"Rational", "reason", "Free Thinker" and other terminology

Rational, rationality, reason, "Free Thinker Award", Brights, logical argument this and skepchic that, the "Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science", and, dare I say, the word atheism itself--the list of words and phrases goes on, and on, and on.

Many terms have become associated with atheism, especially, for me at least, with the advent of bloggers and those making Youtube videos extolling the brilliance of atheism and the materialistic, rational worldview. You'll see atheist bloggers, or even the likes of Dawkins when debating, use words such as "rational" over and over again to the point of semantic satiation. Often, these arguments are made by an author or narrator or debater that, perhaps unwillingly, comes across as smug and condescending; don't get me wrong, debaters on the theistic side often come across like this, too, but I'm concerned here with the likes of Dawkins or any number of bloggers from the rational or atheist "community."

I have to say that all of this--the years and years of watching debates and videos, of reading blogs and threads and arguments, many of these laced with a condescension or a holier-than-thou attitude--in some kind of collective, unconscious way, has "ruined" many words and phrases for me: it has implanted negative connotations of a lot of these words deep inside of my mind. I can't use the word "rational" now without a slight cringe, a slight feeling that perhaps, in doing so, I'm coming across as condescending or smug. I can't look at the phrase "free thinker" without thinking only a complete w*nker would use such a phrase. The sight of Dawkins, when speaking about atheism or reason, often physically repulses me. (OK, maybe that's a slight exaggeration.)

Has this happened to any of you? Are there any words, somehow related to atheism, that blogs or videos or constant, unrelenting use in arguments has ruined for you?


Perhaps this is all just me. I tend to dislike certain words once they become associated with something I don't like, and especially when they're used to the point of losing all meaning. Take, for example, the word "epic." Over the past half decade or so, it came to be a word used in the vocabulary of the youth to describe a great night out, or to descibe how they managed to get two pizzas for the price of one. You get the idea--it now describes the mundane, not the truely epic: the word has been devalued. So now, instead of the word "epic" conjuring up images of Indiana Jones exploring a long lost temple or the battle between a man and a beast, it evokes an image of a load of young people drinking and dancing, or something else that's nothing more than mundane. /rant

Lantus

gvn wrote: »

Rational, rationality, reason, "Free Thinker Award", Brights, logical argument this and skepchic that, the "Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science", and, dare I say, the word atheism itself--the list of words and phrases goes on, and on, and on.

Many terms have become associated with atheism, especially, for me at least, with the advent of bloggers and those making Youtube videos extolling the brilliance of atheism and the materialistic, rational worldview. You'll see atheist bloggers, or even the likes of Dawkins when debating, use words such as "rational" over and over again to the point of semantic satiation. Often, these arguments are made by an author or narrator or debater that, perhaps unwillingly, comes across as smug and condescending; don't get me wrong, debaters on the theistic side often come across like this, too, but I'm concerned here with the likes of Dawkins or any number of bloggers from the rational or atheist "community."

I have to say that all of this--the years and years of watching debates and videos, of reading blogs and threads and arguments, many of these laced with a condescension or a holier-than-thou attitude--in some kind of collective, unconscious way, has "ruined" many words and phrases for me: it has implanted negative connotations of a lot of these words deep inside of my mind. I can't use the word "rational" now without a slight cringe, a slight feeling that perhaps, in doing so, I'm coming across as condescending or smug. I can't look at the phrase "free thinker" without thinking only a complete w*nker would use such a phrase. The sight of Dawkins, when speaking about atheism or reason, often physically repulses me. (OK, maybe that's a slight exaggeration.)

Has this happened to any of you? Are there any words, somehow related to atheism, that blogs or videos or constant, unrelenting use in arguments has ruined for you?

Religion has a very rigid and constrained structure so that the ability to communicate to them in a rational manner is negated. The meaning of rational does not hold the same value as it varies across all people and cultures.

You cannot have a rational discussion with an eskimo about favourite beaches because that person has no concept of what you are talking about. Having never seen a beach or experienced such weather your descriptions would be bizzare.

The author clearly has no real understanding of how to communicate with people of differing value systems. He has elevated himself up above another human instead of trying his damnest to understand them and so has failed in many ways as much as the religous peron who accepts a rigid myth system to guide their life.

Free thinker is always a good one. If any group were truly free thinkers then the problems of society would of been solved. Political systems we cannot yet even imagine, no war or disease or poverty and peace for all man kind. Except the auther and his readers are brought up to believe in a monetary system which encourages poverty and extreme inequality, that war is justifibable and sometime seven desirable and that there will always be people starving and of course that their country and their democracy is the best in the world, without question.

Any person who thinks without the confines of religion is better equiped to move forward but to believe they have achieved some sort of special intellect is simply rubbish. To tell each other that we are rational is just as unsane to tell your self that there is an invisible man in the sky. Think about it.

Galvasean

The term 'Brights' annoys me. Other than that nothing in the OP really gets on my nerves.

Tonyandthewhale

'Brights'
'Free thinker'
'Rational'

In that order of cringe.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

I'd have some similar thoughts to the OP. Not particularly about terminology, but I'd agree to the extent that I'd find the sight of Richard Dawkins effectively trying to convert the world to atheism to be cringe-inducing. I've an atheist outlook; it's my way of seeing things, but I've no expectation or feeling that anyone else needs to pick the same path.

Should I be telling Katie Taylor "Sheesh, girl, you'll never achieve anything in this life if you fill you head with all that god stuff"? I'd say clearly not. I've no reason to doubt her when she attributes her success to her religion; I've no doubt that many others find a religious outlook works for them. Why would Richard Dawkins be in a better position to run their lives for them?

Gbear

Lantus wrote: »

You cannot have a rational discussion with an eskimo about favourite beaches because that person has no concept of what you are talking about. Having never seen a beach or experienced such weather your descriptions would be bizzare.

I think you're equating arational with irrational.
Just because there's no rational basis on which to discuss something, doesn't mean that it is necessarily irrational.
For example; saying that you prefer the taste of chocolate ice cream to vanilla is neither rational or irrational. Choosing one or the other is valid. There is no irrational choice between the two.
However, saying that you prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla ice cream because it has more tigers in it is irrational (unless it's true - in which case it's perfectly rational:o).


I'm somewhat puzzled about the dislike for "rational". It's like disliking "long", "unlikely" or "trivial".
It just describes stuff.

I think someone tried to explain to me that "bright" didn't refer to "being bright" but, I dunno, something to do with just picking a nice word to replace "heathen" or "godless person". Even so, either the person who coined it was hopelessly naive or a bit of a dick.

Nobody looks for false modesty in people but anyone who actively declares that they're a "bright" or a "free-thinker" as an incidental fact needs to deflate their ego a little.

Turtwig

I like the word 'rational'. I refer to some of my religious friends as being rational and some of my atheist friends as being irrational. However, I hate the way Dawkins, Watson and others use the terms.

'Brights' I cringe at. To some extent I also cringe at 'freethinker'. "Ooooh looksee here me, I'm able to think freely and you're not. For which I present to you sheeple this xkcd gem."



Another thing I hate is when science, especially God awful cosmology, *cringe* virtual particles and the like, get dragged through the mud by one side or the other to make some point that I'd long since lost comprehension in what they were saying anyway. (Speaking in Analogies, tends to have that effect.)

wonderfulname

As far as I'm aware I'm alone in my pet hate, the phrase "respect is earned" used in response to any assertion you should respect peoples beliefs, the damn word does not refer to the same thing in those two contexts, and reads to me as someone legitimising rude behaviour.

Dades

Brights, no. Just a little too smug sounding. Same with free-thinker, maybe, though I'm a bit partial to it.

Rational? I'm sorry that's the only word to describe the atheistic position. It doesn't matter if certain niches have decided it's a taboo word it's the only word to describe a position that takes no agenda and sees nonsense for what it is.

ShooterSF

wonderfulname wrote: »

As far as I'm aware I'm alone in my pet hate, the phrase "respect is earned" used in response to any assertion you should respect peoples beliefs, the damn word does not refer to the same thing in those two contexts, and reads to me as someone legitimising rude behaviour.

