The latest spewing on the notion of rationality comes from James Brooks in a New York Times op-ed entitled “The End of Philosophy,” a misbegotten piece that should have been relegated to the editor’s wastebasket. There have been many responses to this already (Wilkins, Myers, Leiter, Smith, Liberman and others) and I should probably let those suffice, but my amygdala won’t let me, so here’s my own brief and belated two cents on the matter—okay, three…

First. Most of what Brooks tells us is old news. The problem comes in the conclusions he draws from the information. He doesn’t grasp some of the basics of evolution theory, and so makes the classic mistake of confusing ultimate and proximate causes.

The evolutionary approach also leads many scientists to neglect the concept of individual responsibility and makes it hard for them to appreciate that most people struggle toward goodness, not as a means, but as an end in itself.

The proximate cause of most people’s struggle toward goodness may be goodness itself, but ultimately it is a means to an end. This is elementary. 

Second. What science has found, is not that humans are irrational, that we do not use reason, but rather that what we have always called “reason” is in fact inextricably intertwined with what we call “emotion.” Neuroscience doesn’t demand a behavior change, but rather a new terminology. When we talk about our emotions as our “gut feelings” we are not talking about our stomachs; we are talking about neurons firing, which is exactly what we are talking about when we talk about reasoning. The only difference between the two is where the neurons reside. Do you let your cortex do the talking or your amygdala? What has been found is that the two function together. A non-functioning emotional system can lead to either an inability to make decisions or to psychopathy. If we don’t feel a spark of pleasure or disgust at the thought of an option, we have nothing to sway us one way or the other, no matter how repugnant the choices. 

Third. Brooks’ hackneyed view of rational vs irrational is best exemplified by the old Star Trek characters Spock and McCoy. Mr. Spock was of a race, the Vulcans, who suppressed emotions in favor of reason, and is taken by many, to be a picture of rationality. McCoy, on the other hand, was an emotional geyser. Brooks sees both scientists and the “new atheists,” as Spocks, devoid of emotion. But this is a straw man, which is the very point that the information he gives us is designed to show. Brooks’ article is incoherent because he maintains this antiquated view even while espousing evidence that refutes it!