Mike Geary wrote: "I read this book recently too. It supported all my prejudices. We're all just wads of wanting and the wanting is tied to our DNA and our histories. ... At 20 years of age I left the seminary and shook the dust of all belief from my feet. In the intervening 46 years no one has given me any reason to believe that we're not just ourselves, prisoners of our emotional needs." Sure, there is lots of wanting in our lives, but perhaps it is significant that when it comes to believing stuff, Mike still wants reasons? It seems to me that beyond being a performative contradiction, the claim of "the empirical refutation of so-called 'rational decisions'" is confused. Very few philosophers would claim that rationality has nothing to do with our desires. Rather, it seems to me, that rationality comes into play when we realize that our desires rarely line up with each other and that often they produce consequences we don't desire. The trick, then, is to figure out which desires we desire the most and how to manage our other desires so that we get what we want most. People may enjoy having a few beers at the local pub and also want to drive home, but most people also realize that preserving one's own life as well as that of others is more important than the desire to drive. So, we arrive at the rational decision that it is better to not satisfy the desire to drive after drinking because another desire overrides it. I can't imagine a rational decision that does not involve desires so I fail to see how the 'discovery' that emotions are at work in rational decision-making is a refutation. This strikes me as being in the same vein of research as the 'discovery' that people having a religious experience also have distinctive brain activity. As my daughter would say, 'Well, d'uh!' Sincerely, Phil Enns Yogyakarta, Indonesia ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html