Societal Madmen

While reading Veronika Decides To Die, which is a beautiful book by Paulo Coelho about the search for meaning in life, I came across the following excerpt:

You say they create their own reality,' said Veronika, 'but what is reality?'

'It's what the majority deems it to be. It's not necessarily the best or the most logical, but it's the one that has become adapted to the desires of society as a whole. You see this thing I've got round my neck?'

'You mean your tie?'

'Exactly. Your answer is the logical, coherent answer an absolutely normal person would give: it's a tie! A madman, however, would say that what I have round my neck is a ridiculous, useless bit of coloured cloth tied in a very complicated way, and which makes it harder to get air into your lungs and difficult to turn your neck. I have to be careful when I'm anywhere near a fan, or I could be strangled by this bit of cloth.

If a mad person were to ask me what this tie is for, I would have to say, absolutely nothing. It's not even purely decorative, since nowadays it's become a symbol of slavery, power, aloofness. The only really useful function a tie serves is the sense of relief when you get home and take it off; you feel as if you've freed yourself from something, though quite what you don't know.

'But does that sense of relief justify the existence of ties? No. Nevertheless, if I were to ask a madman and a normal person what this is, the sane person would say: a tie. It doesn't matter who's correct, what matters is who's right.'

It occurred to me that those who claim to use logic and reason as the final arbiters in any sort of religious debate, and who happily claim to have been following the dictates of science and reason when denying God or otherwise doing away with religion, nevertheless act inconsistently. Because they have no problem doing absurd things (such as wearing a tie) as long as they are socially absurd, not religiously so.

At that point, one can easily answer that it is different to wear a dangling piece of cloth around one's neck (or high heels, if we are looking for the female equivalent of torture) because socially it is seen as a dignified way to dress, and to believe in a religion which advocates killing Amalekites, for example. And you would be correct, but you would also be admitting your own bias- I use logic and reason for certain things (i.e. the things I don't like and that don't square with my morality) and put them aside for other things (i.e. socially acceptable absurdities.)

However, if you yourself live inconsistently, because you do not use logic as your final arbiter, but selectively apply it where you wish, how can you claim that religious affiliates, whom you might also see as selectively applying logic, are close-minded or otherwise flawed? You yourselves admit that there are places to push away logic for the sake of something greater- and here it's only due to social rules, and the opinion someone might have of you were you to show up without a tie! How much the more so were someone to claim that though it may not logically make sense to them that homosexuals cannot practice the act within Judaism, they will accept a logic above their own.

I am not arguing that illogic immediately means something is true. I am simply pointing out the hypocritical nature of anyone who chooses to claim that religion specifically is at odds with reason, but has no problem with the fact that society is as well.