From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:19:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.043228.8365@linus.mitre.org> crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.171354.27162@cbnewse.cb.att.com> gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec15.044232.24346@linus.mitre.org> crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford) writes:
>>>
>>>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!"
>
>As you describe them, I'd agree that desires are potentially valuable as
>a source of information and should not be entirely ignored or denied.  
>However, in considering emotion as an equally valuable resource as logic 
>when making decisions which affect your life and the lives of others, I think
>you are assuming that such `non-rational' thought is tempered by reason.

Not at all.  I hope to clear that up.  No, I believe that that tempering
is rare.  Certainly rarer than it should be.
>
>Clearly deciding that you want to believe in a god is not in itself a harmful
>act.  But I think such a giant `non-rational' decision often leads to other
>non-rational decisions, which in the aggregate can have serious repercussions.
>When you choose to be a muslim, you must also choose to accept that the life 
>and soul of an infidel has no more value than that of a chicken or a hamster.
>I believe this allows you at the very least to devalue the life/thoughts/rights
>of those you perceive as outsiders.  At worst, such perceptions based on 
>emotion can lead to the justification of AIDS as divine retribution or be seen
>as justification for the genocide of other peoples.  That there are people
>in the 20th century who are still called `untouchables' is a hideous thing.
>
>Of course you meant to stop short of these sort of consequences when you 

I think most would know my position on "thinking with the heart" being
very over-rated.  I also think it's the cause of most of the "evil"
(impractical and unconstructive behavior) in the world.

>suggested that non-rational thought had merit, but will others who choose
>to reason emotionally be as circumspect?  I think the death sentence on Salman
>Rushdie and the McCarthy hearings (to mention _only_ two cases) show that many
>will not.

Definitely agree.
>
>The same cannot be said for science/logic.  Logic has never led one race to
>attempt the extermination of another.  At no time in history did scientists

Well, consider that logic has to start with a set of assumptions, which
are often unprovable.  A basic tenet may be that all people are equally
valuable, or a basic tenet may be that all people are not.  I can't
prove either.  I just happen to be more comfortable with the former.

>ever attempt to lead their countrymen to war in the mass persecutions so
>endemic in the annals of ecclesiastical history.  Sure, pseudo-science has
>been used by many to _justify_ acts of inhumanity.  But the proponents
>of such acts were almost always politicians and kings, or were populists
>who had axes to grind and reputations to protect.
>
>If it's all the same to you, I'll put my faith where it'll do the least harm.

Definitely.
>
>>
>>>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.
>
>Especially when it's your livestock.
>

I'm a bit confused about the potential conflicts between valuing diversity,
thinking each person is "special" and "equal" and the beliefs of some that
think that there are "infidels" and "heathens" and "chosen" groups.
I just don't know what kind of a mind can contain these and be comfortable
with the conflict.  Maybe it's a Janusian thinking kind of thing.  Most
often, I just try to stay out of it entirely.  A practical approach is,
"Do what you must but leave me alone."  Of course, that's not always
easy to reconcile with your conscience when others suffer through
your inaction.

GMS
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa