Rationalism has been the soul-destroying material triumph of Western civilization. Rationalism gave us science and technology, and has propelled Western civilization to lead the world in all matters scientific, technological, military, and economic. But rationalism ignores the human need for spiritual succor, and hundreds of millions of people across the world resent and reject the coldness of rationalism. This isn't rationalism's fault -- it's not a religion or a way of life, just a way of thinking about the material world. Yet we humans can't separate our spiritual side from our realistic side, and so we falsely contrast rationalism with spiritualism. If only we could heed the words of Jesus Christ: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."
And we on the Left deserve some of the blame.
The gathering storm in our culture is the rebellion against rationalism. It's not limited to our own culture -- look at the battle for the soul of Islam. Their fundamentalists derive their power from the common disgust with the materialism and amoralism of Western culture. Our fundamentalists are driven by that same disgust. They see a civilization disintegrating for lack of moral principles, and they believe that they are battling to save the soul of our civilization. But they have confused rationalism with badly practised rationalism. And here is where I level a quavering finger of blame at the less disciplined elements of the Left.
Before I make my accusations, I need to establish one point: the association of education with liberalism. The Right generally holds that our intellectual establishment is blindly Leftist. They dismiss our institutions of higher education as hotbeds of left-wing extremism. They reject the mainstream media as biased. If it's intellectual, they don't trust it. We on the left have our own complaints against the MSM, but we do not share the general distrust of intellectualism so common among conservatives.
The most obvious manifestation of conservative rejection of rationalism is in its reaction to science. Conservatives now feel justified in flatly rejecting any science that they don't like. They baldly deny Darwinian theory, despite the most overwhelming evidence in favor of the hypothesis. Legions of scientists explain the reasoning to no avail; their expertise means nothing to conservatives. Global warming is another field in which science is given short shrift; conservatives blithely dismiss all the mounting evidence as mere left-wing propaganda. My locality is now undergoing a debate about, of all things, flouridation of the water supply. All the science in the world does nothing to convince these people. This fight is really a battle of symbolism: should we trust science with our drinking water?
Now it is time for me to make my accusations: I accuse some elements of the Left of contributing to this process by playing fast and loose with rationalism where it does not suit their political beliefs. I believe that these elements have discredited rationalism in the eyes of the public.
Let's take up the case of the Colorado professor who published claims that the victims of the 9/11 atrocities were in some manner deserving of their fate. As an open-minded rationalist, I am certainly willing to entertain that hypothesis, and I recognize the few arguments that support it. But I also recognize that there are a great many other arguments that deny the hypothesis, and I believe that any honestly rational observer will reject the overall hypothesis while acknowledging the correctness of a few of the arguments offered in its support.
It seems clear to me that the professor has sinned against rationalism with a patently abusive application of reason to the problem. I believe that he has done a disservice to rationalism with his claims, and I believe that his reputation should be forever soiled by this intellectual crime. While I believe it appropriate to take intellectually retaliatory measures against this man (such as a great many intellectuals signing a public condemnation of his views), I do not think it appropriate to take materially retaliatory measures against him. The appearance of those eager to do the latter does not justify the failure of the rational community to do the former. Both sides have erred.
I level a similar accusation against the Left in its handling of the Larry Summers imbroglio. The cold, scientific fact is that the statements made by Mr. Summers are supported by an adequate if not compelling amount of evidence. They conflict with the political opinions of many people, but the scientific foundation for them is respectable, and they deserve consideration. The materially retaliatory measures taken against Mr. Summers are less justifiable than the materially retaliatory measures taken against the Colorado professor.
And now we are experiencing the other side of the coin of Political Correctness. The movement to purge politically unpopular expressions at campuses around the country, which has been going on for several decades now, is at last being turned against liberals. Now we see conservatives attacking professors for teaching ideas that they find politically distasteful. Having already betrayed the principle of absolute freedom of expression, we now find our universities turning into political footballs, where the party with the greatest political power gets to force its views on everybody. In such an environment, rationalism is the only victim.
The sad case of Terri Schiavor provides us with yet another example of the denial of science. The medical experts have carried out their examinations, applied their expertise, and come to the conclusion that the woman is lost. The courts have examined the evidence and made their rulings. Yet millions of people, the United States Congress, and the President have rejected all that expert medical and legal opinion as if it were so much chaff. If we refuse to trust the people whom we have trained to perform the task, then how can our civilization remain glued together?
I will counterbalance the Right's treatment of global warming with the Left's treatment of nuclear power. While there is some basis for rational disagreement over fine points, the overall rational case for nuclear power is compelling. Despite its flaws, it provides us with an alternative superior to coal. If someday we can establish that natural gas is available in abundance to suit our needs, then I would recommend natural gas over nuclear power. But what's important about this debate is that the Left has been just as abusive of rationalism here as the Right has been with global warming. Scientific studies have been made; analyses have been carried out; experiments performed. The rational conclusions are clear, yet the Left continues to cling to its case, denying the scientific conclusions.
Those who live by the sword die by the sword. If we play fast and loose with rationalism when its conclusions do not meet our desires, then we cannot complain when the Right does the same. If our civilization is to survive, then we must renew our commitment to rationalism, restrain our undisciplined thoughts, and stick to the facts and the logic. And if those facts and logic do not suit our preferences, we must look deep inside our hearts and ask, which is more important: our preferences, or the facts?