Can the materialist explain the origin of love?

[tonyrey]

Science is obviously concerned with values, but it isn’t interested in social values. It is only interested in intellectual values such as truth, coherence, parsimony, honesty, logic, etc. It has nothing to tell us about what sorts of relationships we should prefer or what form of government is best.

Science presupposes realities like rationality, truth and honesty but it cannot explain them and without them it would not exist.

I mean that thoughts and decisions are still the results of what happens in the brain. It is a one-way street as far as I can see. Thoughts cannot influence events in the brain because the brain causes thoughts! Can a computer programme change itself in a similar way to the way we think and change ourselves?If not why not?

You are very interested in the relationship between the mind and the brain. Metaphysicians of the past have postulated that reality is composed of two sorts of substances: mental substance and material substance. After doing so, they then ran into the problem of how these two different substances relate to one another. In philosophy, this issue is called “the mind-body problem.” The solution is to simply stop postulating such essences of what reality REALLY is.

Problems exist in science, e.g. electromagnetic radiation has a dual nature as both particles and waves but scientists do not reject the theory of light on that account. The mind and the body are not “essences” but dual aspects of a person. How can thoughts cannot influence events in the brain if the brain causes thoughts?

Your metaphysical tendency to try to get past appearances to reality as it really is causes you to portray so-called materialists as taking the metaphysical view that reality is actually only composed of one sort of substance when what we are really doing is dropping the whole project of metaphysics–trying to get past appearances while presupposing that real reality is behind some sort of veil.

Your metaphysical position is concealed because you presuppose reality is what is observed or within the scope of science. You are in fact identifying appearances with reality - which is a type of phenomenalism.

I don’t believe that nature is governed by laws. Nature just does what it does. Human beings are in the business of creating laws to describe the behavior of nature, but nature doesn’t know about these laws. Rocks fall when dropped. They don’t obey Newton’s laws of gravitation. Rocks were around before Newton.

The laws of nature or science are not laws in the usual sense. They are descriptions of regularities in the physical universe, e.g. the law of conservation of energy - which states that the total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never more or less. If every thought is the result of a physical process we cannot control mental events because all our thoughts are caused by electrical impulses in the brain. In other words free will is an illusion because it implies a source of non-physical energy.

 

[Leela]

Science presupposes realities like rationality, truth and honesty but it cannot explain them and without them it would not exist.

An explanation is only convincing if it convinces, but one thing to watch out for is “false doubt.” You can keep saying why?, why?, why?, after everything that someone says and and at some point the person you are questioning will get bored. At that point, you may say “see, science can’t explain anything,” and claim some sort of victory if you want, but it seems false to me.

Anyway, science is problem solving, and we reap the benefits of science all the time whether you think it explains anything or not.

Problems exist in science, e.g. electromagnetic radiation has a dual nature as both particles and waves but scientists do not reject the theory of light on that account. The mind and the body are not “essences” but dual aspects of a person. How can thoughts cannot influence events in the brain if the brain causes thoughts?
Your metaphysical position is concealed because you presuppose reality is what is observed or within the scope of science. You are in fact identifying appearances with reality - which is a type of phenomenalism.

I don’t identify with appearances, I just don’t presuppose that I am out of touch with reality. Before I would accept your critique I would have to be convinced that reality is something other than ordinary experience–that things appear to be one way, but are actually something else.

Wiki says this about phenominalism: “In epistemology and the philosophy of perception, phenomenalism is the view that physical objects do not exist as things in themselves but only as perceptual phenomena or sensory stimuli (e.g. redness, hardness, softness, sweetness, etc.) situated in time and in space. In particular, phenomenalism reduces talk about physical objects in the external world to talk about bundles of sense-data.”

That doesn’t sound to me like what I am saying at all.

that the total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never more or less. If every thought is the result of a physical process we cannot control mental events because all our thoughts are caused by electrical impulses in the brain. In other words free will is an illusion because it implies a source of non-physical energy.

I can see how materialism can be thought of as forcing fatalism, but the materialist can always respond “I have no choice but to believe in free will.”

Personally, the free will/fatalism question is one that doesn’t come up for people who don’t postulate that there is some real reality beyond a veil of appearances.

 

[tonyrey]

Science presupposes realities like rationality, truth and honesty but it cannot explain them and without them it would not exist.

An explanation is only convincing if it convinces, but one thing to watch out for is “false doubt.” You can keep saying why?, why?, why?, after everything that someone says and and at some point the person you are questioning will get bored. At that point, you may say “see, science can’t explain anything,” and claim some sort of victory if you want, but it seems false to me. I’m afraid you are misrepresenting me. I did not state that science can’t explain anything. I am simply pointing out that science is based on metascientific principles that cannot be explained scientifically. If we accept science we have to accept those principles whether we like it or not.

