From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:12:30 GMT

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

>>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.

>>>>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."

Address by above.

>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 do not believe that love has a goal.  That is what keeps it from being 
entirely logical.
>>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.
I agree that the heart cannot be the end all-be all for decision making.  But
again, I disagree that religion and love must necessarily have a goal.

>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.
Yes.  But many people feel that their faith makes them miserable, but at least
it makes them 'right.'
>>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.
Coming to grips does not imply rationally evaluation.  It could imply soul
searching.  It could involve singing, painting, or banging one's hea against a
wall until something is jarred loose.  Coming to grips means...what it means?
It means to achieve a certain peace, I guess.  I can't put it into words.
but I agree that reason does have a role to play.  I object, however, toi the 
assertion that that role is constantly supreme.
	
>GMS
Matt I.

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa