From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:18:33 GMT

In article <BzDyD8.50D@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:
>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.

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.

>>>>>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.

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.

>>>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?

>>>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
>>This is what I was referring to above.  There are very few decisions for
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.

>>which "feeling good" was a sufficient goal.  It causes problems in the
[....]
>>If one said that having religion has a positive effect on their
>>life, then it's logical to have religion.  Assuming, of course, that

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.
>>they are right about its effect.  Otherwise, it might also be a
>>>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

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.

>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.

I don't think anyone can claim that anything is "constantly" anything,
let alone "supreme" (except those burritos from Taco Bell).  All I
have claimed is that "reason" is "more often than appropriate" anything
But "supreme", as to its place, as used in most decisions, and that
bears correction.
>	
>Matt I.
>
GMS


Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa