--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > > Erik Reuter wrote: > > > > >In other words, is it easier for a > neutral-rational person to adopt > > >an extreme-irrational position, or for an > extreme-irrational person > > >to adopt a neutral-rational position? Interesting > question.
And so *balanced* a presentation of the question! ;) > > So I guess the question becomes "Which is the more > >neutral position, > > the one that recognizes that belief and > rationality are two different > > characteristics, or the one which says that all > >believers are irrational?" > That it a very different question, and not nearly as > interesting. None of the above positions address the possibility of a genetic basis for faith/spirituality. I find it curious that neither the 'true believer' camp nor the 'avowed agnostic' camp has addressed this idea(other than in a vague "evolutionary advantage in the distant past" tangential way), only an agnostic and a heretic (both self-proclaimed). It is not a comfortable one: the "tb's" lose the specialness of being Graced by the Gift of Faith, and the "aa's" simply are unable to 'sense the spiritual,' rather like being unable to distinguish red from green. [Of course, here I am presupposing that there IS something to be sensed, because of my bias in having sensed it myself -- this reminds me of the discussion about what a race of congenitally blind folk would think of the sanity (or lack thereof) of a person who claimed to be able to identify a far-away object - such as a soaring bird - without hearing, touching or smelling it.] I'm going to tweak the idea of "the spiritually blind as guardians of truth in religion," and suggest that they act more like leavening in bread, to keep the intellect from lying complacently flat, and making it rise higher than it could alone. Without leavening, the intellect is stodgy, lazy and prone to slothful arrogance; without dough, there is no structure, only evanescent bubbles and hot air. Both are necessary for a proper loaf of crusty bread...although this analogy might lead one to think of our culture as currently half-baked, at best. ;) Instead of using a yin-yang concept, I'm going to shamelessly seize on the notion of centripetal-centrifugal forces from the essay re-posted recently by Himself; at various times, religion and - for lack of a better term I'll use rationality, but others have already pointed out how much of our cognition is sub-conscious and not at all Reason-based - have been binding or scattering forces on society(ies). What advantage is there to looking at the question from this angle? The merits of both 'sides' are acknowledged. The failures of both 'sides' are noted. Both positions have a 'right' to exist without ridicule from the other. Without both there is no 'loaf of civilization,' because both are necessary to create that airy structure. Debbi Let's Get Cookin'! Maru :) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
