Following is an excerpt from the website of the Rationalists of East Tennessee:
"About Us
The Rationalists of East Tennessee focus on the real or natural universe.
The group exists so that we can benefit emotionally and intellectually through meeting together to expand our awareness and understanding through shared experience, knowledge, and ideas as well as enrich our lives and the lives of others. The Rationalists do not endorse or condemn members' thoughts or actions. Rather it hopefully encourages honest dialogue, analytic discussion, and responsible action based on reason, compassion, and factual accuracy"
Do any of y'all see anything incongruous in the statement above? Who would have thought that rationalists would be so... needy?
Contributors
Links a-plenty
Blog Archive
5 comments:
Such subtlety in words...
Could we replace "endorse or condemn" with "agree with or disagree with"? Probably not. That would be too, well, rational.
I once read on a Unitarian Universalist website that "There is no such thing as absolute truth." Frankly, I give the Universalists a great deal of credit for saying out loud what most people actually think. Unfortunately, once the idea is articulated, one becomes immediately aware that it is self contradictory. Is that an absolute truth? If so, then the original statement is false. If it is not an absolute truth, well, then, it's not. Either way, even the "rationalist" must concede the possibility of absolute truth.
Sorry... I overlooked your original question.
Of course, the answer is this:
That which is not "real or natural" is CONDEMNED by the rationalists as irrational.
One more thing...
I wonder what the "rationalist" would say about the great utility of imaginary numbers in science...
J
I don't think the rationalists would have any problem with imaginary numbers. After all, they have no problems believing everything they imagine Darwin to say, they imagine that they're all scientists, they imagine that science is objective, etc.
What astonishes me is that most rationalists are also relativists, as you pointed out in discussing Unitarians. This is so wholly incongruous that it boggles the mind. How can one consider themselves rational when adopting such a wholly self-discrediting thesis?
I'm not offended by rationalism, I'm offended by rationalists and their arrogant dismantling of logic. I suppose I have to go to confession now...
Anyway, what struck me in the rationalists' statement was that it makes rationalism sound like a support group. I have this mental picture of a bunch of bearded, turtle-neck sweater wearing men sitting around saying "I affirm what you're saying, Donald..."
Why, if you pattern your life upon reason, do you NEED other people to hang out with? If you're a rational individual, and reason is all that matters, you should be entirely content with yourself. After all, rationalism in its secular humanist vein is all about self-deification. Love has no place in the rationalist universe.
This tends to paint the rationalists as one of those "loser cliques" that form in High School - where looking like an idiot becomes a badge of pride rather than shame. The need to commune is so great that people whose pride is to great to allow them to conform create an atmosphere in which conformity is hidden behind a nominally scientific creed.
But, I diverge into psychology, that Jerry Lewis of sciences.
Q: Why, if you pattern your life upon reason, do you NEED other people to hang out with? If you're a rational individual, and reason is all that matters, you should be entirely content with yourself. After all, rationalism in its secular humanist vein is all about self-deification.
A: Because being a deity is only marginally fun if you are the only one worshipping yourself. The fun REALLY kicks in when you get others to worship you too.
Where's my turtleneck?
Post a Comment