Actually I dislike the phrase respect people's beliefs. I respect people's beliefs I agree with, I will not stand for harmful beliefs I disagree with and (the one where people use the word respect) I tolerate harmless beliefs I do not share.

On topic Im not fond of free thinker either. All religious will think they too are freethinkers they just happen to have thought about it and agreed with their religion. Very few these days in the free world follow religions they internally oppose.

Davidius

This talk of 'rational' has prompted me to wonder why I haven't heard spoof talk about how 'rational' and 'irrational' make 'real'. Moreover the irrational is uncountably large, therefore ghosts exist. Mathematical mysticism seems underexploited.

On topic, I hate the use of 'free thinker'. I never really hear 'brights' probably because I don't be watching much of those talks. Both seem like smug egowanking phrases.

Things like dropping '(ir)rational' and 'reason(able)' every couple of sentences are annoying but minor and I probably have done it before. I sometimes think they're delivered a bit too much as if they're the subject of cult veneration rather than something more down-to-earth as the speaker probably intends. I suspect hearing the same words again and again is where people get notions of an 'atheist religion'. That said I still think they're perfectly good descriptions.

Jernal

Jernal wrote: »

I prefer this one:



:pac:

Turtwig

Deleted User wrote: »

I prefer this one:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/atheists.png

:pac:

That's for agnostics though. I keep that especially for them.

Jernal

Jernal wrote: »

That's for agnostics though. I keep that especially for them.

I'm sure you're missing inverted commas somewhere though. :pac:

Bannasidhe

Dades wrote: »

Brights, no. Just a little too smug sounding. Same with free-thinker, maybe, though I'm a bit partial to it.

Rational? I'm sorry that's the only word to describe the atheistic position. It doesn't matter if certain niches have decided it's a taboo word it's the only word to describe a position that takes no agenda and sees nonsense for what it is.

'Brights' - sounds like a category for sorting dirty laundry - darks/whites/mixed darks/brights.

MagicMarker

Some believers really latched on to the "brights" thing, more so than any atheists as far as I know. Don't know what Dawkins was thinking when he came up with that, wasn't very bright of him. Ba dum tish.

Freethinker - Not really bothered by this, just seems a little old fashioned.

Irrational/Illogical - Absolutely no problem with these whatsoever, they pretty much bang the nail on the head when it comes to all things god. If I couldn't use these words then I'd have to revert to the much less polite "fúcking moronic".

Mfwic_47

using "impact", as a verb. Alexander Haig used this under Reagan. It swept the Washington, DC beltway, then moved to the populace, as a whole.

doctoremma

I don't really like using these words when they seek to define the whole person. I am not necessarily 'a rational person', I am simply 'rational' about some things (and not about others). As far as I can tell, this is exactly the same for people who believe in god.

'Brights' is horrible, just so smug. Acknowledging your intelligence (or rationality or whatever) is one thing but actively labelling yourself using a proper noun? Ugh.

I might informally use shorthand phrases - 'believer', 'skeptic' etc - but only when the context is clear and I'm not keen on their use formally. They don't, in themselves, have enough descriptive power. I've been known to challenge people who use them as self-descriptors, in an entirely 'innocent' fashion - You're a believer? So what, you just believe stuff?

Penn

"Free Thinker". We're all free thinkers, some just choose to think differently. It's just a term that doesn't need to be used any more and now just sounds kind of arrogant.

Dades

^^ Loving the new sloth avatar, Penn.

Penn

This is all I can think of when I look at it:

GCU Flexible Demeanour

doctoremma wrote: »

I don't really like using these words when they seek to define the whole person. I am not necessarily 'a rational person', I am simply 'rational' about some things (and not about others). As far as I can tell, this is exactly the same for people who believe in god.

I'd say even the choice to adopt one or other set of beliefs could be rational or irrational.

What I mean is, someone might reject religion on account of a bad experience with individual clergy. That's an understandable reaction. It may even be a justifiable reaction. But its not a rational reaction.

In any event, rationality is quite limited as a guide to life. Isn't the whole point that we all have to make decisions based on inadequate information. Anyone thinking "I'm rational, I've got it all cracked" is more deluded than a theist who professes ignorance of divine intentions. In that situation, at least the theist understands that we don't know enough to even predict the price of houses in D4 in twelve months time.

