A Romantic Rationalist

I’m not a frequent user of social media for the simple reason that I have adult ADHD—nor do I suffer fools gladly—so with all the idiots on social media, these ingredients come together to create a supermassive black hole ready to devour all my time. So I take a pass on social media. I did however look at web sites reporting on the social media reaction to the announcement that the new showrunner for Doctor Who ( Who ), previously the showrunner/creator of the crime drama Broadchurch , has cast Broadchurch actor Jodie Whittaker as the 13 th Doctor—the first female to play the role on an ongoing basis. I am jazzed at the prospect, but it saddens me to read the vitriolic reactions of what I can only hope is a small minority of some self-identified Who fans. Unfortunately, the online very negative reactions of these supposed “fans” i to this news has much in common with the backlash from a sub-population of supposed Star Trek “fans” surrounding the casting ...

Why do some people consider it a profound moral wrong for government or individuals to legally recognize a gay or lesbian marriage while others feel, just as profoundly, that to deny the legal right and benefits of traditional marriage to a deeply-committed gay or lesbian couple is a violation of basic human rights, simple human decency, and a moral wrong? How is it that we can come to such diametrically opposed answers to so many of the same moral questions? When we describe something as being “morally wrong,” exactly who (or what) is being wronged? Is a path through the minefield of the deeply-held beliefs of our fellow human beings even possible? My intent is not to tell anyone what to think, but I do intend to present some ways of thinking about the problems and specific elements that must be part of whatever answers we may come to. Two modern sciences are especially relevant in trying to answer the questions posed above, both of which have roots that arguably go ...

Preface: Before I start throwing around words like “moral” and “conscience” even more than I already have, I need to unpack what I mean—and just as importantly, do not mean—when I use them. I often use “moral compass” and “conscience” interchangeably, but whichever term one favors, it is the entirely natural, materialistic, neurological and cognitive products of our evolutionary history as social animals. Like nearly every other natural trait, it is highly variable, with individuals falling somewhere along a spectrum of variation. That variability also makes it possible for the conscience/moral sense to be shaped by “nurture,” i.e. our culture and social environments—sometimes in positive ways, and at other times, not so much. i It is quite likely that even before religion became “organized” some 12,000 years ago it figured out how to hijack an adherent’s moral sense and using the sense’s natural malleability to manipulate and control its adherents. ...

Introductory Note: Though I am now an atheist i , I was not always so. Until my late teens, I was a very sincere, devout, Evangelical Christian, and my younger self took that faith very seriously indeed. In describing my thinking and reasoning of that younger self, I have endeavored to treat it with all the seriousness I did at that time. My use of capitalizations and symbols such as “ TM” and the registered trademark symbol comes, it is fair to say, from my 2016 self. My reason for doing this, is to make the point that my younger self’s (okay, I kind of feel like I’m trying to write a Doctor Who episode) understanding of things like God’s will and/or what the most important parts of Christianity did not, in the end, match that of th e Christians among whom I spent my formative years. Forging My Moral Compass -Pt 1-Origins Raised in an Evangelical Christian home, from an early age I was taught that it is wrong to bear false witness, and that what is, or is ...