Ex-"New Atheist", Now Christian

[downbeatplumb]

Young, who studies the brain chemistry of love and emotion, does most of his research on monogamous prairie voles.

Though human love is a rich emotion reflective of our advanced brains, he said, "the foundation of that emotion is very similar to the neuromechanisms that are causing the bond between these two prairie voles."

For instance, experiments have shown that if a vole loses its partner, the "widowed" animal shows depressive symptoms—measured by a lack of willingness to escape a dangerous situation.

According to Young, our brains are in the love seat, so to speak: The organs "have evolved the mechanism to produce an emotional attachment," he said.

That attachment is spurred by oxytocin—produced during intimate contact in both people and animals—and dopamine, which is responsible for feelings of exhilaration and happiness.

So, many splendored as it is, love, he said, "is really the result of a cocktail of chemicals."

http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/new...e-science/

[Love]

Why shouldn't Occam's Razor have universal application? What are the grounds for discerning the areas in which it can apply?

I subscribe to the idea that it is the positive claimant who has the philosophic burden of proof. I do not see a reason why Ockham's Razor should have universal application, and you have inferred that you think it does; therefore, I respectfully shift the burden of proof to you. Please inform me why you believe that it does have universal application.

Also, I would tend to agree that you're not relying on God-Of-The-Gaps. It's more like Special Pleading with some loaded language thrown in for flavour. I mean, "atheistic rationalists"? Really?

I disagree with you that it is loaded language or that I used it pejoratively. Does it come across as negative to you? If so, why? Pure reason appeals to a lot of atheists, so I do not see what is wrong with using the term "atheistic rationalists".

The topics under discussion are indeed exceedingly complicared, however that doesn't mean we know nothing at all about the subjects and still less that we have no tools and methodology for finding out. Least of all that one can simply throw out the available scientific evidence just because it happens to lead to a different interpretation to one's own.

I have never claimed that science knows nothing about the topics we're discussing. My main point is this: I believe some rationalists (not necessarily scientists) often come to a lot of hasty conclusions. Rationalism relies heavily on deductive reasoning, but I feel that a lot of arguments made by staunch rationalists often result in being formal fallacies.

Believe it or not it takes a massive paradigm shift to rewrite the scientific consensus, not because scientists are all atheistic rationalists entrenched in dogma but because it's all-too often the case that the "independent thinkers", as Patrick Moore termed them, have some agenda of their own to push. Present company excepted, obviously.

Again, I never claimed that all scientists are dogmatic atheistic rationalists; you're putting words in my mouth here.

[Cyberman]

I subscribe to the idea that it is the positive claimant who has the philosophic burden of proof. I do not see a reason why Ockham's Razor should have universal application, and you have inferred that you think it does; therefore, I respectfully shift the burden of proof to you. Please inform me why you believe that it does have universal application.

Nice try, but the burden of proof is still yours, since I am not claiming the belief you ascribe to me. I merely asked you to justify your statement. Apparently you cannot.

I disagree with you that it is loaded language or that I used it pejoratively. Does it come across as negative to you? If so, why? Pure reason appeals to a lot of atheists, so I do not see what is wrong with using the term "atheistic rationalists".

Then why not simply "rationalists"? I don't see the word 'atheistic' as negative, but obviously you must do if you chose to label them as such. Were I to employ the term "theistic irrationalists" as freely as you do yours, would you be happy with letting it pass without comment?

I have never claimed that science knows nothing about the topics we're discussing. My main point is this: I believe some rationalists (not necessarily scientists) often come to a lot of hasty conclusions. Rationalism relies heavily on deductive reasoning, but I feel that a lot of arguments made by staunch rationalists often result in being formal fallacies.

Then please pay us the courtesy of justifying that belief. That's all.

Again, I never claimed that all scientists are dogmatic atheistic rationalists; you're putting words in my mouth here.

Neither did I, so this word-putting-into-mouth thing is contagious. And there we go with the "atheistic rationalists" again, as though all atheists are rationalists and vice versa.

[Love]

Nice try, but the burden of proof is still yours, since I am not claiming the belief you ascribe to me. I merely asked you to justify your statement. Apparently you cannot.

Fair enough. I will endeavour to justify my position; I will use "multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics" as an example. An interpretation of quantum mechanics takes the following into consideration: (1) the phenomenology (empircal observations) — for example the double slit experiment and the seemingly bizarre behaviour of elementary particles (photons and electrons) — and (2) the mathematical formalisms used to describe quantum mechanics. Each interpretation of quantum mechanics, such as the "Copenhagen Interpretation", is an interpretation of the aforementioned phenomenology and mathematical formalism. There are some interpretations of quantum mechanics that are vastly more complex than others. For example Hugh Everett's "Many Worlds Interpretation" is more complex than the Copenhagen Interpretation. Even though the Many Worlds Interpretation is more complex than competing interpretations, a lot of physicists are proponents of it because they believe it makes more sense of the aforementioned phenomenology et cetera. Ockham's Razor (the simplest explanation wins) clearly does not apply in this kind of situation. There are many other examples that I could give.

It is also interesting to note that William of Ockham was also a theologian.

I disagree with you that it is loaded language or that I used it pejoratively. Does it come across as negative to you? If so, why? Pure reason appeals to a lot of atheists, so I do not see what is wrong with using the term "atheistic rationalists".

Then why not simply "rationalists"? I don't see the word 'atheistic' as negative, but obviously you must do if you chose to label them as such. Were I to employ the term "theistic irrationalists" as freely as you do yours, would you be happy with letting it pass without comment?

I honestly do not see what is wrong with this. If we take Isaiah Berlin, for example, he was a proponent of relativism and anti-rationalism, and had some extremely interesting ideas about the limits of rationalism/pure reason. If you're not already aware of such, perhaps read about the "Counter-Enlightenment". To reiterate, I am not using the term "atheistic rationalist" in the pejorative sense; I am using it from the perspective of epistemology.