From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:13:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.044232.24346@linus.mitre.org> crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.155702.20597@cbnewse.cb.att.com> gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>>crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford) writes:
>>>It's by their faith that christians are christians, and 
>>>atheists are atheists.  
>>
>>>So as I tried to say before, those who have have faith (pro or con) could 
>>>have gained it not from the intellect, but only from the heart.
>>
>>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.
>
>I don't mean that a conclusion based on input from the heart in any way
>resembles logical `thinking'.  And I certainly don't mean to glorify
>a process which excludes or ignores the logical cognitive process.  I mean 
>exactly what I said, that faith is a product of desires and not logic.
>

Well, I tend to agree.  But I have to insert one caveat, and that is
that I think desires are the product of logical processes whose workings
we just don't understand.  I think desires also bear examination.  
Certainly it may be that even under rational examination, we can't 
understand why we like a certain thing or person, but it's worth a
try, and might even result in more happiness.  Consider that choice of
a mate.  How many times have we been in love with a person and eventually
decided that it was infatuation, or that upon reflection, we realize that
there are more cons than pros of the relationship?  Rational thought 
may have prevented making choices that would eventually result in a
less-than-optimal relationship.  Or, as your parents might have thought,
"Kids!"

>>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, 
>
>Well... it's not really thinking, as I define thinking.  

I hear you.  However, let me waffle even more... (see below).
>
>Thinking will not lead you to believe in god, in my opinion, no matter how
>much you do of it nor how well you do it.  Faith requires something more.
>I think the belief in a god requires a denial of logic and the acceptance

That may be true, but consider the case of a person who chooses to be
a theist.  Let's say that person 1) decides that it is impossible to
prove a god exists or doesn't exist, 2) chooses to make the assumption,
which to them is a 50/50 proposition, (given that the size of the data
set is so large as to be effectively infinite to them, so that any
division of data, either pro or con, in their experience, is irrelevant),
that there is a god, and 3) feels more secure/happy/productive with
the choice of believing.  I'd guess that the relative value of my
having a neighbor who is a theist is determined by how it changes
their behavior toward me.  Respecting my property would be a plus,
sacrifing livestock on the lawn would be a minus.

Logically, one could take Pascal's approach, and decide that, given
the situation, the person is just better off believing in a god.  I'm
just not equipped to disagree with that person's choice.  And given
the size of the data set, I can't give them a proof either way.  But
I can still argue with their reasoning.  Which, most of the time, in
my personal experience, is pretty laughable.

On the other hand, if I meet an atheist who says that they disbelieve
in a god because of the suffering in the world, well, isn't that a little
odd to be second-guessing something that is defined as "omnipotent" and
"omniscient", and attaching a lot of value to much-lesser beings?

On the third hand, if we "externalize the internalities" -- that is,
consider only the "human" worlds and their associated values, and
we evaluate a god by his/her satisfaction of human needs alone,
then yes, that atheist may be justified.

>>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.
>
>No disagreement from me, but I think you're discussing a horse of a different
>color.

Well, different aspects of the same problem, I think.  But yes, we
are in agreement (aside from what I've added).

GMS
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa