From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:27:12 GMT

In article <BzFzAM.ArL@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:
>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.

Reason is insufficient because you don't understand the reason?  Can't
help you there.

>>>>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?

I've never been romantically involved with something I ate.  Or at least
something I intended to digest.  Further, "love" of a particular food may
very well incite one to get in contact with it.  I've never personally
been able to eat food without its coming in contact with me.

>Love's goal can't be love....not Logically, anyway.

Love is a pleasant thing, for the most part.  Part of experiencing a
pleasant thing is often wanting it to persist.  Love is a drive, and that
drive serves a purpose in both psychological and physical reactions,
all of which themselves serve a purpose in continuance and security and
productivity of the species.  I don't know what could be clearer than
that concept.  And the adherence to logic in the pursuit and continuance
of love is a necessary means of reducing any negative outcomes of it.
>
>>>>>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.

I'm hard pressed to isolate logical reasons for lots of things.  That's why
psychiatry and physics are difficult.  And that's why people still strive
for the reasons with the assumption that they exist.  Because by finding
out what the "reason" or "logic" of the systems are, they better understand
the world and can better predict its behavior.  This is the foundation
of the sciences.  And, I might add, the foundations of art.  Great artists
have been discovering things about their methods and results all through
history.  It would be difficult to point out any competent artist that
has no knowledge or skill of their craft that is based on some system
that succeeds for them.
>
>>>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.

That's right.  Not all thought is rational when a contary goal is assumed.
The thought is, however, the logical outcome of a system of wants, desires,
and drives that pre-existed.  More David Hume, here.  Reasoning with
respect to the goal chosen as being of primary importance will enable to
make value judgements as to which actions will further that goal.  The
reasons that a person may act contrary to this goal that's determined to
be most important can be examined.  If one asserts that their goals or
drives come from nowhere and are out of their control, that would be
an excuse for not thinking.  And not thinking tends to produce non-
optimal results.  Rash behavior, immature actions, impractical decisions,
lack of long-term happiness, irresponsibility, etc., etc..  That's why
the excuse, "we were young and in love," conjures up images of foolishness
as well as bliss and generally doesn't make a good defense in court.

GMS