[Robaroni]

Look, the Socratic method is all well and good, but you've been asking nonstop questions for the last few pages, and it's going nowhere.  It's not unreasonable at this point to ask that you stop firing off questions and make your case for whatever it is that you have in mind.  Are you saying that feelings of love and compassion aren't tied to brain chemistry, for example?  Or that science is by definition amoral, and not a guide to how anyone should live their lives?

Go back and read my initial statements.

R

[Rama Set]

I don't have a goal!!

Run out of cut and paste options after reciprocal altruism?

What?

Did I answer you the question you posed?

If a lie can be considered a proper answer, then sure.

Yes, how about answering mine?

All of them?  Why would I?  You ask them rhetorically.  Is there one in particular that is dear to your heart?

[Robaroni]

I don't have a goal!!

Run out of cut and paste options after reciprocal altruism?

What?

Did I answer you the question you posed?

If a lie can be considered a proper answer, then sure.

Yes, how about answering mine?

All of them?  Why would I?  You ask them rhetorically.  Is there one in particular that is dear to your heart?

Here's my response to reciprocal altruism:

"Reciprocal altruism is a trade with the expectation of future benefit. Is love a trade, I'll love you if you love me? Is love conditional? Not at all."
R

You think that's a lie?

Here's the question I posed that you didn't answer:

"Why do we need love? Why do you need to be loved? You can function completely without it, eat sleep, procreate, whatever. Give me the science. Give me the science of giving my life for a loved one, no expectations of return, no I'll do this for you and you do this for me. Why does man need to love and be loved? The 'good' of the group? Science can't establish what is 'good'."

[Rama Set]

You just posted 7 questions. Take a deep breath and post 1. Make it worth your while too.

[TotesNotReptilian]

Honestly Robaroni, it is really difficult to follow your train of thought. I have no idea what you are trying to argue, or the point you are trying to get across.

You make a ton of assumptions about the psychology of mankind, and then pass them off as fact. You string together these assumptions in a rather bewildering order that is hard to follow. None of your statements seem to logically follow each other.

Here is the point I (and Rama?) was trying to get across: evolution provides a valid explanation for the origin of love.

Now, without a ton of rhetorical questions, what exactly is your objection to that statement? Try to state it as clearly as possible.

Edit: If I understand you correctly, your overall goal is to show that evolution/science does not provide a valid explanation for the origin of love. Therefore, love must have a spiritual origin. What I don't understand is what your supporting points are.

[Robaroni]

You just posted 7 questions. Take a deep breath and post 1. Make it worth your while too.

You can function completely without loving and being loved, eat sleep, procreate, whatever. Give me the scientific justification for why man needs to love?

R

[Robaroni]

Honestly Robaroni, it is really difficult to follow your train of thought. I have no idea what you are trying to argue, or the point you are trying to get across.

You make a ton of assumptions about the psychology of mankind, and then pass them off as fact. You string together these assumptions in a rather bewildering order that is hard to follow. None of your statements seem to logically follow each other.

Here is the point I (and Rama?) was trying to get across: evolution provides a valid explanation for the origin of love.

Now, without a ton of rhetorical questions, what exactly is your objection to that statement? Try to state it as clearly as possible.

Edit: If I understand you correctly, your overall goal is to show that evolution/science does not provide a valid explanation for the origin of love. Therefore, love must have a spiritual origin. What I don't understand is what your supporting points are.

Evolution does not! You think it does? Show me.

See my question to Rama.
R

[Rama Set]

You just posted 7 questions. Take a deep breath and post 1. Make it worth your while too.

You can function completely without loving and being loved, eat sleep, procreate, whatever. Give me the scientific justification for why man needs to love?

R

It gives an impetus for socialization, procreation and protection of and with others. Group socialization is a good tactic for thriving of a species. Ergo, love helps a species thrive.

This is not a scientific justification, this is my justification, but it is reasonable and intuitive.

[Robaroni]

You just posted 7 questions. Take a deep breath and post 1. Make it worth your while too.

