From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:20:23 GMT

In article <Bz7ys2.FxC@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:
>gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>>>>>I tend to think that agnosticism (a word that annoys me even 
>>>>>to type, for personal reasons) is basically a declaration faith should not 
>>This, I've got to hear.  I'm kind of disappointed after all we hear nowadays
>>about every Joe and Sally and their kin being "offended" by the existence or
>>practices of every other Sally and Joe, and now there's someone who has a gripe
>>about a group that merely says that they "don't know"?  Yikes.  Maybe
>>my "sensitivity meter" is set too low.
>I am not 'offended by' agnostics.  Please, I have no intention of picking a 
>fight with intelligent agnosticism.  The word agnostic annoys me because it has
>been cheapened by people who say 'I'm an agnostic' simply because they are too 
>dang lazy to give thought to anything more complex than Love Connection.

Oh, now I understand what you meant.  It sounded at first like you
loathed agnostics.  It seemed humorous to me to loath someone for
not taking a position.  But, yes, I see what you mean.
>
>>>>>exist, perhaps does not exist, or whatever.  To be an agnostic is to say, 
>>>>>in my view, that one can never have faith in anything.  
>>Work on that view.  And watch the caffein.  How could anyone claim that one
>>can't have faith in anything.  Obviously, people do.  Obviously there are
>>many, many, many things in the world that cannot be proven, or that would be
>>impractial to spend any effort trying to prove.  I can't prove the sun will
>>come up tomorrow (although I'd bet my bottom dollar -- that tomorrow, tomorrow
>>...  never mind.  Wrong show.), but I'd be pretty illogical, IMHO, to have
>>no faith it will, not to mention mighty depressed.  
>It still seems to me that agnosticism is drawing a line for convenience's sake.
>They seem to say,"Well, we know that essentially we can prove nothing at all, 
>but we are only going to believe in things that our reason will tell us have 
[....]
>>their emotions, but I also think you know that Only using emotions without
>>logical reasoning is impractical and dangerous and allows people to act
>>without evaluation of the actions.  Logic doesn't mean only yes or no,
>>but obviously takes into account the probability of a conclusion leading
>>to positive results of some kind.
>I agree with you on this, although I think I weight the heart more than you.  I
>can't be sure.
>>>
>>>It is my feeling that there are far too many things which the reason is 

Most probably.  I just happen to take issue with the idea of making many
major decisions based on, "Oh, I don't know, it just 'feels' good."
Sometimes, if feeling good is the end goal, that may be okay.  But we
all know that "feelings" as a goal often come along with other significant
repercussions, which is what makes it a bad idea in the long run.
[....]

>I have known several who have done it.  MOre importantly, even if you have
>*some* idea, your reason isn't giving you the full answer as to *exactly* why
>you love someone.
>		
>>At the very least, the person will cause some kind of a reaction
>>in you, and even if you don't understand the chain of events or previous
>>experiences that cause you to react that way doesn't mean that it isn't
>>logical.  I can't understand all the logic behind the behavior of electrons,
>>but that doesn't mean there isn't any.
>Again, I am not denying that there is *no* logic to love, eternity, etc.  I am
>saying, however, that there id *more* than just logic underlying them.  Hence,
>logic is not adequate to describe or explain any of them.
>

This is what I was referring to above.  There are very few decisions for
which "feeling good" was a sufficient goal.  It causes problems in the
majority of cases.  However, in those cases where "feeling good" Is a
sufficient goal, it is entirely logical to do what is necessary to
accomplish that goal.  For instance, if you have no idea why you are
attracted to someone, but being with them is your goal, logical steps
to accomplish that end are purely reasonable.  But as I said, evaluating
this logically prevents screwing up other things.  Merely saying, "I
do all this because I know it is right in my heart," and meaning that
it is right in your heart to the exclusion of all other evaluations
is foolish.  Mussolini was probably "right in his heart" as well.
It's a cop-out and a red flag to not only any others that could be
affected by your decision, but to yourself as well.

If one said that having religion has a positive effect on their
life, then it's logical to have religion.  Assuming, of course, that
they are right about its effect.  Otherwise, it might also be a
logical decision for others to deprogram them, as has happened
in the past.
>>>and that, in fact, those who claim no faith or a lack of ability to believe 

>>>in anything are merely believing in something else less describable and capable
>>>of being pinned down.
>>In may cases that's true.  But there are lots of things in the world I
>>just don't have much knowledge of.  So what would be my "faith" with
>>respect to those things?  For instance, what am I "merely believing
>>in" other than Igor Sivetsky losing his job in Moscow, when I don't have
>>any knowledge of him at all.  Wouldn't I be better off just being
>>neutral and saying, "I don't know"?  Or does this concept only apply
>>to gods or love?  Anyway, you see my point.
>I don't *entirely* agree.  It is my feeling that ideas as important as God and
>love and eternity are important enough to merit my attempting, at the very 
>least, to come to grips with them.  But you most definitely could be right.

Isn't "come to grips" a way of saying one should rationally evaluate
the pros and cons of the situation?  Besides, I don't think either of
us would want to deal with the ramifications of an individual making
any or all decisions based only "on their heart" without rational
evaluation.  Even dogs must have some notion of the consequences of
their actions.  I only contend that people need more, which we probably
would agree.

GMS
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa