TRUE reason can offend a LOT of people

The problem with saying that I live my life by reason (or, at least, that I always attempt to apply reason, common sense, rationality to all philosophical problems) is that almost everyone will say that they believe the exact same thing about themselves! Ask a moderately intelligent creationist (yes, I know what an oxymoron that would appear on the surface) how he feels about "reason" or "rationality" and he will probably expound on their virtues. In addition, there are also a lot of other folks who share most of my primary positions and yet don’t fully apply reason to their stance. They arrived at a similar political/philosophical place to my own but it was not exclusively a result of rational thought. I have a small handful of examples.

The environment is a major concern for most reasonable people. Good stewardship of our planet should be all of our concerns. And yet, how many are willing to thoroughly examine the use of nuclear energy as a possible source of fuel for society? It might not be the best way to go. But, then again, it may be. It, at the very least, must be carefully but completely considered. Those in the environmental movement who adamantly refuse to bring the issue to the table, can hardly be said to employ rational thought. Another issue here is the magnitude of the danger from global warming and pollution we face. No reasonable person can deny the fact of global warming or that it can have disastrous effects on our planet. But the key word in the previous sentence was “can” – as opposed to “will”. Science is in consensus about what is going on with anthropic global warming. There is not complete agreement on “how soon” or “how bad”, in regards to the effects. That said, more and more scientific evidence is mounting that should spur us in to actions that should far exceed our concerns about terrorists or any other human matter at this time.

Most reasonable people agree on a woman’s right to choose concerning her body and the future (or non-future) of her pregnancy. While it is a very reasonable position that mere conception does not equal human life, does this mean that there is no moral issue, particularly as the pregnancy progresses to late term? A blastocyst is not a person. But can we say the same for a fetus in the 8th month? While one may still claim “life starts at birth”, it becomes somewhat problematic when one considers that at this point a cesarean operation would result in a human being. To say there is no moral issue here is to deny the use of reason. Also, consider the man’s right to choose. While rational thought leads us to say that no man should be able to cause a woman to have a child against her will, regardless of his desires for a child, there is every reason to think he should have something to say about being a father. A reasoned approach would be to say that if a woman (who can freely choose abortion) chooses to bring her pregnancy to full term, the man should be able to insist on aborting his fatherhood. Proponents of abortion rights suddenly loose their acute reasoning abilities when this obvious point is made.

Reason quickly reveals that the Bush/Cheney war in Iraq is misguided (at the very least). Anti-war critics rightly protest our military actions there (and worry with good reason about future similar ventures in Iran or elsewhere). But does this mean that we scorn those who advocate the use of violence as one of the tools against terrorism? A reasoned debate would discuss the use of military forces, directed at specific terrorist targets located in various locations around the world. Common sense should lead to the fact that attacking nations and attempting to install democracy (particularly on the faulty grounds of an imagined link to terrorist networks and an equally fallacious claim of nuclear intentions) can not be a viable way to combat terrorist groups; but planned violence directed against those who would themselves do violence based on their religious beliefs must be considered. Sloganeering "Peace" is not a well reasoned position on terrorism.

Science as relates to human nature has been a hotbed for philosophical debate over the last century and figures to continue into the future. There is no cause to fear what science can tell us about ourselves; as individuals or as groups. The fact is (as every reasonable person knows), we are evolved. And we evolved as species, races and sexes in a multitude of ways. As fair minded people, we want equality for ourselves and others. This is a highly reasonable goal for cognitive creatures evolved in a network of reciprocal altruism. But it defies reason to think that equality means there are no innate differences in races and sexes. While many people are deeply satisfied with research such as that shows biological linkage to sexual preference, some of these same people revile studies that demonstrate a genetic component in intelligence, emotions, and physical abilities. It is an unjustified fear which permits the rejection of science selectively in cases where it is thought science encourages racism or sexism. Science can tell us things about how the real universe is, but not what we should do about it. The fact of our differences is completely unrelated to our intellectual decision to treat everyone equally. All behaviors are on a continuum. Reason teaches that while Group Y may have more of a propensity towards some ability or behavior, anyone from Group X might be much further along that continuum than the average member of Group Y. The only reasonable solution is to treat all the same. One thing that would defy reason, common-sense and rational thinking, would be the denial of innate human nature and the grand variety it entails.

The four examples I gave could be greatly expanded upon. Nearly everyone thinks of themselves as striving to be rational thinkers. Certainly it is a major goal for those of us who are of the secular humanist community. But only by forcing ourselves to set aside our pet convictions and continue to explore with open minds all sides of any issue will we be privy to the wisdom gleaned from true reason. I have no doubt that some who think of themselves as rationalists will be offended one or more of the propositions above. But to ignore this warning, in favor of uninspected world-views, would be to open us to the same disdain we reserve for the so-called "reason" of a creationist.