Anyway, science is problem solving, and we reap the benefits of science all the time whether you think it explains anything or not.

I’m sure you would agree that science cannot explain everything. So what do you do if you are faced with a question science cannot answer?

How can thoughts cannot influence events in the brain if the brain causes thoughts?
Your metaphysical position is concealed because you presuppose reality is what is observed or within the scope of science. You are in fact identifying appearances with reality…

I don’t identify with appearances, I just don’t presuppose that I am out of touch with reality. Before I would accept your critique I would have to be convinced that reality is something other than ordinary experience–that things appear to be one way, but are actually something else.Ordinary experience is often misleading. According to science our bodies are not “solid” in the way we think they are. Appearances are often deceptive. So what is the ultimate criterion of reality? We cannot always rely on common sense or what most people believe. My own view is that the only reality of which we can be certain is** personal** experience, i.e. our thoughts, intuitions, emotions, feelings, sensations and decisions.I don’t deny that things exist but we interpret them differently from everyone else. No two individuals see an object in precisely the same way. They lack the immediacy of our personal existence. We are often mistaken or deluded about the outside world but we cannot be mistaken about what we think and feel!

If every thought is the result of a physical process we cannot control mental events because all our thoughts are caused

by electrical impulses in the brain.
I can see how materialism can be thought of as forcing fatalism, but the materialist can always respond “I have no choice but to believe in free will.”
There are materialists who don’t believe in free will. They would regard your view as untenable and ask:
“Why don’t you have any choice?”
Or they could even say:
“You’re right. You believe you don’t have any choice but to believe in free will because that is the way you have been programmed.”!

Personally, the free will/fatalism question is one that doesn’t come up for people who don’t postulate that there is some real reality beyond a veil of appearances.

Regardless of our philosophical views we have to decide in a court of law whether a person is responsible for an offence. A determinist could spend a long time explaining why the defendant was compelled to behave in a certain way. How would you reach your conclusion if you were on the jury? How would you justify your belief that a person is guilty?

 

[Leela]

I’m afraid you are misrepresenting me. I did not state that science can’t explain anything. I am simply pointing out that science is based on metascientific principles that cannot be explained scientifically. If we accept science we have to accept those principles whether we like it or not.

I don’t think that science is “based on” anything. If you want to say that scientists make assumptions, then sure, we all make assumptions. But I don’t think that we are required to play metaphysics. In other words, I don’t think that we have to engage in the project of getting past a veil of appearances to reality as it really is.

I’m sure you would agree that science cannot explain everything. So what do you do if you are faced with a question science cannot answer?

There are lots of questions that science can’t answer that I’m faced with all the time, like what should I have for breakfast?

I suppose I do what everyone else does in such situations. Why do you ask?

Ordinary experience is often misleading. According to science our bodies are not “solid” in the way we think they are. Appearances are often deceptive. So what is the ultimate criterion of reality?

I think that criteria are inferred from the decisions we make. I don’t think we make decisions about what is real based on criteria. In other words, if what we experience is inconsistent with our criteria, it is the criteria that need to be adjusted.

There are materialists who don’t believe in free will. They would regard your view as untenable and ask:
“Why don’t you have any choice?”
Or they could even say:
“You’re right. You believe you don’t have any choice but to believe in free will because that is the way you have been programmed.”!

Well, yeah, that’s what I was saying. the whole argument becomes pretty silly at that point. It seems best to change the subject. What would it mean to live as though you had no free will versus to live as though you have free will? A difference must make a difference. In this case there is no difference.

Regardless of our philosophical views we have to decide in a court of law whether a person is responsible for an offence. A determinist could spend a long time explaining why the defendant was compelled to behave in a certain way. How would you reach your conclusion if you were on the jury? How would you justify your belief that a person is guilty?

This question seems silly to me. I think this question of free will/fatalism is more important to believers than to people like me who don’t need to posit such a gift of “free will” to reconcile God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and goodness. “Fatalism” is a non-entity unless you posit that there is an intelligence “out there” that knows your fate.

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

I am simply pointing out that science is based on metascientific principles that cannot be explained scientifically. If we accept science we have to accept those principles whether we like it or not.

It is not a question of “playing” metaphysics but of understanding epistemology. Every scientist operates according to deductive and inductive principles, e…g. Bayesian Confirmation Theory. Not only that. The quest for scientific knowledge implies that the universe is intelligible and comprehensible by the human intellect - which is a pragmatic metaphysical belief!

In other words, I don’t think that we have to engage in the project of getting past a veil of appearances to reality as it really is.

You scorn metaphysics but it is impossible to evade it because by restricting yourself to “appearances” you are in effect regarding them as real. How do you distinguish between appearances which are illusions and appearances which are not illusions? You must have some criterion for making that decision - and that is where your implicit metaphysical views are discovered.

I’m sure you would agree that science cannot explain everything. So what do you do if you are faced with a question science cannot answer?
There are lots of questions that science can’t answer that I’m faced with all the time, like what should I have for breakfast?

And lots of far more important questions that science can’t answer - such as establishing your priorities and goals in life…

Ordinary experience is often misleading. According to science our bodies are not “solid” in the way we think they are. Appearances are often deceptive. So what is the ultimate criterion of reality?

•                            I think that criteria are inferred from the decisions we make. I don't think we make decisions about what is real based on criteria. In other words, if what we experience is inconsistent with our criteria, it is the criteria that need to be adjusted.

We cannot make any decisions at all unless we have implicit criteria in the first place, e.g. consistency. Pragmatism is obviously based on criteria.

There are materialists who don’t believe in free will. They would regard your view as untenable and ask:
“Why don’t you have any choice?”
Or they could even say:
“You’re right. You believe you don’t have any choice but to believe in free will because that is the way you have been programmed.”!

Well, yeah, that’s what I was saying. the whole argument becomes pretty silly at that point. It seems best to change the subject. What would it mean to live as though you had no free will versus to live as though you have free will? A difference must make a difference. In this case there is no difference.

I’m afraid you are mistaken. Many people are fatalistic to a greater or lesser degree. I have met quite a few who believe “what is written is written” and nothing we decide will change the outcome of events.

Regardless of our philosophical views we have to decide in a court of law whether a person is responsible for an offence. A determinist could spend a long time explaining why the defendant was compelled to behave in a certain way. How would you reach your conclusion if you were on the jury? How would you justify your belief that a person is guilty?

This question seems silly to me. I think this question of free will/fatalism is more important to believers than to people like me who don’t need to posit such a gift of “free will” to reconcile God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and goodness. “Fatalism” is a non-entity unless you posit that there is an intelligence “out there” that knows your fate.

Many things seem silly to you but that does not alter the fact that fatalism is quite irrelevant to the question of God’s existence. What has to be reconciled is free will with physical causality. If we are called to serve on a jury we have to decide, regardless of pragmatism or any other philosophical theory, whether a person is responsible for an offence - and that entails the presumption that he/she could have acted otherwise and is not always compelled to behave in a specific way.

 

[Leela]

It is not a question of “playing” metaphysics but of understanding epistemology. Every scientist operates according to deductive and inductive principles, e…g. Bayesian Confirmation Theory. Not only that. The quest for scientific knowledge implies that the universe is intelligible and comprehensible by the human intellect - which is a pragmatic metaphysical belief!

What you seem to be saying is that people make assumptions. Why call the assumption that the universe is intelligible a “metaphysical” assumption.

You scorn metaphysics but it is impossible to evade it because by restricting yourself to “appearances” you are in effect regarding them as real. How do you distinguish between appearances which are illusions and appearances which are not illusions? You must have some criterion for making that decision - and that is where your implicit metaphysical views are discovered.

I don’t know what you are getting at here. I already rejected the appearance-reality distinction. Language doesn’t sometimes fail to correctly represent reality (and leave us with mere appearances) because it doesn’t represent at all. Language is, instead, a way of using reality. It is a tool. It doesn’t take us closer to or further from reality any more than a hammer does. Believing that reality is really one thing (mind or matter) or really two things (mind and matter) or really three things (mind, matter, and spirit) can never take us further from or closer to reality when such concepts are different ways of using reality rather than representing reality.

Also, do I use criteria to make some decisions? Sure. What does that have to do with metaphysics? The question is “where do criteria come from?” I don’t make the metaphysical assumption that criteria are “out there” to be discovered.

And lots of far more important questions that science can’t answer - such as establishing your priorities and goals in life…

Yes, of course. I’m still wonderring what your point is. I never said that science can answer every question we have.

We cannot make any decisions at all unless we have implicit criteria in the first place…

If so, then where do criteria come from?

Experience comes first. Criteria come later.

I’m afraid you are mistaken. Many people are fatalistic to a greater or lesser degree. I have met quite a few who believe “what is written is written” and nothing we decide will change the outcome of events.

How does one live differently when one believs that what she will do has already been determined?

Many things seem silly to you but that does not alter the fact that fatalism is quite irrelevant to the question of God’s existence. What has to be reconciled is free will with physical causality. If we are called to serve on a jury we have to decide, regardless of pragmatism or any other philosophical theory, whether a person is responsible for an offence - and that entails the presumption that he/she could have acted otherwise and is not always compelled to behave in a specific way.

Whether or not you think that people have any choice in the matter when committing crimes, we all think that people should be prevented from committing crimes, so this is a nonissue.

Best,

Leela

 

[tonyrey]

It is not a question of “playing” metaphysics but of understanding epistemology. Every scientist operates according to deductive and inductive principles, e…g. Bayesian Confirmation Theory. Not only that. The quest for scientific knowledge implies that the universe is intelligible and comprehensible by the human intellect - which is a pragmatic metaphysical belief!

What you seem to be saying is that people make assumptions. Why call the assumption that the universe is intelligible a “metaphysical” assumption.

"Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science. Cosmology and ontology are traditional branches of metaphysics. It is concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world…
A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into what types of things there are in the world and what relations these things bear to one another. The metaphysician also attempts to clarify the notions by which people understand the world, including existence, objecthood, property, space, time, causality, and possibility.

• wikipedia.

You scorn metaphysics but it is impossible to evade it because by restricting yourself to “appearances” you are in effect regarding them as real. How do you distinguish between appearances which are illusions and appearances which are not illusions? You must have some criterion for making that decision - and that is where your implicit metaphysical views are discovered.

I don’t know what you are getting at here. I already rejected the appearance-reality distinction.

What precisely do you mean by “appearance”? Material objects appear to be solid and not composed of atomic particles. Which is the appearance? We think we are thinking. Are thoughts real or are they electrical currents in the brain?

Language doesn’t sometimes fail to correctly represent reality (and leave us with mere appearances) because it doesn’t represent at all. Language is, instead, a way of using reality. It is a tool. It doesn’t take us closer to or further from reality any more than a hammer does. Believing that reality is really one thing (mind or matter) or really two things (mind and matter) or really three things (mind, matter, and spirit) can never take us further from or closer to reality when such concepts are different ways of using reality rather than representing reality.

Language is more than a tool. It is a set of symbols which refers to entities and relations. If those symbols are inappropriate or inadequate the symbolism is useless. Before we can begin to use language as a tool we have to ensure that the symbols are accurate. And we do that by examining what the symbols refer to.

Also, do I use criteria to make some decisions? Sure. What does that have to do with metaphysics? The question is “where do criteria come from?” I don’t make the metaphysical assumption that criteria are “out there” to be discovered.

Do we invent criteria? Or do we discover them? Do we invent scientific facts? Or do we discover them?

And lots of far more important questions that science can’t answer - such as establishing your priorities and goals in life…

Yes, of course. I’m still wondering what your point is. I never said that science can answer every question we have.

I asked you what you do if you are faced with a question science cannot answer.
To which you replied:
“There are lots of questions that science can’t answer that I’m faced with all the time, like what should I have for breakfast?”
This is obviously a trivial matter which does not explain how you make your** important** decisions. Do you make them, for example, according to pragmatic principles?

What has to be reconciled is free will with physical causality. If we are called to serve on a jury we have to decide, regardless of pragmatism or any other philosophical theory, whether a person is responsible for an offence - and that entails the presumption that he/she could have acted otherwise and is not always compelled to behave in a specific way.

Whether or not you think that people have any choice in the matter when committing crimes, we all think that people should be prevented from committing crimes, so this is a nonissue.

You have evaded the issue - which you would be unable to do in court! Do you accept the presumption that in most situations a person is not always compelled to behave in a specific way?

 

[tonyrey]

** Can the materialist explain the origin of love?**

wanstronian

Yet another example of an unanswered question!

 

[Leela]

Do we invent criteria? Or do we discover them? Do we invent scientific facts? Or do we discover them?

We invent them to explain our experiences.

I asked you what you do if you are faced with a question science cannot answer.
To which you replied:
“There are lots of questions that science can’t answer that I’m faced with all the time, like what should I have for breakfast?”
This is obviously a trivial matter which does not explain how you make your** important** decisions. Do you make them, for example, according to pragmatic principles?

I make decisions in the same way as anyone else–I try to decide what would be better by weighing various possibilities, evidence, and arguments.

You have evaded the issue - which you would be unable to do in court! Do you accept the presumption that in most situations a person is not always compelled to behave in a specific way?

Sure

 

[tonyrey]

Why call the assumption that the universe is intelligible a “metaphysical” assumption.

Do you agree that the assumption that the universe is intelligible is a “metaphysical” assumption?

Would rational beings elsewhere in the universe invent the same principles of explanation, e.g. the principles of economy, adequacy and verifiability? Would they invent the same scientific facts, e.g. the law of gravitation? The same mathematical relations and proportions?

I make decisions in the same way as anyone else–I try to decide what would be better by weighing various possibilities, evidence, and arguments.

