From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:47:43 GMT

In article <BzIx3J.FxA@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:
>>>>>>>I agree with you on this, although I think I weight the heart more than you. 

Two things we've got to watch, here.  One is that we're including lots
of unattributed writing, making it difficult for others (if anyone else
even cares) to follow, but we're also saving context at the risk of
overloading the posts.  I think I'm going to trim more out in the future.

>>Reason is insufficient because you don't understand the reason?  Can't
>>help you there.
>No.  Reason is insufficient because it can't grasp all ideas completely.  If you can give me a completely rational proof for why I love my girlfriend, then 

That's true, we don't always have all necessary data.  However, we more often
than expected have some contradictory data, which bears examination.  Consider
how much less violence and bigotry there would be if folks examined what
"felt good in their hearts".  What "feels" good isn't necessarily good.

>please do so.  Understanding denotess reason.  Again, there is a *cause* for my
>love of her.  It need not be rational, and ratrionality cannot define and 
>explain it sufficiently.

I think you owe it to yourself to do that yourself.  I'm not in a position to
prove anything to you about something only you can know about.
>
[....]
>Huh?  Never been romantic with food?  Of course not.  You're bobbing.  I 
>compared the action of loving with the action of eating.  I did not imply that 
>one includes the other.  I eat to be fed, to keep my body alive.  Why do I love?

Saying that if two things, love and food, have a common characteristic and
therefore are subject to the same proofs or disproofs is obviously a
falacy.  It sounded like you were equating the two in some way, hence
the response.

>>>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.
>Well....whatever you say.  Love *means* something to me, but I suppose you
>deny the existence of meaning which is not entirly rational, but that is 

I'm not convinced anything except some examples of reasoning have the
capacity to do anything other than what their particular systems make them
do.  People are just more complicated systems.  Perhaps too complicated to
fully understand, but still systems for which parts are understandable to
other people.

>because it exists outside of reason's room, a room which I caould argue you 

It may very well be that our definitions of "reason" are different.  Consider
that my definition of "reason" is merely that there is a system at work
that can be questioned in such a way as to judge how well our purpose or
final goals are being met.  After all, love itself may be the goal, and
examination of why we love may enable us to optimize it for all concerned.

>are locked in.  I hate sounding liek a religion dork, because I am not one.  

Wait a minute.  You claimed to be goob!  Are you waffeling between goob and
dork?!  :-)  Personally, I am occassionally a goob inhabiting a dork-esque
ambience.  But I digest.

>But telling me my love is 'reasonable' and 'rational' feels like telling me it
>is meaningless and cold.  That feeling is significant.  MAybe it isn't rational.

Well, that is just a feeling.  Consider what I said before.  This smacks
of the, "Logic!?  Logic is for unfeeling *machines*!  Not people!"  Lack
of reason is a major cause for what people refer to as "evil" by the
definition I'm using.  Passion without ethics, emotion without purpose,
drive without goals.  And without a knowledge of whether an emotion is
warranted or constructive, emotion can be wasted and unconstructive.
"I just don't Like You!"  "It just *feels* right to shout!"  "I *know*
those X are Evil!"  And so it goes.

>Oh, well.
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>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.
>Sheesh.  And they never cry about it, never feel anything transcendent, and
>are basically cold.  Emotion is just part of the computer program of our DNA.

I assume this is a sarcastic remark, or that you're referring to a subset
of people that really appear that way.  But, no, I don't think many
"artists" are basically cold.  Just because they have a system for creating
what they enjoy as art, doesn't make it any less enjoyable.  Quite the
contrary.  When I write a story or a song, the fact that I understand
a system of logic for proceeding, if anything, makes it more joyous.
And me more productive.  And the system, the logic, the mathematics or
symmetry of it, if you will, is beauty itself.  The "shape" of a song
or the symmetry of a story, if anything is indicative of the beauty of
being or nature, that's it.  The system and geometry and big picture.
>>>
>>>>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.
>Well, I think Hume was not correct so we are gonna have a problem here.

In reference to "cause and effect" and "fate and free will"?  Interesting.
I'd love to hear it.
>
>>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.
>So?  Does it make someone happy?  Were they actually in love?  Is 'optimality'
>your reason to exist?  Not mine.  Why is it that I expect you next post to 

Because I want to spend my life being as happy all the time as I possibly
can.  Sometimes "living for the moment" limits your number of happy moments.

>include such phrases as "resistance is useless" and "you will be assimilated?"

Resistance is useless.  Hey!  Wait a minute!

Anyway, I think it's our relative definitions of "rationality".  The idea
of "logical" and "human" being somehow different is used by some as a crutch
to avoid examining their drives.  But that examination takes work and time.
Sometimes it's not immediately practical, but more often than not it's
avoided because it's more work to think, rather than it not being possible.
And if done more often, many might find it not only useful, but fun.
>
>Clinging pathetically to meaning,

Don't just cling to what you've got.  Search for more.  It's what
rational inspection is all about.

GMS