Reflections on Mukto-Mona and Rationalism
By Aparthib Zaman
E-mail: aparthib@yahoo.com
I have had the privilege of being an active member of Mukto-Mona since its inception about a year ago. My own association with it as a member was via rationalism, a philosophy I uphold as the guiding principle of my life and was also stated as an important ideal in Mukto-Mona's statement of purpose (Message #1). So on the occasion of the first anniversary of Mukto-Mona as a forum upholding rationalism, I thought it would be appropriate to reflect on rationalism itself. It should be noted that Mukto-Mona translates to freethinker, and freethinking was also emphasized in the original welcome message in Mukto-Mona. A freethinker is defined as one who forms views independent of authority or dogma, be it from a divine or human source. Rationalism is defined as using reason and logic as the reliable basis for testing any claims of truth and seeking objective knowledge about reality, not dependent on (but not necessarily excluding it) sense perceptions. If we stick to the strict definitions, then freethinking is not synonymous with rationalism. One need not be strictly rational to be a freethinker. One is allowed the leeway to believe or form any opinion, not necessarily logical, as long as it is not influenced by any existing religious, cultural or traditional dogma or authority. A postmodernist (Read intellectual anarchist) may claim to be a freethinker according to this non-restictive definition. But rationalism is much more restrictive. It enforces logic and reason as the guiding principle in thinking and forming opinions. So although rationalism invariably leads to freethinking, it does not allow freethinking to include any irrational belief or thinking. But I assume when Mukto-Mona was formed the founders meant rationalism when they mentioned freethinking. So I will use the two words interchangeably. I have attempted to provide my own definitions in a precise way in a recent post (Faith Philosophy and Dogma) to help set the criteria for freethinkers/freethinking. It is obvious that by the strict definitions of rationalism, not all members of Mukto-Mona were (and even now some are not) rationalist, because they were defending religious or political dogma, which is against rationalism. So the question may arise, is such an exception a breach of Mukto-Mona's own stated ideal? In one sense it is, in another sense it is not. I don't think it was clarified. IF Mukto-Mona was meant to be strictly for members who are rationalists then that was certainly a breach. But IF Mukto-Mona is meant to be a forum that encourages and emphasizes rationalism but does not demand that each and every member be a rationalist, just to encourage diversity and lively debate, then it was certainly consistent with its guidelines to do so. Not having clarified this, it generated some heated controversy. Some cynical members pointed to the postings by some apologists of a particular religious group to interpret freethinking as "think any way you like". They were irate at the rejection of certain of their posts and made the point that there can be no criterion to reject any article in a "freethinkers" forum, which to them meant a free style forum allowing any ideas and views to be vented. Hopefully this confusion has been clarified by now.
Let me now turn to rationalism. Rationalism as a philosophy demands some
strict mental discipline that many find hard to implement in their thoughts
and actions. Many may not even be aware that they are not being strictly
rational. The reason for this is that some mistakenly associate rationalism
with certain ideals and outlook that do not necessarily follow from
rationalism. Rationalism as a philosophy inevitably leads to scientific method
through logic and critical thinking. Therefore a rationalist cannot subscribe
a priori to any ideology, political or ideological, nor can a rationalist make
statement of truth that is not a strict proposition. So a rationalist
cannot claim to be a strict atheist, i.e cannot assert that "God does not
exist", since God is not a logically well-defined and meaningful concept, all
definitions of God in any religious context runs into contradictions and
logical inconsistency. So the existence or non-existence
of God are both logically meaningless to a rationalist. A
rationalist can only take a noncognitivist position in the God context.
For more details
on this issue please carefully review the following two articles at :
1.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html
and
2.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html
Does it mean a rationalist cannot have any opinion at all about
anything? Of course not. If an opinion does not contradict logic, evidence or
observation, rationalism does not prevent one from forming a tentative
opinion. For example it is not against rationalism to hypothesize about all
the POSSIBLE causes of a crime, when definite evidence is missing to point to
the actual cause. Same can be said about theories to explain certain facts of
reality. That's what science is about. Scientific speculation is just that.
Theories are just possible explanation about facts and observations. Before
theories can become laws they are just scientific opinions. But the important
point to realize is that rationalist opinions, although not yet proven, are
nevertheless consistent with logic or observations (i.e does not contradict
logic or observations). A rationalist also cannot subscribe to a political
party based on any dogma. Nor can a rationalist express a priori affiliation
or support to a non-dogma based political party. For a rationalist,
support for a political party should be based on policies, performance,
efficiencies and other objective criterion, thus need not be a static one, but
changeable based on an ongoing assessment of the fulfillment of those
criteria. There is no such concept as party loyalty in a rationalist
vocabulary. But some intellectuals believe that
certain political stand in an ideological, social or political controversy is
required by rationalism, e.g leftist ideology, pro-choice stand in abortion,
nurturist stand in nature-nurture debate, etc to name a few. To a
rationalist, an apriori biased stand is not consistent with rationalism. They
should be prepared to accept the viewpoint that scientific and logical
reasoning lead to, even if that goes against the popular trend of thinking.