How would you decide whether you love a person sufficiently to live together for the rest of your life?

If we are not always compelled to behave in a specific way doesn’t it mean that we somehow control our brain processes?
If so how do we do this - given that it infringes the law of conservation of energy?

BTW What precisely do you mean by “appearance”? Material objects appear to be solid and not composed of atomic particles. Which is the appearance? We think we are thinking. Are thoughts real or are they electrical currents in the brain?

 

[cho_pilo]

It is certainly impossible to explain how the capacity for unselfish love which goes to such extremes has emerged in the evolutionary process

You’re way behind on your evolutionary theory here. We have multiple possible explanations for such altruistic behavior, and it’s not something that’s found only in humans. All such unselfishness can ultimately be explained by selfishness, of the genes that is. Sacrificing yourself for relatives is easily enough understood from the gene’s eye view of things. Your siblings and parents all share your genes(with siblings sharing the most, leading to so-called “brotherly love”) and thus it behooves your genes to occasionally sacrifice the body they’re riding in if it will preserve more copies of themselves in other bodies.

Sacrifice for others who are not related is also easy to understand, though the route is more circuitous. We are social creatures, we are dependent on the social organism which we are a part of for survival, this means that the well being of those around us is paramount not only to our survival but also for the survival of our siblings and children. This means that in some cases it is more beneficial for our genes to sacrifice one body to improve or protect the lot of the others they reside in.

See, pretty simple and ultimately selfish.

Either such nobility has been overrated or there has been some break in the continuity of human development.

False dichotomy, fallacy. Try again.

The vital role that love plays in people’s lives makes these explanations implausible.

No, it doesn’t, you just haven’t studied enough. Your ignorance of the solutions or their workings is not evidence that they don’t exist or don’t work, it’s just evidence of your own desire to protect your beliefs by shutting out knowledge.

Psychologists have established that it is an absolute necessity for a happy, well balanced existence that a person should love and be loved. It is essential to feel wanted for one’s own sake and feel irreplaceable by any other person.

And? This is, once again, fairly easily explained by evolutionary theory. It’s only your ignorance of it that has blinded you to the explanations offered. I’ve already explained the basics of it but you should really look into the Selfish Gene theory presented by Dawkins(both in papers and in his books, but don’t worry, they’re not about religion at all). Say what you will about Dawkins’ behavior and attitude, he is a first rate ethologist.

This desire is based on the belief that every person has a unique and infinite value which cannot belong to a physical organism which has emerged for no reason or purpose.

Do you have anything to support this assertion? Remember, that a failure to debunk an assertion is not evidence in favor of it.

As Renan remarked, “the development of humanity might be is no more significance than the growth of moss or lichen.” There is obviously no place for love in such a scheme of things.

And you obviously have no knowledge of evolutionary theory or, I’m tempted to say, of biology at all.

For those who believe we exist by Design every human being is significant precisely because we exist as the result of divine love.

The problem is that those who believe in design have yet to produce even one piece of evidence to support their belief, it’s faith and nothing more.

 

[cho_pilo]

It is possible for a materialist to believe in love, of course, but it becomes an insoluble mystery.

Ah, now we’re getting to your real gripe. You don’t know what the materialistic explanation is so you think that it doesn’t exist, isn’t this exactly the same thing you accuse atheists of?

But I digress. The origin of love is easy enough to explain from a biological standpoint. All species, and individuals within those species, exist as vehicles for spreading their genes to the next generation, so any mechanism which helps to promote this would be selected for by natural selection(even if it’s ultimately to the detriment of the individual, evolution doesn’t care about the individual). One such mechanism was love. Not only does love help promote procreation, thus spreading the “genes” for love throughout the population, but the chemical reactions responsible for the feeling also had other benefits(though it’s unlikely that those benefits were what it was ultimately selected for). One of the other benefits would have been potentially favoring the lives of offspring and siblings over your own, thus ensuring that more copies of the “genes” for love would spread. Simple population genetics and evolutionary theory solves this “problem” without even breaking a sweat.

Of course, I fully expect you to outright deny this and refuse to inquire on it any further(which makes one wonder why you’re on a science forum in the first place as science is inquiry), after all you would rather cut your nose off to spite your face in the protection of your beliefs than allow anything to enter your mind which might threaten them.

A person could conceivably be self-conscious, free, rational, morally aware and yet devoid of the capacity to love in the full sense of the term.

The “fullest sense of the term” is a subjective value, not something which is objective. You’d be better off dropping this in these forums. Not only is it irrelevant to your questions(“what is the origin of love?” and “what is the origin of altruism” are two different questions, though the answers are related), but it’s subjective nature means that it’s absolutely useless in any inquiry about the truth of the matter.