Zamboni

Language evolves. I find it easier to just go with it.

doctoremma

doctoremma wrote: »

I don't really like using these words when they seek to define the whole person. I am not necessarily 'a rational person', I am simply 'rational' about some things (and not about others). As far as I can tell, this is exactly the same for people who believe in god.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. I thoroughly dislike when people describe themselves as rational, often in a self-satisfied, condescending way, as is often seen in debates or arguments or blog posts. Likewise, the same people often describe others as irrational in the same smug manner.

It's all down to context, I guess. I still use the words "rational" and "reason" and others, despite that slight negative connotation they have with me. When I use the word "rational" in a certain context, as in "That's a logical, rational argument," I can't help but associate that usage with the blogger who has used the word to the point where it has lost all meaning and is, in a certain respect, devalued. There's a certain association in my mind between the word and the smug, self-satisfied blogger or debater or Youtube narrator. Anyway, at this point I'm not sure if I'm making much sense. :pac:

But yes, phrases such as "free-thinker" and "Bright" and so on are on a completely different level than simple, descriptive words like "rational" or "reason". I think phrases like that are intrinsicly smug, whereas words like "rational" have only become associated with "smugness" (in my mind) because of their usage by certain people.

doctoremma

gvn wrote: »

I think you've hit the nail on the head. I thoroughly dislike when people describe themselves as rational, often in a self-satisfied, condescending way, as is often seen in debates or arguments or blog posts. Likewise, the same people often describe others as irrational in the same smug manner.

Can it ever be valid that a person describes themselves as "rational" (or "irrational", for that matter)? Presumably, most of us think and behave in a manner which we think "rational" and rarely do we actively pursue the "irrational". But it's all a bit subjective at this level.

Is it not for a consensus to decide if that person is being "rational" in the grand scheme of things?

Turtwig

doctoremma wrote: »

Can it ever be valid that a person describes themselves as "rational" (or "irrational", for that matter)? Presumably, most of us think and behave in a manner which we think "rational" and rarely do we actively pursue the "irrational". But it's all abit subjective at this level.

Is it not for a consensus to decide if that person is being "rational" in the grand scheme of things?

The only person who I'd regard as rational is the person that would regard themselves as irrational.

18AD

Sure obviously if everyone was rational they'd all draw the same (/my) conclusions.

Rationality'll sort everything out.

Bannasidhe

18AD wrote: »

Sure obviously if everyone was rational they'd all draw the same (/my) conclusions.

Rationality'll sort everything out.

But I don't want to be a Vulcan

GCU Flexible Demeanour

doctoremma wrote: »

Can it ever be valid that a person describes themselves as "rational" (or "irrational", for that matter)? Presumably, most of us think and behave in a manner which we think "rational" and rarely do we actively pursue the "irrational". But it's all a bit subjective at this level.

Is it not for a consensus to decide if that person is being "rational" in the grand scheme of things?

Isn't there an amount of research at this stage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow) that suggestions decisions and judgments are taken subconsciously, and the conscious, rational, mind just produces a gloss of reasonableness after the fact.

So people tell us they adopted atheism as a result of a rational evaluation of the matter, they are probably wrong. Or, at least, the outcome of rational research suggests they are probably wrong.

Sycopat

WTF is this "Brights" stuff? I don't think I actually want to know... It sounds horrendous.

"Free thinker" sounds like something a hippy says as an excuse for believing in a misappropriated, probably romanticised, pagan earth deity.

Rational, irrational, these words don't bother me overmuch, although people seem to have a tendency to use rational (as well as logical) to describe themselves, when it is just a property of an argument or position.

People aren't rational or logical, we are irrational and abstract*. All we can do is try to be rational, and try to be logical and even then we'll usually fail.

Agent K said it best.


*According to the handful of magazine articles I've read on how humans think: I'm very open to being wrong about this, but it fits my (anecdotal, I am aware) experiences well.

Mark Hamill

Penn wrote: »

This is all I can think of when I look at it:

And know I'm wondering if Jesus was ever called Jimmy by his friends.