Faux Christian

So Kip, according to your so called scientific findings, where do you fit in?

Ikonoklast

Given these statements especially:

... I'd say that Kip fits in somewhere around the 50th percentile and that he is likely trolling for fish using stale bait.

Y.

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: YAH! ]</p>

WJ

Samhain!

There are lots of exciting responses here but unfortunately I'm not going to be able to respond today (I hope to get into more detail tommorrow). I did want to clarify something that Nailscorva said.

You seem to linking 'emotional intellegence' with irresponsibility. Or, the conscious decision to tap into emotions always leads to irrational behavior and false dichotomies. I think, as Nail pointed out, that failure to recognize feelings tends to aggravate this confused state of Being (you did hint at existentialism here).

The point: since we cannot cognitively separate the two parts of the brain-thinking brain, why not learn to listen to what or how feelings motivate our behavior to act, behave or think about a certain thing? If an existentialist is going to discuss essences, I would think that he/she would find that there is no way to completely separate our sentience (thought process) from our rational existence (even though it sometimes sounds appealing to do so). Why would you want to be a Spock anyway?

I'm not sure exactly if that is where you were going, but the point relates to integration, not denial. In ethics, sometimes acting on emotion is good, sometimes it's bad (for whatever that 'really' means). I believe there is a sort of close-to-perfect formula in knowing when and how to integrate these two essences of existence as it were when approaching a concept (such as religion). I suppose the starting point is to explore the extremes, and go from there.

That, I think, is what you are trying to demonstrate. No?

I would really like to discuss some specific examples regarding the religious experience, but as I said, I'm short on time today.

Walrus

irishajo

I can't say I have noticed this trend in my own experience (my former denomination is pretty equal opportunity). But I'll offer my ideas on why it could be true.

My mother always taught me to 'listen to my gut' or 'follow my instinct'. She taught me that the best way to make a decision is to gather as much information as possible, study it, and then make a logical, informed decision based on that research.

However, as she told me, one can never have complete access to all the facts. Bottom line is, even if you investigate a situation thoroughly, and a particular decision appears to be the correct one, disaster can still follow. It's best to apply a layer of instinct on top of all that research.

I don't know that the majority of religious women have studied their beliefs studiously, or run them through any sort of logical test. But I know some have, I've talked to them. And basically their beliefs 'feel' right to them. Call it instinct, emotion, whatever you want.

Also, perhaps many women feel connection to a 'creator' of some sort because of the ability to carry a child. I imagine that having a new being develop inside of a woman can lead her to feel more in touch with a creator figure.

Finally, as far as women being less intelligent than men - haven't men been the main barometer to gauge intelligence for much of history? In other words, most would agree men and women think differently - so if intelligence were gauged on the way women think, I'm sure men would score lower than women.

cricket

Lots of good posts here -- I'll just add one thought. Bible Belt boys and girls are raised under a double standard. Why are girls less likely to become atheists? The same reason they are less likely to be promiscuous than the boys. The same reason they are less likely to swear than the boys. Many/most are raised to wait for Mr. Right and to become "The kind of girl he'll bring home to Mother".

There's not quite so much of this people-pleasing pressure placed on boys.

Therefore women from conservative backgrounds may suppress any heathen leanings, whereas men may be likelier to 'fess up.

NialScorva

Quick question? Unless a lot of bible belt boys are homosexual, how are girls less promiscuous when it take two to tango?

NialScorva

No, I'm saying that such intellectualization is a denial of a human experience, a way of avoiding dealing with a real experience. It's a well known phenomena in psychology, a common way of compartmentalizing emotions when you don't want to deal with them as a real biological reaction. It's a weak dissociation, and can be psychologically unhealthy.

Sorry to piss on your philosophy, but this is an empirically verified condition. There's also a defense mechanism called "rationalization" that justifies many things I'm sure you'd consider irrational, but that's part of the point. Reason is a tool that we use to acheive our inherently irrational desires. We are not rational creatures by nature, and if you promote rationalism to the point that you deny that you are a feeling human being who's sometimes irrational and emotional, you're simply wrong. It doesn't matter whether or not there is a definition of "what it means to be human".

Speaking of tools, the entire last paragraph was a stinger to Ender, who I know is a big fan of such things. Such an emotional response to it, can you justify your reaction to a post addressed to someone else rationally, or at least with a rationalization?

[ April 30, 2002: Message edited by: NialScorva ]</p>

Samhain

Walrus:

I didn't say "always" I said "sometimes*" remember? I feel that acting from pure emotion has more potential to have adverse effects since the action isn't intellectually rationalized, but goes off of feeling alone. Of course, it seems more of a game of chance than anything else. You roll the dice (in a sense) when acting off of pure emotion, you either could mess things up, or make things better, it all depends on the other's reaction to your action. If acting purely off of personal emotion, the other can be sometimes* disregarded and this could more likely lead to adverse effects than reasoning the action out and searching for possible effects of that action. Reasoning the action will, in most cases, allow one to make a more informed decision, and thus, from a utilitarian perspective (considering the action only) we would thus be able to derive the action which could cause the most good and least harm in a given situation, instead of "rolling the dice."

I didn't say that it didn't, her post seems to point that those who do not act more off of emotion in some way deny the reality of their own existence. This is absurd. Of course, if one were to deny their emotions, we perhaps deny the "human experience", but that does not mean that if we only act more off of reason than emotion that we are living our lives any less genuine. Allowing emotions to be present, and understanding them, but making decisions based off of reason, while using emotions as a factor in making that decision is not a denial of anything. This seems to be what was stated.

Existence preceeds essence, that's all I'm saying. What I object to is the idea that we live less genuine if we decide to use our intellect more than our emotions, or that we are less in touch with our beings if we do so. It is perfectly possible to not allow oneself to act directly from emotion, but to examine it instead and act from a rationalization from a utilitarian perspective including our "feelings" as a factor, and to still exist genuinely, for our existences preceed our essences. We do not live less genuine if we rationalize our emotions instead of acting on how we "feel" as long as we confront those emotions and understand them. As Walks the Fire later states, we cannot have access to all information regarding all situations at all times. But it is indeed preferable to act with as much information as possible to back up our decision and use acting on how we "feel" as the final alternative when we've limited our options rather than acting on impulse.

NialScorva:

I'll reply to your post later today.

cricket

Hmmm...

I'm not sure.

Could it be that only a few girls are promiscuous... but those few are very verrrrrry promiscuous?

Laera

Great post! I agree with your analysis.

The difference in childhood interests between boys and girls is partly biological and partly the leanings of society and the parents. But I believe that those early pre-dispositions greatly affect the approach people take later in life when confronted with decisions like whether or not there is a god.

Such decisions, when approached from the "female" or "social and emotional" side are much more difficult because of the stigmas and repercussions associated. When approached from the "male" or "rational" viewpoint, the physical and factual evidence points one way, so the decision is made more easily.

One approach ignores some facts while the other approach ignores the impact on one's life and relationships. The rational viewpoint also ignores some psychological tendencies - like those that some people have towards trusting authority (priests, rabbis, parents), and those towards listening to "gut feelings" that tell some people that there must be a creator or that the majority of civilized people (those that believe in a higher power or god) can't be entirely wrong. (sorry for the run-on)

I know... ad populum (sp?), not a good argument. But it's hard for some people (those whose gut instinct is to trust authority) to ignore.

Thoughts?