It remains undeveloped in some individuals and reaches its highest degree of perfection in the mystic who attains ineffable union with God.

Again, do you have anything to support this assumption? And isn’t it just your value judgement, which is subjective to your ideals and not an objective truth?

The materialist would reject this suggestion but he is faced with the problem of accounting for the remarkable similarities between the experiences of mystics of widely differing beliefs and backgrounds over a period of more than 2000 years.

Ooh, a third easy question huh? Alright then.

The similar experiences of mystics are most easily explained by the fact that we’re all human. Despite our minor differences all of our bodies function in pretty much the same way, and this includes our brains. Again, simple and nothing “spiritual” or “paranormal” about it. Just similar brains functioning in similar ways under similar circumstances(because while the beliefs, and even the practices, might be wildly different they put similar stresses on the body).

Are you ever going to throw a hard one at me?

On a lower plane many of us feel at some time in our lives that the joy and consolation of love give existence a meaning which it would otherwise lack. It compensates for the misery and suffering we have to endure.

How we feel about it is absolutely irrelevant to the cause.

It is a divine power which liberates us from the isolation of being unique individuals.

Unsupported assumption. Back it up.

No one can feel what we feel and share our deepest experiences but when we identify ourselves totally with others and forget ourselves we know we have fulfilled the purpose for which we are created.

More unsubstantiated claims. You know what they say, put up or shut up.

Love transforms even suffering and death into a means of entering a state of oneness with those we love… not in nothingness but in heav

An unsubstantiated claim and irrelevant. Nice job.

 

[tonyrey]

It is certainly impossible to explain how the capacity for unselfish love which goes to such extremes has emerged in the evolutionary process

Your gene hypothesis is self-destructive because it implies that you are incapable of choosing what to think!

Sacrifice for others who are not related is also easy to understand, though the route is more circuitous. We are social creatures, we are dependent on the social organism which we are a part of for survival, this means that the well being of those around us is paramount not only to our survival but also for the survival of our siblings and children. This means that in some cases it is more beneficial for our genes to sacrifice one body to improve or protect the lot of the others they reside in.

See, pretty simple and ultimately selfish.

Your gene hypothesis is self-destructive because it implies that you only believe what suits your selfish interests!

Either such nobility has been overrated or there has been some break in the continuity of human development.

False dichotomy, fallacy. Try again.

Explain why. Try again.

The vital role that love plays in people’s lives makes these explanations implausible.
No, it doesn’t, you just haven’t studied enough. Your ignorance of the solutions or their workings is not evidence that they don’t exist or don’t work, it’s just evidence of your own desire to protect your beliefs by shutting out knowledge.

Your failure to provide an alternative explanation is evidence of your own desire to protect your disbelief…

Psychologists have established that it is an absolute necessity for a happy, well balanced existence that a person should love and be loved. It is essential to feel wanted for one’s own sake and feel irreplaceable by any other person.

And? This is, once again, fairly easily explained by evolutionary theory. It’s only your ignorance of it thhe idssueat has blinded you to the explanations offered. I’ve already explained the basics of it but you should really look into the Selfish Gene theory presented by Dawkins(both in papers and in his books, but don’t worry, they’re not about religion at all). Say what you will about Dawkins’ behavior and attitude, he is a first rate ethologist.

You have evaded the issue. Is it or is it not an absolute necessity for a happy, well balanced existence that a person should love and be loved? If not why not?

This desire is based on the belief that every person has a unique and infinite value which cannot belong to a physical organism which has emerged for no reason or purpose.

Do you have anything to support this assertion? Remember, that a failure to debunk an assertion is not evidence in favor of it.

Do you have **any reason **to support your implications that:

1. No one has a unique and infinite value?
2. Physical organisms have emerged for no reason or purpose?

As Renan remarked, “the development of humanity might be is no more significance than the growth of moss or lichen.” There is obviously no place for love in such a scheme of things.

And you obviously have no knowledge of evolutionary theory or, I’m tempted to say, of biology at all.

You obviously have no knowledge of what real love is or how it originated…

For those who believe we exist by Design every human being is significant precisely because we exist as the result of divine love.

The problem is that those who believe in design have yet to produce even one piece of evidence to support their belief, it’s faith and nothing more.

The problem is that those who believe in Chance and Necessity have yet to produce even one piece of evidence to support their belief, it’s faith and nothing more!

 

[tonyrey]

Ah, now we’re getting to your real gripe. You don’t know what the materialistic explanation is so you think that it doesn’t exist, isn’t this exactly the same thing you accuse atheists of?

But I digress. The origin of love is easy enough to explain from a biological standpoint. All species, and individuals within those species, exist as vehicles for spreading their genes to the next generation, so any mechanism which helps to promote this would be selected for by natural selection(even if it’s ultimately to the detriment of the individual, evolution doesn’t care about the individual). One such mechanism was love. Not only does love help promote procreation, thus spreading the “genes” for love throughout the population, but the chemical reactions responsible for the feeling also had other benefits(though it’s unlikely that those benefits were what it was ultimately selected for). One of the other benefits would have been potentially favoring the lives of offspring and siblings over your own, thus ensuring that more copies of the “genes” for love would spread. Simple population genetics and evolutionary theory solves this “problem” without even breaking a sweat.

Of course, I fully expect you to outright deny this and refuse to inquire on it any further(which makes one wonder why you’re on a science forum in the first place as science is inquiry), after all you would rather cut your nose off to spite your face in the protection of your beliefs than allow anything to enter your mind which might threaten them.

The “fullest sense of the term” is a subjective value, not something which is objective. You’d be better off dropping this in these forums. Not only is it irrelevant to your questions(“what is the origin of love?” and “what is the origin of altruism” are two different questions, though the answers are related), but it’s subjective nature means that it’s absolutely useless in any inquiry about the truth of the matter.

Again, do you have anything to support this assumption? And isn’t it just your value judgement, which is subjective to your ideals and not an objective truth?

Ooh, a third easy question huh? Alright then.

The similar experiences of mystics are most easily explained by the fact that we’re all human. Despite our minor differences all of our bodies function in pretty much the same way, and this includes our brains. Again, simple and nothing “spiritual” or “paranormal” about it. Just similar brains functioning in similar ways under similar circumstances(because while the beliefs, and even the practices, might be wildly different they put similar stresses on the body).

Are you ever going to throw a hard one at me?

How we feel about it is absolutely irrelevant to the cause.

Unsupported assumption. Back it up.

More unsubstantiated claims. You know what they say, put up or shut up.

An unsubstantiated claim and irrelevant. Nice job.

The origin of your reasoning is easy enough to explain from a biological standpoint. All species, and individuals within those species, exist as vehicles for spreading their genes to the next generation, so any mechanism which helps to promote this would be selected for by natural selection (even if it’s ultimately to the detriment of the individual, evolution doesn’t care about the individual). One such mechanism was reasoning. Not only does reasoning help promote procreation, thus spreading the “genes” for **reasoning **throughout the population, but the chemical reactions responsible for reasoning also had other benefits(though it’s unlikely that those benefits were what it was ultimately selected for). One of the other benefits would have been potentially favoring the lives of offspring and siblings over your own, thus ensuring that more copies of the “genes” for **reasoning **would spread. Simple population genetics and evolutionary theory solves this “problem” without even breaking a sweat…

So your **reasoning **is worthless…

 

[lemondiesel]

Science presupposes realities like rationality, truth and honesty but it cannot explain them and without them it would not exist.

rationality from practicality to adapt. truth from finding what works and what doesn’t, and also as tribes began to group with others forming the beginnings of civilization (and on). honesty results from living in society, because it requires laws and truths. science is the other side of the pendulum, the result of our minds evolving through time. if you don’t have science, people would still believe wind is a god, and would sacrifice people for the change of rain.

How can thoughts cannot influence events in the brain if the brain causes thoughts?

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/_...rchive/b/b5/20100108063328!Exploding-head.gif

what goes on in the brain that causes depression? what told our brain that we will find certain people attractive, and others they don’t even cross our mind?

If every thought is the result of a physical process we cannot control mental events because all our thoughts are caused by electrical impulses in the brain. In other words free will is an illusion because it implies a source of non-physical energy.

so who ‘we’ are as an individual is either scripted or controlled by us? why not say that our souls have existed for ever, in either heaven or hell, and our time in existence allows us to understand why we spend eternity in whichever? perhaps weeding out the stragglers or the ones he missed taking to heaven… idk jk got lost in thought

 

[lemondiesel]

You have evaded the issue. Is it or is it not an absolute necessity for a happy, well balanced existence that a person should love and be loved? If not why not?

if you stand on your point of our minds being unique and our own, then why are issues like same sex marriage a problem? going against natural instincts is not a solid answer. our thoughts wouldn’t be our own either if we believed only what we read or heard, experiences that cause certain chemical reactions definitely influence the way we think.

You obviously have no knowledge of what real love is or how it originated…

recognition of the finite body

 

[tonyrey]

Science presupposes realities like rationality, truth and honesty but it cannot explain them and without them it would not exist.

Please explain what you take “truth” to mean.

honesty results from living in society, because it requires laws and truths.

Which are intangible…

science is the other side of the pendulum, the result of our minds evolving through time.