You can function completely without loving and being loved, eat sleep, procreate, whatever. Give me the scientific justification for why man needs to love?

R

It gives an impetus for socialization, procreation and protection of and with others. Group socialization is a good tactic for thriving of a species. Ergo, love helps a species thrive.

This is not a scientific justification, this is my justification, but it is reasonable and intuitive.

So you don't have a scientific answer, just your opinion. 

Too bad, you should have said that long before this point in the debate. And, by the way, science is not capable of establishing 'good'.

R

[Rama Set]

Science is not a monolith. It has no single answer. It works on a consensus of experiments. Is it important to you if it's my opinion or not?

And by the way, what does it matter if science can establish 'good'?

[Robaroni]

Science is not a monolith. It has no single answer. It works on a consensus of experiments. Is it important to you if it's my opinion or not?

And by the way, what does it matter if science can establish 'good'?

You used "good" in your opinion, this shuts the door on science. Along with the fact that "societies, procreation and protection" can function and "thrive" without love which you also stated in your opinion. All that is needed is agreement within the group - reciprocal altruism. which is not love, again, it's a trade, it's symbiotic.

R

[Robaroni]

Science is not a monolith. It has no single answer. It works on a consensus of experiments.

If you are saying that science is not capable of absolutes, I agree.

In this case science has no answer.

R

[Rama Set]

Science is not a monolith. It has no single answer. It works on a consensus of experiments. Is it important to you if it's my opinion or not?

And by the way, what does it matter if science can establish 'good'?

You used "good" in your opinion, this shuts the door on science. Along with the fact that "societies, procreation and protection" can function and "thrive" without love which you also stated in your opinion. All that is needed is agreement within the group - reciprocal altruism. which is not love, again, it's a trade, it's symbiotic.

R

Ah pedantry, the last resort of the defeated. I obviously meant 'good' as a synonym for beneficial. Like broccoli is 'good for you'.

I also never said love was necessary but that does not undermine its value.

Science is not a monolith. It has no single answer. It works on a consensus of experiments.

If you are saying that science is not capable of absolutes, I agree.

In this case science has no answer.

R

That isn't what I said although I do agree science is not able to draw absolute conclusions.

As to the second part, he is a scientific answer that is similar to my own.

http://cogprints.org/3392/1/lovempat.htm

The deepening of the mother/infant attachment into love played, and still plays, an essential role in the transmission of culture from one generation to the next and in making possible the cohesion of the human group. This account fits well with recent research into the process and significance of the mother/infant relation.

[TotesNotReptilian]

You used "good" in your opinion, this shuts the door on science.

"good tactic"?? In this case, good is just a synonym for "effective". Science is perfectly capable of working with that term.

Along with the fact that "societies, procreation and protection" can function and "thrive" without love which you also stated in your opinion.

This is completely irrelevant. As was already stated, evolution does not require a trait to be strictly necessary for it to be promoted. It just needs to be beneficial to the survival of the group. Are you really going to argue that love is not beneficial to the survival of highly social group of people?

All that is needed is agreement within the group - reciprocal altruism. which is not love, again, it's a trade, it's symbiotic.

Not all reciprocal altruism is love, but love is a type of reciprocal altruism.

If your only objection is incredularity, just read the links Rama provided.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

I have been away for a few days so it has taken me a few minutes to read (struggle) through this.

Robi’ your circular arguments seem to stem from this “loves existence proves god exists”, comment, and that science must give you unequivocal proof to the contrary or stand aside, but as Rama & the Reptile have both pointed out, love & empathy as the product of Darwinian evolution would have beneficial effects both to the group and to the individuals’ genetic continuation. No god needed.

If you are unfamiliar with the up to date thinking in evolutionary biology, it’s probably best you don’t read about it on a Christian debunkers blog, but go to something like a Dawkins book as suggested, they are extremely well written and informative.

Getting back to the original proposition, that there is a problem with atheism. It seems that there can only be a problem with it, if you give it goals that it doesn’t actually have, as you do with science.

[Robaroni]

Science is not a monolith. It has no single answer. It works on a consensus of experiments. Is it important to you if it's my opinion or not?

And by the way, what does it matter if science can establish 'good'?

You used "good" in your opinion, this shuts the door on science. Along with the fact that "societies, procreation and protection" can function and "thrive" without love which you also stated in your opinion. All that is needed is agreement within the group - reciprocal altruism. which is not love, again, it's a trade, it's symbiotic.

R

Ah pedantry, the last resort of the defeated. I obviously meant 'good' as a synonym for beneficial. Like broccoli is 'good for you'.

I also never said love was necessary but that does not undermine its value.

Science is not a monolith. It has no single answer. It works on a consensus of experiments.

If you are saying that science is not capable of absolutes, I agree.

In this case science has no answer.

R

That isn't what I said although I do agree science is not able to draw absolute conclusions.

As to the second part, he is a scientific answer that is similar to my own.

http://cogprints.org/3392/1/lovempat.htm

The deepening of the mother/infant attachment into love played, and still plays, an essential role in the transmission of culture from one generation to the next and in making possible the cohesion of the human group. This account fits well with recent research into the process and significance of the mother/infant relation.

It's a paper, an opinion, not a peer reviewed journal document! Did you read it? Geeze!

" The scientific exploration of the process of empathy has not got very far; some think it cannot be explained." Doesn't he mean gotten very far?

" Love had always been the one thing - perhaps the only thing - beyond the research scientist's ever-extending grasp...."

Rama Set
"Ah pedantry, the last resort of the defeated. I obviously meant 'good' as a synonym for beneficial. Like broccoli is 'good for you'. "

Defeated in what respect?

Science can't determine that either! You're just giving me semantics, a synonym doesn't change that science can't establish good, beneficial. Read the work of George Moore - Naturalistic Fallacy and David Hume "is - ought".

Did you graduate college with a science degree? I did.

Amazing!

R

[Robaroni]

You used "good" in your opinion, this shuts the door on science.

"good tactic"?? In this case, good is just a synonym for "effective". Science is perfectly capable of working with that term.

Along with the fact that "societies, procreation and protection" can function and "thrive" without love which you also stated in your opinion.

This is completely irrelevant. As was already stated, evolution does not require a trait to be strictly necessary for it to be promoted. It just needs to be beneficial to the survival of the group. Are you really going to argue that love is not beneficial to the survival of highly social group of people?

All that is needed is agreement within the group - reciprocal altruism. which is not love, again, it's a trade, it's symbiotic.

Not all reciprocal altruism is love, but love is a type of reciprocal altruism.

If your only objection is incredularity, just read the links Rama provided.

"Not all reciprocal altruism is love, but love is a type of reciprocal altruism."

I'll do this for you and you do that for me, is that compassionate love to you? Love can never be a trade, it's unconditional!

"If your only objection is incredularity, just read the links Rama provided."

The word is incredulity. See my response to Rama Set.

R

[Robaroni]

I have been away for a few days so it has taken me a few minutes to read (struggle) through this.

Robi’ your circular arguments seem to stem from this “loves existence proves god exists”, comment, and that science must give you unequivocal proof to the contrary or stand aside, but as Rama & the Reptile have both pointed out, love & empathy as the product of Darwinian evolution would have beneficial effects both to the group and to the individuals’ genetic continuation. No god needed.

If you are unfamiliar with the up to date thinking in evolutionary biology, it’s probably best you don’t read about it on a Christian debunkers blog, but go to something like a Dawkins book as suggested, they are extremely well written and informative.

Getting back to the original proposition, that there is a problem with atheism. It seems that there can only be a problem with it, if you give it goals that it doesn’t actually have, as you do with science.

First, I said "The proof of God is that man is capable of love". It is based on the fact that man can survive completely without love, yet each individual intensely seeks to love and be loved, it is man's raison d'etre. We have this observable phenomena that exists universally and is integral to man to the point that he will give his life to save his weak dying loved one. Nothing establishes this more profoundly then in the atheist who believes that death holds nothing for him. Why does he do it, what's the benefit?

We have fear to protect the self but its opposite love does not. Fear is completely about the self and self preservation, it is a mechanism within man and its center is the amygdala in the brain. Fear is selfish, it's only concern is the self. Human compassionate love is completely unselfish, it is greater than the self and the individual is willing to give the self driven by it.

You may disagree with my hypothesis, Dawkins may give his hypothesis but what I've said is true and has been observed. To disagree you must show that compassionate love has a scientific justification. So far science has no answer, the drive of self preservation and survival of the fittest would dictate that the group is strengthened through letting the weak die.

What's your answer?

And no one is forcing you to "struggle" through this, you have the choice to participate or not participate, so spare me this. Wasn't that you who left the debate when I asked you to enlighten me as to how you knew what the Wilde beast was thinking and what his juxtaposition to God is? I'm still waiting for those answers too!

R

[Robaroni]

Getting back to the original proposition, that there is a problem with atheism. It seems that there can only be a problem with it, if you give it goals that it doesn’t actually have, as you do with science.

Atheism represents the death of thought. It is based on the assumption that all to know about the universe is known or will be known. The individual ceases to inquire and sticks his head in the proverbial sand. Better to think 'I do not know' and continue to inquire than to say it does not exist and in the future science will prove it.

Who here thinks that all there is to know is known or will be known?

Many theists run into the same problem at the other end of the spectrum. They believe God is well defined in some book or whatever and no further inquiry is required. Of the four major religions Christianity (Christ) is the most blatant in this respect. Taoism (Lao-Tze) the least, also the least structured.

Side note:
Interestingly enough if we explore the lessons of Christ, Lao-Tze, Siddhartha Gautama (Buddhism) and Krishna (Hinduism) we find that their core teaching was compassion. Problems in Christianity arose with the introduction of heaven and hell by man as a method of controlling the masses through fear.

R

[Rama Set]

Getting back to the original proposition, that there is a problem with atheism. It seems that there can only be a problem with it, if you give it goals that it doesn’t actually have, as you do with science.

Atheism represents the death of thought.

Only if you look at it through a narrow lense.  In it's cultural context it represents a rejection of the authority of the church on the spiritual nature of the universe.  Freed of that, the atheist is free to forge their own path, and discover their own connection their spiritual side.  They can form new rituals and rites of passage, and rediscover the wisdom of man through a new prism.

It is based on the assumption that all to know about the universe is known or will be known. The individual ceases to inquire and sticks his head in the proverbial sand. Better to think 'I do not know' and continue to inquire than to say it does not exist and in the future science will prove it.

I am not sure where you get this idea.  Atheism would never claim this, but empiricism might.  Even then, I think on the most extreme minds would think that all that can be known will be known or that all is knowable.  For example, if you watch physicists talk about what came before the Big Bang, the answer is invariably, "We don't know, we may never know, but we will keep going where the evidence takes us."  Or some variation on that theme.

Who here thinks that all there is to know is known or will be known?

Not me.  To be fair, I am not an atheist either.  I may have anti-theist leanings, but I would never reject Deism out of hand, because I would be guilty of extreme dishonesty and over-reaching.

Many theists run into the same problem at the other end of the spectrum. They believe God is well defined in some book or whatever and no further inquiry is required. Of the four major religions Christianity (Christ) is the most blatant in this respect. Taoism (Lao-Tze) the least, also the least structured.

I think it is fair to say that extreme Dogmatism in any form leads to closed-mindedness.

Side note:
Interestingly enough if we explore the lessons of Christ, Lao-Tze, Siddhartha Gautama (Buddhism) and Krishna (Hinduism) we find that their core teaching was compassion. Problems in Christianity arose with the introduction of heaven and hell by man as a method of controlling the masses through fear.

Compassion should be a central tenet of any belief system, I think.