Carl writes:
> In all fairness to the religious (and it pains me to be fair),
this electoral revolt against rationalism tends to confirm
a suspicion I've had for many years, that the Enlightenment
has proved very unenlightening. In other words, people are
reverting to a pre-scientific understanding of the world because
science -- now the exclusion dominion of specialists -- fails
to make the world intelligible to them.
Could it also be that science and rationality fail to provide them with a moral compass with which to orient themselves in the world?
I think rationality is the most powerful tool people have to achieve moral ends. I also believe that rationality helps us to discern what is moral. I do not believe, however, that leftists are adept at articulating the morality that they derive from rationality.
I think this issue dovetails with Kelley's ideas about narrative. The Republicans/conservatives are better at telling moral narratives than Democrats/progressives are. We all create narratives about ourselves; these narratives are confirmed, challenged and modified as they come into contact with other narratives.
Rationality is a good tool to deploy in the analysis and building of a narrative, but ultimately the worth of the narrative lies in its moral utility. These narratives help us make sense of the world and our place in it.
> By this argument, today's high-tech world -- for all the material
benefits it brings -- is as incomprehensible and terrifying to its
denizens as the world of nature was to the cave people.
Instead of incomprehensible, I would say that today's high-tech life is a narrative lacking an ending. Or more accurately: its ending (an increasingly technologically sophisticated/enhanced life is a good life) is both unstated and unaffirmed.
Maybe the recent election demonstrates a rejection of this technology narrative. Maybe the electorate does comprehend the high-tech world and rejects the moral narrative that currently accompanies it.
The irony in all this is that the capitalism that dictated this particular moral narrative is the same capitalism that the electorate embraced by electing George W. Bush to a second term.
> People crave personal understanding that science can't provide them,
and they want some assurance that their existence as individuals really
matters, something that science definitely can't offer.
Exactly. What needs to be achieved in my opinion is the crafting of a moral narrative that can be successfully yoked to a rational approach to existence. I think too often we try to get people to accept rationality first and the narrative second. To me human beings are usually first attracted to narratives, especially narratives that share the same moral conclusion as their own.
As Othello says:
"And bade me, if I had a friend that loved her, I should but teach him how to tell my story. And that would woo her."
If we espouse a moral narrative that resonates with people, we can then advance to the next step and demonstrate how rationality can lead to the same moral ends that they embrace. The final step is showing how rationality is better equipped to achieve our shared moral ends than the one that they are using.
Tell it and they will come.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister