From: cjdcosta@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER J DCOSTA)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Originator: cjdcosta@zepplin.ece.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: cjdcosta@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER J DCOSTA)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 23:57:44 GMT


gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
> [...]
> 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.  

Fine. Now, what if you knew someone who hasn't left his house in years,
keeps his windows shut, his blinds drawn, and avoids communication with
the outside world- you'd be pretty hard pressed if asked to prove to him that 
the sun still did in fact come up. 

Mark, I'm aware that I'm possibly on thin ice here, and I'm not necessarily
accusing anyone of being blind - reality is merely the manner and form of 
perception for any individual- but I think it's rather presumptious to 
attribute religious faith to blind illogical emotion. And whether intentional
or not, this is what many posters here have implied. The theist and the 
atheist/agnostic view religion from two fundamentally different spheres
of observation and experience: it is not possible for either to judge the 
other's sense of logic or lack thereof. Speaking subjectively for the former,
an atheist/agnostic would have to experience this "faith" before attempting to
understand it. In the absence of this experience, to dismiss the theist 
as being stupid or illogical is to be close-minded and perhaps egotistical.

Religion to me is a perfectly logical and maybe even street-wise choice; an
explanation of this statement is best left to possible future posts. On the
other hand, you have already provided a wonderful example of this kind of 
logic:

> I find love, eternity and right and wrong to be purely logical and reasonable
> concepts in that they have an effect on my actions and what I believe will
> be my enjoyment of the end results.  How can you love someone and not have
> any idea why?  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.
>
>I understand that it's a drive people have to glorify this "thinking with
>the heart", but it's still a good idea to use reasoning to evaluate it.
>It's a bit of an insult to say that all Christians and atheists are thinking
>with their "hearts" and not using any criteria whatsoever to evaluate the
>results of doing so.  I think what you mean is that they are thinking with
>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.  

Excellent. There are, unfortunately, many who fall into the above category, 
but the flaw lies not with the philosophy, but with the attitude and the 
approach to their faith that these "faithful" employ.   

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------