philosophy.

*Minor Premise: *Atheism is a simpler philosophy.

-At the very least least, atheism posits one fewer object in the universe (no God). And, most types of atheism posit many fewer types of objects (no souls, no objective moral laws).

*Conclusion: *Atheism is the rational position.

Thanks!

I would agree that atheism is an equally rational position but I’m not sure i accept that it is more so. I think perhaps you must look at God in simpler terms than all the trappings attached by various faiths. For me, I looked at a history wherein I could conclude that a significant number of people smarter than I were believers, I looked at the events following Jesus’ death, which I believe largely true, although I think some have been added by the later church, and I find it hard not to conclude that there was something very powerful about this person Jesus. Powerful enough for people to die for, and I don’t take that lightly.

I would agree that there may be a natural “desire” to explain the unknown world by use of a supernatural being. Certainly, throughout the world, most civilizations or peoples have have some concept of deity that has structured their communities and lives. One can lay it down to simple wishful thinking, but how has this persisted all this time? I guess some would say it is waning now as we continue to uncover real facts about the universe.

I conclude that if the 2 propositions are of equal weight, I choose for God. Who would not? It gives peace and tranquility to life, it gives meaning, it helps us push past our selfishness to help others, and at its best it does not harm. I said “at it’s best”. I don’t really buy into the idea that the person who examines this issue in depth and decides to opt for no God is consigned to some hell upon death. God, I am convinced, does not punish the honest questioner, any more than he punishes the mentally insane. I can see God concluding they are pretty much the same1 LOL.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Of course I am not suggesting that we even attempt to use means of reproduction that are unavailable to us, since we literally cannot do so. That should be a given. What I am suggesting is the very fact that we (or at least our bodies) are designed and created along ‘irrational’ lines suggests that there are some points upon which pure rationality is not the best or truest guide.

Rationality doesn’t allow for a lot of things. Things like love, especially the sort of love people claim as a justification when being unfaithful to their spouses, wrecking their families, running off to join circuses or cults and so on. And it doesn’t explain hatred such as Hitler surely had for the Jews to lead him to exterminate some six million of them.

It doesn’t even explain why red (or whatever colour) is most people’s favourite colour for their cars. And it surely doesn’t explain belief in God and whether He exists or not.

I’m not sure that sexual reproduction is irrational vs asexual. I think, and I’m no biologist that a greater genetic diversity is inherent in sexual reproduction and thus a stronger species emerges. I may be wrong, but I think that sexual reproduction is by far a more evolved method of perpetuation of the species.