Rationalism is ruthless, it does not pamper to one's
emotional need or wishes, or care about political correctness. In
personal life, that means one has to acknowledge and be critical of the
unpleasant facts, if necessary, about one's near and dear ones, if evidence so
suggests, even though one may wish they were not true. By the same token, a
rationalist has to acknowledge, and criticize the shortcomings of the race,
religion he/she belongs to, in a detached way totally free from bias, as well
as acknowledge the the superirority of another race, religion in a certain
aspect, if evidence so suggests. This requires intellectual courage as it can
potentially incur one the wrath of the majority, for whom the priority is
loyalty, pride, patriotism etc. But rationalism does not recognize such mental
constructs or sets such priority. It only cares for logic and evidence. Rationalism
does not allow taking a stand just because it is politically correct or
popular. Many intellectuals associate the terms liberal, progressive etc
with freethinking. But liberal, progressive etc are usually understood and
judged by the stand one takes, viz, pro- choice, left ideology, nurturist
stand, a puritanic belief that all are equally bad or equally good etc (i.e
cultural and moral relativism). But rationalism does not require one to adopt
such positions, and in fact may lead to the opposite stand by scientific
evidence and logic. I will not dwell on the specifics of those scientific
evidences as it is a topic on its own and I am only interested on the general
aspects of rationalism in this essay. Even humanism, is not strictly derived
from rationalism. Humanism follows from rationalism if the postulate "we
should put priority on the welfare of maximum number of humans irrespective of
race, color, creed, ethnicity etc." is added to rationalism. It must be
noted that all religions and dogmas claim human welfare as their goal as well.
But what differentiates their view of humanism from rational humanism is that
for them, that goal is claimed to be achievable only through the
implementation of their dogma. So dogma comes first for them. Not only that,
the priority for welfare in most religions and dogmas is reserved for their
followers. But rational humanism does not make that distinction. Once humanism
is arrived through rationalism, the notions of democracy and secularism
follows as corollary.
Symbolically:
Rationalism+Human good--> Humanism-->
Democracy-->Secularism
Another point that many may have already wondered is that how can we decide who is rationalist or not? After all, doesn't every one (religion, dogma etc) claim they believe in logic and reason? Doesn't every one have their own logic and religion their own? So how can one not be rational? This is a tricky question that can lead to a slippery slope if not clarified beforehand. Cultural and moral relativists, postmodernists exploit such slippery slope to argue that all are equal, nothing is more valid than another etc. The logic and evidence referred to in rationalism, is shared by humanity with an overwhelming consensus crossing race, religion and affiliation etc. In other words they are universal. Modern logic finds much in common with the logic of early Greek, Hindu and Buddhist philosophers, as well as the early Muslim rationalists during the time of the House of Wisdom in Bagdad. This logic has been perfected and improved by later philosophers, like Hume, Kant and many Mathematicians and logicians of the twentieth century. This is the logic that is taught with tax payer's funding in public schools in most nations of the world as well as secular private schools. This is also the logic that has WORKED. It has led to the scientific method that has changed the world, made predictions about nature that was tested and verified to be true. It is also leading humanity towards continued advancement. It is no surprise that this is the logic that people have staked their money in teaching and learning. Contrast that with the "logic" that person "A" uses to rationalize his own belief, or the "logic" of religion "X" to rationalize that religion. Such "logic" is not shared universally, nor has it demonstrated its utility by coming up with any predictions, inventions or innovations, nor to the discovery of any fundamental truth about nature or reality. A "logic" that has been invented as a dedicated ploy to justify one dogma or belief is no logic at all. Besides such logic does not have universal appeal.
Rationalism also implies skepticism. Skepticism requires one to doubt any claim to truth, unless proven by evidence and logic, and to suspend belief or judgment in absence thereof, which clearly follows from rationalism. In personal life, such skepticism forces one to refrain from forming judgement or drawing hasty conclusions about a person, or opinion. In the absence of any evidence or logic a skeptic should stay in a "do nothing" i.e neutral mode. This "do nothing" neutral mode is a level most minds cannot recognize and needs some effort to become at ease with it. Most feel tempted to form an opinion one way or the other, even in the absence of any supporting data. If and when the evidence or logic is available only then a skeptic can form an opinion, that is dictated by the evidence and logic, not by their wishful desires or biases. A rationalist has to have the intellectual courage to acknowledge unpleasant truths. A rationalist never gained/gains materially or otherwise by being rational. It is just a philosophy that they find intuitively appealing.
Let me now turn to some mistaken notions about
rationalism that is quite common among many. Many think that rationalism means
an arrogant claim to infallibility, that rationalism never admits of ever
being wrong, that it denies the possibility that logic itself may be wrong!
All these are due to a lack of careful reflection. First that one could be
wrong is a trivial and self-evident fact. It is like saying that one cannot be
sure that he/she will make it to the destination as the flight may crash.
