Rebecca Watson, Dawkins and metaphysics

I think atheists and those claiming to be skeptics will start to understand each other a lot better once they get their metaphysics out of their systems. I'm sure everybody thinks they are being quite 'rational' when they cast aspersions on women for their putative "emotionality", with assertions that follow along the pattern:

"You're getting things out of proportion!" [You, as a woman, are too emotional to understand reality as it actually is.]

"You are relying on a 'feminist faith'. "[You, as a woman, are too emotional to understand reality as it actually is.]

"You don't acknowledge and accept human sexuality!" [You, as a woman, are too emotional to understand reality as it actually is.]

"You need to grow up." [You, as a woman, are too emotional to understand reality as it actually is.]

"You need psychological treatment!" [You, as a woman, are too emotional to understand reality as it actually is.]

And so on.

Let me make it very plain: the idea that women have an essence that is defined by "emotion" is fundamentally a religious idea.

The idea that men have an essence that is defined by cool-headed reason and the lack of emotional bias is also a religious idea.

Western metaphysics is too crude to come to terms with complex sociological and scientific facts. Nonetheless, if you take an average human being and do the analysis on their general biological and specific neurological structures, you will find that all human beings, be they male or female, are both rational and emotional in ways that facilitate their survival in the world. If you want to learn about 'emotions' or 'feelings', study the work of Antonio Damasio, a neurologist who has a theoretical interest in this matter.

When atheists retain the old religious dogmas that human beings have particular essences, they do run into trouble and they do seem incredibly irrational. Not only that, but they fail to listen to each other. It's easier to take the old metaphysical pathway and dismiss anything we don't understand as being "emotional" (implying, "irrational".) It is very likely that the issues that came to a head with Dawkins' careless remarks directed at Watson were a result of his tacit reliance of metaphysics -- causing him to dismiss ideas he could not immediately grasp, as being "emotional", rather than taking the time to understand where someone was coming from.

After Buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave - a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. -And we- we still have to vanquish his shadow, too.
The Gay Science, s.108
-- Nietzsche