Defending Reason

PZ Myers has again generated controversy with a post that is in no way temperate regarding religion and its basis in irrationality.

I find all the yowling from liberal defenders of religion somewhat strange given that Congress is currently engaged in a perfect example of how irrational thinking, as encouraged by virtually all religions, reaches far beyond a belief in a god or gods, and how tolerance of irrationality has damaged our ability as a society to prioritize issues and engage in fruitful discussions.

I’m referring to the whole ridiculous defense of marriage debate.

Let’s take a look at how deference to irrational thinking has extended this debate far beyond what any reasonable person would consider, well … reasonable.

On the one side, those who argue in favor of extending marriage to gays base their arguments on: The Constitution, including the explicitly stated societal value of equality before the law, the idea of fairness, which when applied requires that people in similar situations be consistently treated the same; and the fact that there is no empirical evidence of any difference in the effect on society between a relationship involving two men or two women and one involving a man and a woman.

On the other side, proponents of an amendment to outlaw gay marriage argue it’s wrong because: 1. An invisible being says so, 2. gay sex is icky, 3. society will collapse into chaotic hedonism and moral anarchy if gays are allowed to marry.

In the case of number one, they can’t prove the invisible being even exists. In the case of number two, they are expressing an opinion; an unfounded opinion given that most of them would claim to lack any direct experience of gay sex. In the case of number 3, they are not even offering an opinion. Instead they are simply throwing up a dire prediction based on the sick fantasies crowding the more dank and slimy recesses of their minds.

So, on the one side we have a rational argument based on the law and on the stated collective ideals of this country, and on the other side we have an irrational argument based on superstition, prejudice and fear.

What this has to do with PZ’s post should be obvious. In a country that valued reason, or that simply didn’t overvalue religion, the arguments being used to promote the Constitutional degradation of gays would carry little weight in determining public policy and law.

Is it not obvious, then, how the promotion of the irrational in the guise of religion contributes to the promotion of the irrational as a basis for governing?

Let me put it another way. If I argued that gays must be allowed to marry because little flying fat purple puppies said so, my argument would (rightly) be ignored. No one, even in the media environment today, would put me on as a serious commenter on the issue of gay marriage. No politician would adopt my argument. No opponent would bother to refute what I was saying. People would laugh and then forget me, or ignore me completely and I would disappear quietly from the national discourse.

Why then do the proponents of irrational arguments nearly as ridiculous as my hypothetical example flourish in this and other debates?

Because a lot of people agree with them. Conventional wisdom is on their side. Conventional wisdom says that God exists. Conventional wisdom says gay sex is icky. (Conventional wisdom says all sex is icky, actually.) Conventional wisdom says change is scary and scary equates to bad, bad, bad.

As this is my first post on this blog, it's more than appropriate to state here my number one rule regarding conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom is always wrong. Conventional wisdom is always irrational. Conventional wisdom is in no way an appropriate basis for deciding anything.

Combine that with my number two rule regarding conventional wisdom ["The shallow adore conventional wisdom."] and it’s easy to see why the media and politicians flock to whatever qualifies as a commonly held belief.

But the reality of widespread support does not impart rationality to an irrational argument. And popular sentiment doesn’t mitigate the danger irrational thinking poses to a society supposedly based on the rule of law.

Calls for tolerance are out of place here. Myers is right. His disease metaphor is right on. Tolerance for that which does actual damage is a sign of a very sick system.

No one is trying to dictate what people can believe. But what we, as a society, will agree is worthy of consideration in our public discourse is important. Ultimately, in the public sphere reason is opposed, if not to religion, then to those elements of religion that depend on faith.

It is past time we stopped using magic to make our collective decisions.