[lit-ideas] Chocolate: Was "Faith"
- From: Paul Stone <pas@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:17:03 -0400
At 01:33 PM 5/16/2005, you wrote:
>Paul Stone wrote:
>
>"There's always a reason. The reason you like chocolate ice cream is because
>you DO. That's your preference. That is a decision you made when you compare
>the two."
>
>Actually, no. I don't decide to like chocolate, I just do.
I didn't say that you DO DECIDE, I said that you MADE that decision (a very
complicated human condition) a long time ago. You came to the conclusion
that you had a preference for Chocky. The reason that is is because it is.
I don't find conflict in that.
>That is, I couldn't just decide that today I will prefer whatever flavour
>Paul prefers.
>In fact, I can't decide anything with regards to specific preferences though
>over time my decisions would affect my preferences.
I'm not saying that you had a choice. You like what you like. Who's to say
how that mechanism works? Not me.
>But a more pressing problem is Paul's use of the word 'reason'. That I
>prefer chocolate is not a reason for my liking chocolate. It isn't a
>reason at all, but a description. If it would be a reason, it could be a
>reason for Paul. But my preferring chocolate is not a reason for Paul to
>prefer chocolate.
It would be if I liked chocolate too. What I am saying is that the 'actual'
reason that you like chocolate is wrapped up in some mysterious brain
chemistry and physiology that we are not certain of, but the 'obvious'
reason that you like chocolate is just because you like it. I'm not talking
about 'cause' in a direct sense. We (or at least some of us) are talking
about faith. I'm trying to show that "believing" [having faith] is a
preference that is NOT unlike a preference for chocolate. But you don't
believe in chocolate. Believing is a noun, just like chocolate.
But perhaps it's similar to religion afterall. It's at least culturally
determined. As a Canadian, if you were in visiting the Phillipines and
someone offered you a Balut (chicken or duck embryo, complete with bill,
feathers etc and a belly of yolk) you would probably be repulsed by the
initial suggestion. Even if you were an egg-eater, you wouldn't necessarily
THINK of eating it on your own if you found it and cracked it open.
However, upon finally summoning the courage to eat it, you MIGHT like it.
The reason for that is that you just happen to like that chemical reaction,
visceral smell, taste etc and that's all there is. There's no other
explanation. But I think religion is different. Read on, if you dare.
>Paul earlier urged more care in talking of reason and rationality and I
>would encourage such care.
I'm trying, but I'm slow.
>Paul again:
>
>"I would, however, go a little further and say that your love for chocolate
>is NOT faith-based."
>
>Never said it was and I have no idea why Paul brings up the matter of faith.
Well, I THOUGHT we were talking about faith. See Subject heading.
>The issue I was addressing was the matter of whether everything that isn't
>rational is irrational. My point was that very little of what matters in
>life is rational and very little of that is irrational. That is, rational
>and irrational cover a very small part of life.
I still disagree and I think that about 99% of the decisions I make are
based on rationality or irrationality. I could give you a list, but that
would bore people and probably embarass my good name.
>Nothing here involving faith. But my guess is that Paul really wants to
>talk about faith.
To quote MIke Geary: "BINGO!"
>Paul again:
>
>"[the relationship between faith and reason] really is inexplicable."
>
>I don't think that word means what Paul thinks it means especially since I
>had just explicated one way of articulating that relationship.
And as at least Eric Yost and I said, we don't think that you did a very
good job.
>Paul doesn't have to accept it but it strikes me as just silly to claim
>that it is
>inexplicable.
Some people, who are otherwise healthy, live 'clean' lives, don't smoke,
exercise, have no family history, don't live next to nuclear facilities, a
foundry or powerlilnes, don't use teflon or aluminum pots etc. get cancer
at 20 and die. It's "CURRENTLY" INEXPLICABLE.
That's not silly. That's just a fact.
>Paul concludes:
>
>"Like I said, the only way you could be a rational human being and still
>have faith is if there was no REASON to have faith."
>
>So you say but that doesn't make it so. Here millenia of history
>demonstrate how wrong Paul is. I realize that most 'enlightened' Westerners
>have a phobia of Islam but Shia'a Islam is a remarkable instance of a
>thorough commitment to the necessity of faith being rational.
I think the word "phobia" is too often used incorrectly to mean 'hatred' or
'dislike' as if the Freudian concept of hating because you fear has somehow
been proven absolutely dependable. Can you tell me what you mean by the
sentence "thorough commitment to the necessity of faith being rational"?
>I am curious, Paul. Why, in the face of my arguing that in Christianity
>faith and reason must be reconciled, do you as a non-believer insist that
>believers must hold that faith and reason can't be reconciled? I mean, the
>facts are what they are but you seem to be insisting that they can't be.
I hate to answer a question with a question, but HOW does one reconcile
faith and reason? Not, by way of Kierkegaard, because as you said, he
thought that the "decision to believe" was itself NOT rational.
I hate to be incredibly blunt but the ONLY reason that someone believes
particularly in _A_ religion, let's say "Christianity" in this instance, is
because they were TOLD about it by someone and they decided "yeah, I guess
I'm going to believe in that". There is NO OTHER REASON. Nobody invents
Christianity or happens upon it by themselves. It is taught to them by
someone else. So... without saying that it's irrational, it's certainly NOT
rational to believe in this.
In the event that Christianity is true, there are only two possibilities of
how it came to be. Either a bunch of people made it up and it happened to
be right, or Jesus Christ was actually the son of God and God created
everything etc. I find BOTH possibilities extremely unlikely (especially in
the face of all the OTHER religions who teach that THEY are correct) so I
just don't believe in religion. For me, it's a rational decision. But I'm
not an dirty atheist either. I'm am staunchly anti-religion, not anti-god.
I simply don't believe because beliefs are, in my humble opinion, silly.
There is NO reason to believe in anything. When I use the word "believe", I
am talking about an expectation of truth with absolutely NO basis for it
being true. I guess I'm just not capable of non-rational acts. Now,
irrational, sure, no problem.
Paul
##########
Paul Stone
pas@xxxxxxxx
Kingsville, ON, Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Chocolate: Was "Faith"
