From: crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:32:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.171354.27162@cbnewse.cb.att.com> gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.044232.24346@linus.mitre.org> crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford) writes:
>>
>>I don't mean that a conclusion based on input from the heart in any way
>>resembles logical `thinking'.  And I certainly don't mean to glorify
>>a process which excludes or ignores the logical cognitive process.  I mean 
>>exactly what I said, that faith is a product of desires and not logic.
>
>Well, I tend to agree.  But I have to insert one caveat, and that is
>that I think desires are the product of logical processes whose workings
>we just don't understand.  I think desires also bear examination.  
>Certainly it may be that even under rational examination, we can't 
>understand why we like a certain thing or person, but it's worth a
>try, and might even result in more happiness.  Consider that choice of
>a mate.  How many times have we been in love with a person and eventually
>decided that it was infatuation, or that upon reflection, we realize that
>there are more cons than pros of the relationship?  Rational thought 
>may have prevented making choices that would eventually result in a
>less-than-optimal relationship.  Or, as your parents might have thought,
>"Kids!"

As you describe them, I'd agree that desires are potentially valuable as
a source of information and should not be entirely ignored or denied.  
However, in considering emotion as an equally valuable resource as logic 
when making decisions which affect your life and the lives of others, I think
you are assuming that such `non-rational' thought is tempered by reason.

Clearly deciding that you want to believe in a god is not in itself a harmful
act.  But I think such a giant `non-rational' decision often leads to other
non-rational decisions, which in the aggregate can have serious repercussions.
When you choose to be a muslim, you must also choose to accept that the life 
and soul of an infidel has no more value than that of a chicken or a hamster.
I believe this allows you at the very least to devalue the life/thoughts/rights
of those you perceive as outsiders.  At worst, such perceptions based on 
emotion can lead to the justification of AIDS as divine retribution or be seen
as justification for the genocide of other peoples.  That there are people
in the 20th century who are still called `untouchables' is a hideous thing.

Of course you meant to stop short of these sort of consequences when you 
suggested that non-rational thought had merit, but will others who choose
to reason emotionally be as circumspect?  I think the death sentence on Salman
Rushdie and the McCarthy hearings (to mention _only_ two cases) show that many
will not.

The same cannot be said for science/logic.  Logic has never led one race to
attempt the extermination of another.  At no time in history did scientists
ever attempt to lead their countrymen to war in the mass persecutions so
endemic in the annals of ecclesiastical history.  Sure, pseudo-science has
been used by many to _justify_ acts of inhumanity.  But the proponents
of such acts were almost always politicians and kings, or were populists
who had axes to grind and reputations to protect.

If it's all the same to you, I'll put my faith where it'll do the least harm.

>
>>Thinking will not lead you to believe in god, in my opinion, no matter how
>>much you do of it nor how well you do it.  Faith requires something more.
>>I think the belief in a god requires a denial of logic and the acceptance
>
>That may be true, but consider the case of a person who chooses to be
>a theist.  Let's say that person 1) decides that it is impossible to
>prove a god exists or doesn't exist, 2) chooses to make the assumption,
>which to them is a 50/50 proposition, (given that the size of the data
>set is so large as to be effectively infinite to them, so that any
>division of data, either pro or con, in their experience, is irrelevant),
>that there is a god, and 3) feels more secure/happy/productive with
>the choice of believing.  I'd guess that the relative value of my
>having a neighbor who is a theist is determined by how it changes
>their behavior toward me.  Respecting my property would be a plus,
>sacrifing livestock on the lawn would be a minus.

Especially when it's your livestock.

>
>Logically, one could take Pascal's approach, and decide that, given
>the situation, the person is just better off believing in a god.  I'm
>just not equipped to disagree with that person's choice.  And given
>the size of the data set, I can't give them a proof either way.  But
>I can still argue with their reasoning.  Which, most of the time, in
>my personal experience, is pretty laughable.

As you do, I try to respect the differing values that others may hold.
And I have no quarrel with those like C. Everett Koop who are so-called
`evangelical' christians (his preferred term), yet are very reasonable, 
perhaps even wise.  I have great respect for the C.S. Lewises of the 
world.

But it's the lower common demoninators who concern me, not the mensans
who happen to be christians.  When a dogma founded on unsubstantiable
conjecture is claimed to be the word of God and simple people act on 
it in the belief that they are doing God's Will, I believe that little 
good may come of it.  I believe in people who repect the rights and needs
of other people not because their god tells them that it's morally right,
but because it's fair and is the way you would want them to treat you.  
I think that's only logical.

>
>On the other hand, if I meet an atheist who says that they disbelieve
>in a god because of the suffering in the world, well, isn't that a little
>odd to be second-guessing something that is defined as "omnipotent" and
>"omniscient", and attaching a lot of value to much-lesser beings?

So the atheist may not believe in the god, but may still believe in the god's 
omnipotence?  Or is the idea that the theist had to deny the existence of 
his/her god because that god wasn't benevolent?  I think kindness and godness
are separable concepts.  Not all religions are based on caring gods.  I think 
that even all the christian Gods are not equally caring.  The God of the 
calvinists or the puritans sounds pretty different to me than the kind and 
warm-hearted God of the baptists or the presbyterians.  I suspect your prop-
osition holds more for religions (or denominations) with fatherlike gods 
rather than those with god-fearing gods.
-- 

| Randy Crawford        crawford@mitre.org        The MITRE Corporation
|                                                 7525 Colshire Dr., MS Z421
| N=1 -> P=NP           703 883-7940              McLean, VA  22102