Rosemary McLeod: The Delusion of Human Rationality-Northern Advocate March 2013

OPINION: 

There is no delusion more surprising than that human beings are rational.
You need only consider the position the ghastly Kardashians occupy in the hearts and minds of millions of television viewers for evidence of that.
We wreck the world through overpopulation, squander resources and exterminate species far lovelier than ourselves. Climate change looks to be fiercely upon us. We're choking with plastic that nobody needs, yet everything we did to cause this situation was considered entirely reasonable. It still is, some would argue, on the basis of the profit motive. What could be less rational than that?
Just as Pope Francis takes over at the Vatican, hoping to anchor Catholicism firmly, overcome its scandals and demonstrate its values convincingly, the forces of darkness are planning to come here in the person of Sean Faircloth, whose surname I find amusing, all things considered.
Mr Faircloth is the American director of strategy and policy for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, or what, in the Pope's terms, might be called propagation of the faith. He is a devotee of the cult of Dawkinism, then, which argues that there is no God and therefore religion is absurd.
Why you need to join a club to believe that I don't know, since the world is crammed with busy atheists, but Mr Dawkins has had a revelation of the truth that requires followers, and the more the merrier. He deeply dislikes the evangelical Christian movement, a similar scenario to his own, in some ways, although with hymns.
"I'm looking for people from Down Under to be a voice for an international secular movement and to preach the gospel of rationality," Mr Faircloth says, apparently without irony. I think this man of the cloth protests too much.
As for me, I struggle to think of much in human endeavour that is more than slightly rational, and what I can think of has a track record every bit as unfortunate as religion's. For every war caused by religion, there has been an equally appalling one based on reason, or so the protagonists have thought.
Is art rational? I doubt it. Is classical music rational? Maybe Bach and Mozart would pass the test, but is our reaction to music itself rational? The arts often elicit an emotional response, which must be worrisome to the pure rationalist, whose mighty intellect understands all.
Are the Kardashians rational? If it's rational to be vulgar, I guess they are.
Punk rock was surely rational, considering the state of Britain at the time, and so was Marxist-Leninism when it was first expressed in the 19th century. But the communism of last century produced bloodthirsty tyrants and purges, the destructive Cultural Revolution in China and terrible famines in the Soviet Union and China on the basis of rational policies. Forced abortions in China, and the continuing abortion of female foetuses in China and India may be rational where female babies aren't valued, but I find it appalling. For compassion, which is possibly irrational, since we gain nothing personally by it, you'd have to look in a different book.
It seemed entirely rational to German fascism, which abhorred Christianity, to exterminate Jews, which rather suggests that being rational isn't everything and falls short of being anything worthwhile.
Yet there is fun to be had with Dawkinism. I can see its attraction. It would make you feel naughty, for one thing, which is always delightful.
I wonder, though, whether Mr Dawkins will need, in time, to set up temples of an entirely rational ugliness, devise a rationalist's creed and call for rational financial donations to spread the word. That seems to be the usual outcome of rabid adherence to any belief.
What would prove more interesting than Mr Dawkins' assault on the religious evangelicals would be a stoush with Pope Francis. Bold and brave as Mr Dawkins may be, I'd back a Jesuit to win that intellectual tussle.

Re Rosemary McLeod's column: Humanity profited little from belief in rationality.

I notice the claim is not that humanity profited little from rationality, but that we didn't profit from a belief in it. So McLeod takes the post-modern, skeptical, nihilistic attitude and draws into question rationality itself. Don't you listen to the archetypal prophet of nihilism Friedrich Nietzsche? He spent the last decade or so in the insane asylum, largely in silence. At least he was consistent. Hear what he said when he was still talking: "I am afraid we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar."

I can only assume you are not a true nihilist because you still expect us to read and try to make rational sense out of what you say.

Of course if we did take any notice of what you said then you might put yourself out of a job. To consistently deny rationalism is to cut off the branch on which you sit. I do agree with your appraisal of Dawkin's fundamentalist crusade along with other statements concerning atheistic communism and the like - but denying rationality is not a good move. Atheism, while pretending to be rational, ultimately, when driven to final conclusions is the truly irrational worldview. Why do you feel compassion is possibly irrational? Is what we stand to gain the standard for rationality?