(October 31, 2013 at 12:46 pm)Raeven Wrote:(October 31, 2013 at 11:44 am)Zazzy Wrote: But I don't think I can say that theism is flat-out unreasonable, because I can't tell people what they feel, or should feel.
But isn't that the very essence of 'reasonableness'? Isn't reason the practice of setting aside emotion and examining the facts to arrive at a conclusion unsullied by that very emotion? I think a strong case can and ought be made to discern between what someone feels, as opposed to what they may actually believe. I can FEEL something is true, but I still may not BELIEVE it.
My definition of reason is very different from yours.
Not directed to me but since I share Zazzy's perspective, I thought I'd respond.
Do you really apply a test of reasonableness to everything you feel? I can understand applying it to feelings of apprehension toward what may be under the bed or in the closet. But those sorts of baseless fears are anomalies for the most part. Feeling serves many purposes.
Feeling informs you what is interesting, what has meaning for you, who you respect, who you feel affection toward and much more.
We don't willfully control our feeling but we always act on its behalf in one way or another. If we are suspicious of feelings in general, then we are acting on behalf of our fears (irrational in this case). The correct use of feeling is to guide reason, not the other way around.
