Your article
on human rationality (26 May, p 32) asks: «Have you ever, against your better judgement, nurtured a belief...
It is a three - hundred - year attempt to demolish medieval (especially Catholic) claims to authority, and to substitute a structure of science and ethics based solely
on human rationality.
Not exact matches
Faith as underlying
rationality: In this view, all
human knowledge and reason is seen as dependent
on faith: faith in our senses, faith in our reason, faith in our memories, and faith in the accounts of events we receive from others.
Subjecting dictation of ALL THAT IS to
human rationality (quickly: consider the «status» of
humans on earth relative to the rest of the universe) is, well, nuts.
Now, Gudorf contends, present inroads
on this tradition insist that: «1) bodily experience can reveal the divine, 2) affectivity is as essential as
rationality to true Christian love, 3) Christian love exists not to bind autonomous selves, but as the proper form of connection between beings who become
human persons in relation, and 4) the experience of bodily pleasure is important in creating the ability to trust and love others, including God.»
In short, from our perspective, it depended
on an extremely parochial and naively optimistic view of American society and of the power of
human rationality.
Yet their insight may lead us to arrogance, if we make the worth of a
human being entirely dependent
on rationality.
Prior to the rise of the great civilizations of antiquity, from the fourth millennium before Christ
on,
rationality played a minor role in
human life.
Yet the procedures all too often rely
on the
rationality of the
human mind — which can easily be derailed.
I was at a dinner a couple weeks back at which several journalists spoke
on just this issue, and Shankar Vedantam and Chris Mooney made a good case for what I have also suggested (including in my reply to you
on April 6); What's really irrational is for smart people, in support of the myth of perfect
rationality and frustrated by the public's «ignorance» about risk, to ignore the mountains of evidence from neuroscience and social sciences about how
human perception and decision - making actually works, about risk or anything else.
However, it does seem to me that
rationality has always hung
on by a thread in
human society.
This is post no. 2
on the question «Is cultural cognition a bias,» to which the answer is, «nope — it's not even a heuristic; it's an integral component of
human rationality.»