ACKNOWLEDGING that fact of the limits and uncertainties in one's knowledge is
a matter of humility. Humility is a personal trait. Rationalism is a
philosophy, not a trait. Rationalism does not prevent one, nor does it mandate
one to possess certain personality trait. Second to say that "logic"
itslef may be wrong is to commit a fallacy. Because to judge something as
"wrong" needs a logic of its own. One cannot use logic to judge the same logic
as wrong! We have assumed that there exists only one system of logic that
works best. Until we find a better system of logic, it is a fallacy to judge
that logic as wrong. But saying that the "logic" is not wrong does not mean
saying that one cannot make mistakes. Mistakes are due to an individual's
limit or flaw in applying logic, not due to logic itself. Anyway, that
humility of the self-evident fact of fallibility is built in the scientific
method. Scientific method, which is derived from rationalism is based on
the premise that there is no absolute or final truth, and that any conclusion
about reality is always tentative, subject to continual revision in light of
further evidence. But one must not conclude that just because in certain
instance one could predict the truth correctly by non-rational (intuition,
guess) means that means intuition is superior to rationalism as a means for
seeking truth. For example if a coin is tossed, an intuitionist may
intuitively guess that the coin will come heads up. A rationalist cannot
predict the outcome on the basis of logic and science (It is incredibly
complex calculation) If the coin does fall heads up, does it prove that
intuition is superior to rationalism? Of course not. Next, to many,
rationalism means robbing one of the sense of beauty, romanticism, love,
compassion , i.e leaves one heartless and devoid of emotions. This is a big
myth. Rationalism stresses separating the head from
the heart, not REPLACING heart with head. Certain things are
intrinsically rooted in instinct, and thus beyond rationalism. Love, fear,
altruism, conscience (sense of right and wrong), these are biologically rooted
instincts. Instincts are not controllable or influenced by rationalism.
Instincts are more or less rooted in our genes and manifested through the
workings of the limbic system of our brain. Whereas rationalism results from
the thought process determined by the cerebral cortex. So a rational person
can feel an instinctive fear in certain environment, or can feel passionate
love for certain person. What differentiates a rational person from a less or
non rational person is the synaptic connectivities in their cerebral cortex,
not in their limbic system. So when it comes to primal instincts controlled by
limbic systems, for example self-preservation, the difference disappears. In a
life threatening situation, control is automatically taken over by the limbic
system from the cerebral cortex, biological instinct of aggression may kick
in, and at that point whatever one does is not subject to rationalism anymore.
Taste is also instinctive. Rationalism has nothing to do with it. Although
rationalism does not decide or control our tastes and emotions, it can however
EXPLAIN (or at least try to through scientific method) the basis of such
emotions and likes or dislikes. Rationalism cannot affect or control love. But
rationalism can certainly help explain the biological (in both evolutionary
and biochemical terms) origin of love. The same can be said about all
other instincts and emotions. So being rational does not by any means deprive
of those instincts, tastes and emotions, because they are an integral part of
being human, rational or not. A neurologist does not lose his brain in trying
to understand the workings of the brain, nor does an evolutionary biologist
ceases to be a loving mate or parent in trying to explain and understand the
biological roots of love. Simply because we have no control on our biological
instincts, whether we are rational or not.
Another "reason" for viewing rationalism with cynical eyes by many is
because it is believed by them that humanitarian acts should come from an
emotional impulse, not from a rationalization process, which does not take the
compassion factor in the decision of such acts. On first look, it may look
like a noble view, putting heart before head. But as I pointed out,
compassion, humanitarian acts all are derived from altruism, a biologically
rooted instinct, so rationalism cannot affect it. Although rationalism can
certainly manage altruism in a way that ensures optimum utilization of it.
Impulsive altruistic acts do not always lead to the best results. Rationalism
can help to channelize our altruistic instincts in the most optimal manner. At
a very personal level, of course even a rationalist can (and often does) act
out of an impulse in a humanitarian act, since doing so is not contradicted by
logic. Rationalism is truly applicable in forming opinions, judgments,
learning the truth and solving problems, not to instincts, or impulses that
are non-judgmental or non-intrusive.
Lastly I will be remiss if I do not point out the challenge that rationalism is facing from the postmodernist thinking that seems to be gaining ground in recent years. Postmodernists are challenging that very golden product of rationalism, namely scientific method by insisting that scientific method is just one among many EQUALLY valid route to truth and deserves no special privileged status. This is nothing but intellectual anarchism. Postmodernists are nothing but armchair social scientists that have fallen much behind modern scientific paradigms and are threatened by the scientific approach that social science is adopting (rather being forced to adopt) . They are seeing with horror one after another social discipline is giving ground to the exact sciences. Not being able to face upto the challenge of the sciences some of them have chosen the treacherous art of deconstruction and misapplying it to scientific method. So rationalism now faces challenges from two fronts, religious dogma (which Europeans successfully faced during the renaissance), and postmodernism, which is a new challenge that needs to be faced. So the need to emphasize rationalism is more now than ever. Hopefully my fellow Mukto-Monas will share my passion for rationalism.
[ Slightly modified from the original write-up which was appeared at MM on May 26, 2002. ]