From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 06:27:44 GMT

gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>>>>I agree with you on this, although I think I weight the heart more than you. 
>>								^^^^
>>					The feelings are implied here
>>					to be not all-important, but
>>					important.
>So?  That would require your assuming that I don't consider feelings
>important at all.  Feelings stem from something.  They don't come out
>of thin air, so to speak.  You may say you don't know why you feel
>a certain way, but there is a reason.
You can't prove that to me.  Again, reason is insufficient.

>>>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."
>>Addressed by above.
>>
>>I do not believe that love has a goal.  That is what keeps it from being 
>>entirely logical.
>You're going to have to go some to convince me that love has no cause or
>purpose.  At the very least, love has as a goal protecting or maintaining
>some sort of contact with that which you love.
Wait.  Love's goal is to stay incontact with those you love?  So the goal of
eating is to stay in contact with food?  or is it to stay alive?
Love's goal can't be love....not Logically, anyway.

>>>>Again, I am not denying that there is *no* logic to love, eternity, etc.  I am
>I assume you mean the opposite of what you say here, right?
Yup.  Replace *no* with *any*.  I am a goob.

>>>>saying, however, that there id *more* than just logic underlying them.  Hence,
>>>>logic is not adequate to describe or explain any of them.
>>>>

>Yeah, I don't buy this at all.  It may be that an individual doesn't necessarily
>have the knowledge sufficient to explain it, but I don't buy that there is
>no cause and effect or basis for love.  I mean, it sounds wonderfully
>romantic and all, but in my opinion, love that has no basis or purpose or
>goal or reason at all, as you seem to suggest, may be considered insane.
>Not that I don't respect your opinion or find any danger in your view,
>however.
I never said there was no cause.  I said there was no LOGICAL cause.  Nothing
that can be explained by reason, precisely because we have insufficient 
knowledge to explain it, and never can.  But I appreciate your respect of my
view, and feel respect for yours as well.

>I don't think I'd get very far trying to convince someone that their
>religion has no purpose or goal, and they practice it for no reason.
>Ditto, I'd be hard pressed to find someone in love and convince them
>that there's no reason for them to love the object of their affection,
>and that no characteristic said object posesses should be attractive
>in any way.
You'd also be hard pressed to isolate a logical reason.  Let's replace the noun
reason with cause.  A cause can, in my view, not be a rational one.

>>Coming to grips does not imply rationally evaluation.  It could imply soul
>How could you "come to grips" with anything without giving it thought?
>If it's soul-searching, what form would this take?  At the very least,
>you might conclude that something somewhere, of which you might not
>even be aware, causes you to "feel" a certain way -- confident, happy,
>secure, relieved, tense, anxious, whatever -- and this becomes a "given"
>in your evaluation of the value of choosing to believe something.
Again, I assert that not all 'thought' it rationalism or at all rational.

>>Matt I.
>>
>GMS
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa