I've recently been reading a bit of Emerson and Bertrand Russell. This has got me thinking about the subject of rationality. Russell and Emerson have two different approaches to human rationality, and yet they both find it to be one of the most valuable human capacities. Russell, in his essay on why he is not a Christian formulates many of the arguments active today against religion, and yet as an atheist, he must surely account for the idea that in the absence of a deity, religion itself must be the work of human reason.
If human reason can produce nothing but superstition, then what makes our new approach to reason any better than the old approach? Emerson of course argues that this is nothing new. We can and should identify with those who in ages past faced the same dilemmas. Clearly we cannot reject rationality, but on the other hand, we must learn that rationality has it's limits as demonstrated by history - by this I mean that it was rational intelligence which Aristotle exhibited when he theorized that geese spent the winter months underwater, even though he was wrong. It was rational intelligence that led people to theorize that their success in battle was a result of divine favor, it was the best explanation that they could come up with to make sense of the world around them. Rationalism is sometimes wrong. It was rational to warn people about the dangers of the cholesterol content of coconut oil back in the 1980's before we knew the clear difference between HDL and LDL cholesterol - It is also rational to revise our position based on further evidence.
What is irrational, is to disregard further evidence, to be unwilling to adapt, or change. Insistence on the flat world theory, or that geese winter under water despite clear evidence to the contrary would be irrational. Likewise it is irrational to deny the existence of the world, or geese, because my theory about them was incorrect - rather the rational position is to adapt my own thinking based on the best evidence available, understanding that my rationality still cannot be considered infallible, and constantly searching for further adaptations to make. Russell makes a profound observation when he states it "is really due to the poverty of our imagination."
If human reason can produce nothing but superstition, then what makes our new approach to reason any better than the old approach? Emerson of course argues that this is nothing new. We can and should identify with those who in ages past faced the same dilemmas. Clearly we cannot reject rationality, but on the other hand, we must learn that rationality has it's limits as demonstrated by history - by this I mean that it was rational intelligence which Aristotle exhibited when he theorized that geese spent the winter months underwater, even though he was wrong. It was rational intelligence that led people to theorize that their success in battle was a result of divine favor, it was the best explanation that they could come up with to make sense of the world around them. Rationalism is sometimes wrong. It was rational to warn people about the dangers of the cholesterol content of coconut oil back in the 1980's before we knew the clear difference between HDL and LDL cholesterol - It is also rational to revise our position based on further evidence.
What is irrational, is to disregard further evidence, to be unwilling to adapt, or change. Insistence on the flat world theory, or that geese winter under water despite clear evidence to the contrary would be irrational. Likewise it is irrational to deny the existence of the world, or geese, because my theory about them was incorrect - rather the rational position is to adapt my own thinking based on the best evidence available, understanding that my rationality still cannot be considered infallible, and constantly searching for further adaptations to make. Russell makes a profound observation when he states it "is really due to the poverty of our imagination."
Maybe try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EpeF1fcji0
ReplyDeleteChris Hedges is a 'prophet' in my book.
ReplyDelete