What do you think the mind is?

if you don’t have science, people would still believe wind is a god, and would sacrifice people for the change of rain.

But science doesn’t explain science - or the scientist!

How can thoughts cannot influence events in the brain if the brain causes thoughts?

what goes on in the brain that causes depression?

Depression is usually caused by what goes on outside the brain!

what told our brain that we will find certain people attractive, and others they don’t even cross our mind?

Our interpretation of what we perceive.

If every thought is the result of a physical process we cannot control mental events because all our thoughts are caused by electrical impulses in the brain. In other words free will is an illusion because it implies a source of non-physical energy.

so who ‘we’ are as an individual is either scripted or controlled by us?

Yes. In any court of law the buck stops with us.

why not say that our souls have existed for ever, in either heaven or hell, and our time in existence allows us to understand why we spend eternity in whichever? perhaps weeding out the stragglers or the ones he missed taking to heaven… idk jk got lost in thought

Is there any reason to believe our souls have existed for ever?

 

[tonyrey]

I

s it or is it not an absolute necessity for a happy, well balanced existence that a person should love and be loved? If not why not?

They influence but they don’t cause all our thoughts. If they did we wouldn’t be rational.

You obviously have no knowledge of what real love is or how it originated…

recognition of the finite body

Is love limited to the body?

 

[cho_pilo]

Your gene hypothesis is self-destructive because it implies that you are incapable of choosing what to think!

Red herring, fallacy, try again. The truth is the truth regardless of whether or not we have free will or only the illusion of free will.

Your gene hypothesis is self-destructive because it implies that you only believe what suits your selfish interests!

No it doesn’t, this is just another red herring fallacy.

Explain why. Try again.

And here I thought that the term “false dichotomy” was self-explanatory. You said, and I quote, “Either such nobility has been overrated or there has been some break in the continuity of human development.”

This is a false choice between two options because many other options have been deliberately left out. Beyond that it doesn’t follow logically from the rest of your OP.

Your failure to provide an alternative explanation is evidence of your own desire to protect your disbelief…

Nice try, but I did provide an alternative explanation, one that is supported by logic and physical evidence. What’s your excuse?

You have evaded the issue. Is it or is it not an absolute necessity for a happy, well balanced existence that a person should love and be loved? If not why not?

No I didn’t. I merely raised the question of “so what if it is?” Your implicit conclusion that god must have made us does not logically follow from this premise. Either support your argument logically or concede that you don’t have the faintest clue what you’re talking about. Unlike you this is my main area of expertise, ethology is my meat and potatoes so to speak.

Do you have **any reason **to support your implications that:

1. No one has a unique and infinite value?
2. Physical organisms have emerged for no reason or purpose?

Asking that you support your contention in no way implies anything. I do know that there appears to be no rhyme or reason to the large variety of species on the planet(god, it seems, has an inordinate fondness for beetles) or the flawed craftsmanship that they appear to have suffered through. Looking at this through the lens of evolution causes it all to make sense. Surely you’d know that if you’d bothered to spend even five minutes researching the theory you’re attempting to disprove. It’s like I keep telling you theists, if you’re going to try to espouse an intelligent opinion on a topic, especially a scientific topic, then you’d better do your homework.

It’s not like this stuff is truly beyond you, if I can understand it then so can you if you truly put your mind to it.

You obviously have no knowledge of what real love is or how it originated…

And we start, again, with the assumptions. How do you know anything about my personal life or the emotions I experience. You know literally nothing about me except that I don’t believe in god, which means that you know nothing about me. I suggest that you leave the personal out of this and stick to the technical issues of your OP.

The problem is that those who believe in Chance and Necessity have yet to produce even one piece of evidence to support their belief, it’s faith and nothing more!

Straw man argument, fallacy, try again.

 

[cho_pilo]

The origin of your reasoning is easy enough to explain from a biological standpoint. All species, and individuals within those species, exist as vehicles for spreading their genes to the next generation, so any mechanism which helps to promote this would be selected for by natural selection (even if it’s ultimately to the detriment of the individual, evolution doesn’t care about the individual). One such mechanism was reasoning. Not only does reasoning help promote procreation, thus spreading the “genes” for **reasoning **throughout the population, but the chemical reactions responsible for reasoning also had other benefits(though it’s unlikely that those benefits were what it was ultimately selected for). One of the other benefits would have been potentially favoring the lives of offspring and siblings over your own, thus ensuring that more copies of the “genes” for **reasoning **would spread. Simple population genetics and evolutionary theory solves this “problem” without even breaking a sweat…

So your **reasoning **is worthless…

Wow, I haven’t seen such worthless drivel since I read Twilight. Not one logical argument in there, you failed to create a reductio ad absurdum. Good job.