Why I'm a Rationalist



I've only been a rationalist for about 6 years now (give or take a year of deep reflection and questioning). But I've come to find that a strong and steady rationalism almost always negates superstition, and good critical thinking skills make requisite the challenge for me to find valid reasons for believing in something other than it being something that is ubiquitous among society and thus acceptable to believe for no other reasons.

Striving toward being more rational has not always been easy. It has often made me the black sheep, the odd duck out, or even the lone wolf, depending on the context and the type of issues I am contending with. It has forced me to take the contrarian position more times than I can count. It has caused me to side with unpopular minority views which have, in turn, made me unpopular with others. But becoming a rationalist has improved my life by noteworthy and substantial leaps and bounds over what I used to be--a superstitious, uncritical, know-it-all know-nothing, boob.

But I'm glad I'm no longer that guy. I never want to go back to being that guy. That guy didn't know shit. And, well, the truth is I'm extremely proud to be able to teach my kids good critical thinking skills and the values of rationalism rather than merely feeding them superstition and telling them to accept everything as I do just because that's the so-called "right way."

As the Buddha once avowed, and I'm paraphrasing, you can't teach people what truth is, you can only show them how to come to the truth on their own. And, believe you me, that requires good critical thinking skills and a call to rational thought.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussing the Historicity of Jesus with a Christian Agnostic

Image
Steven Jake, the author of the up and coming blog  TheChristian Agnostic , [1]  wrote a rather thorough response to my lengthy comment asking him about the state of the evidence regarding the historical Jesus. I am pleased he took the time to write a thorough response. I only feel that such a thorough response deserves my own more detailed response as my initial comment was merely that—a comment. So without further ado I will address some of Steven Jake’s comments and concerns. Initially Steven Jake (henceforth SJ) posted a quote from New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman claiming that there is an abundance of evidence for a historical Jesus. I merely contested this claim asking for what evidence we have that would be considered historically reliable. As I see it there is none. That doesn’t mean, however, I don’t think there  wasn’t  a historical Jesus, just that we cannot prove if there was or wasn’t and so I remain agnostic as to the historicity of Je...
Read more

Conflating Atheism and Agnosticism is a Mistake

Image
In a discussion over at Bud's blog Dead Logic , a reader asked a question I have been hearing more and more recently. It's a good question, so I thought I would do my part to try and answer it. Doesn't admitting to being an agnostic instead of an atheist FEEL like you're being wishy-washy, or not fully committing to your "belief"? ... I understand that it's only honest to say that we CAN'T be sure, but I sure do hate to show weakness (real or perceived) in an argument. Not at all.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Atheism deals with belief.  The Agnostic position cannot assume whether a thing like a God could exist or not given the lack of sheer evidence for such a things existence. Therefore knowing with any given certainty just isn't possible. The agnostic then makes the claim that a definitive answer with regard to "knowing" of God's existence cannot be given either way. Atheism, however, can state with assurance t...
Read more