This goes out to all the rationalists who have ever been accused of being “just as fanatic as a religious fundamentalist.”
I am not crazy. I am not a fanatic. I am not closed-minded. I am not a fundamentalist. Just because you disagree with me does not make me wrong. Just because I write mainly about a certain subject does not put me on the same plane as a fire and brimstone preacher. There are nuances and there are vast, gaping differences between rationalism and religion. It is important that critics understand these because I am tired of defending myself against the notion that I am any of the above.
Fanaticism is defined by “uncritical zeal” for a particular subject or idea. This would imply that, if I were a true fanatic, I do not apply critical thinking to the process of determining my stances. Alas, my ideas are the result of applying critical thinking to everything. Skepticism and empiricism are the epitomes of critical thinking. There are rules of logical determination that a concept must follow to a certain degree in order to qualify for a viable and reliable truth. A person whose mental conduct follows these rules is not crazy, but rather quite honest. In some cases, brutally honest. Which is why one might be offended by the conclusions put forth by such thinking.
Now, these rules of logic may be construed as “fundamentals” so as to make the adherers thus “fundamentalists,” but this is categorical gerrymandering. Fundamentalists are religious, and to define them as thus is to exclude rationalists from the conversation. But the main quality of a fundamentalist that critics are trying to hit on is the resistance to criticism that a particular philosophy has. It is a supreme fallacy that rationalism is immune to criticism. Rationality embodies criticism in its most potent form. It is the criticism of every other philosophy.
If all the philosophies of the world were to be put into a mathematical equation, the greatest common divisor would be reality. Extract reality from each and you are left with all the junk ideas that people add on because they want to believe that there is something more than what is in front of their eyes. It is tough to hear, but it doesn’t make me the crazy one for pointing it out.
Fundamentalism is dogmatic by definition, but the same idea that rationalism (and by extension, atheism) is dogmatic is absurd. There is no universal doctrine to rationalism, thus no derived morality or code. The accusation of fundamentalism against rationalism is a defensive response and not a logical one. If one detects actual dogma, as defined by an authoritative doctrine, it is probably more extracurricular philosophical junk that is tacked on to the core reality that we all live in. Rationalism is not to blame.
Just because I don’t believe in hokey supernatural ideas does not make me closed-minded either. I am willing to hear any idea that comes my way, but you cannot blame me for requiring these ideas to match the reality we all live in. There is such a thing as being too open-minded. That’s when we consider so many ideas that we no longer know what is real and what is not. Nobody likes to sit next to those people on the bus.
What does it mean to be open-minded anyways? Let's say you believe in god and want me, an atheist, to be "more" open-minded. What do you want out of that arrangement? Let's say I "open" my mind and consider the existence of a god. What god exactly, then, do I believe in? What if it happens to be a completely different god than what you believe in? Am I being too open-minded at that point? Not enough? Well, let's be even more open-minded and consider the idea of another god. The two are incompatible, though. Now we must use some sort of system to determine which god is the right one to believe in. Well, the best way to get to the bottom of any matter is to use logic. So, we apply logical thinking to the situation and... lo and behold, I come to the conclusion that neither god in consideration exists. Does my conclusion mean that, once again, I am closed-minded?
Don't assume that the result of open-mindedness leads to the belief in god. You'll be disappointed every time. Does open-mindedness mean that we shouldn't use logic to figure things out and instead use emotion? There is a name for the mental phenomenon that occurs when what we feel differs from the reality we perceive: cognitive dissonance. How does open-mindedness work in court? "Your honor, I don't need to prove I'm innocent; I feel it in my heart." Really, the plea to be "more" open-minded is just a cover for, "Why can't you think more like me?" I think you'll find that rationalists are more open-minded than most people. Every rationalist has considered the idea that a god could exist. Every atheist has come to the conclusion that none do.
Addressing this on a more personal level, the fact that I write mainly about a single subject does not mean I am inordinately obsessed with it. For instance, I have a friend who is an absolute authority on catching baseballs as a fan at baseball games. All he writes about is baseball; 3 books and a busy blog. However, nobody will fault him for following his passion. In fact, they cheer him on. I, on the other hand, am criticized for being passionately interested in the philosophy of reality. I study and think and write about it daily because it is a subject that I hope to become an authority on, just like my friend is on baseballs. I think everyone would agree that you should probably pick at least one thing in life and learn as much as you can about it. It will make you a more interesting person and also give you confidence in knowing that you are unique in a way of your own choosing. That is me and realistic philosophy, yet I take a lot of heat for what I do. It is such a shame.
2 nibbles: