(May 4, 2013 at 11:02 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(May 4, 2013 at 10:49 am)Love Wrote: Indeed. I was simply stating that I do not consider my position to be an argument from ignorance/a God of the gaps explanation.

In that case please provide the substance behind your argument.

I suggest you go to THIS thread because this topic has been covered.

(May 4, 2013 at 10:59 am)Love Wrote: Okay, what is the "actual truth"? Does rationalism + empiricism lead us to truth?

What it is and what gets us there are two separate things. The idea of the "actual truth" is whatever may turn out to be the way things stand. As you are so fond of reminding us, rationalism and empiricism only take us so far. (Though I consider this glass much more than half full.) But where rationalism and empiricism leave off we each fall off into our own speculation. No ones speculation is privileged over that of anyone else. It isn't as though you have given us any reason to follow your view of what lies beyond reason and empiricism. You say Christianity fills the bill for you. Fine and good. We all have our pet theories. Enjoy yours.

Quote:Okay, what is the "actual truth"? Does rationalism + empiricism lead us to truth?

I never claimed to know the truth. My comment was meant to show that what makes sense to any particular person has zero to do with what is true.

To use my examples of supernatural explanations for disease, or geocentrism, these once made sense to most people. Were they correct in believing that which made sense to them was the truth?

(May 4, 2013 at 11:04 am)Love Wrote: I suggest you go to THIS thread because this topic has been covered.

You mean the thread where you state the following, "There is also something deep inside my consciousness about Christianity that feels "right" and "true" at the same time, which is significant to me.".

Faith and personal credulity is NOT a path to truth. It is gullibility.

(May 4, 2013 at 11:12 am)whateverist Wrote: What it is and what gets us there are two separate things.

I am aware that I asked two separate questions, hence the reason why I included two question marks.

(May 4, 2013 at 11:12 am)whateverist Wrote: The idea of the "actual truth" is whatever may turn out to be the way things stand.

I know a lot of atheists utterly despise philosophy, but the topics we are discussing are very deep, and this is why I keep repeating myself. The study of "truth" is a very complicated topic within the field of epistemology.

(May 4, 2013 at 11:12 am)whateverist Wrote: As you are so fond of reminding us, rationalism and empiricism only take us so far.

I have stated on many occasions that I am very fond of science and reason; I still greatly enjoy reading and watching work by Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, for example. There used to be a time when I was absolutely convinced that science and reason could account for basically everything; my view was if science and reason could not answer a question, it was a question not worth asking. My view changed entirely when I started becoming interested in philosophy; studying these topics has changed entirely the way I view things. My thinking has become very abstract and compartmentalised because of it.

(May 4, 2013 at 11:12 am)whateverist Wrote: You say Christianity fills the bill for you.

I have changed my "Religious Views" title to "Mystical Christian Panentheist"; I think this is a much more accurate description.

After browsing this forum as a guest for a while, I decided to join because the discussions are engaging and a lot of the members are obviously very intelligent. I joined the forum to engage in the exchange of ideas, not to try and convince you that "I am right, and you're wrong".

I'm not a moderator or anything, and yes, I started it, but I'd simply remind people that this thread is in the introductions section.

You say evolutionary biologists are generally puzzled by why love exists....let me tell you that this is also wrong.

It is widely accepted that love exists so that people stick together in larger groups than a single individual. Just like how you have a pride of lions, a flock of birds, a herd of cows....etc. being in larger groups increases the likelihood of survival.

As for the simplistic view of what love is....why does it need to be any more complex than it is? Why do you have to complicate something for your own satisfaction? Just because you are unsatisfied by an explanation doesn't mean you make up your own....of course I know love is more complex than JUST a chemical reaction, but that puts it in a quick and simple yet correct way.

(May 5, 2013 at 2:34 am)homocidlefreak Wrote: It is widely accepted that love exists so that people stick together in larger groups than a single individual. Just like how you have a pride of lions, a flock of birds, a herd of cows....etc. being in larger groups increases the likelihood of survival.

That is factually inaccurate. It is not anywhere near close to being "widely accepted" in science. Please provide the link from which you sourced this information.

(May 5, 2013 at 2:34 am)homocidlefreak Wrote: As for the simplistic view of what love is....why does it need to be any more complex than it is? Why do you have to complicate something for your own satisfaction? Just because you are unsatisfied by an explanation doesn't mean you make up your own....of course I know love is more complex than JUST a chemical reaction, but that puts it in a quick and simple yet correct way.

I am not gratuitously over-complicating the matter, I simply disagree with you that something as complex as love can be DEFINED, even in simple terms, as a chemical reaction. Biochemical reactions do appear to be factor in the experience of love, but there is nowhere near enough peer reviewed scientific evidence for this to be accepted as scientific consensus; most of the speculations are based on neuroimaging observations of neural correlations when a person is experiencing love.

(May 5, 2013 at 2:34 am)homocidlefreak Wrote: As for the simplistic view of what love is....why does it need to be any more complex than it is? Why do you have to complicate something for your own satisfaction? Just because you are unsatisfied by an explanation doesn't mean you make up your own....of course I know love is more complex than JUST a chemical reaction, but that puts it in a quick and simple yet correct way.

Put another way:

Douglas Adams Wrote:Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?

(May 7, 2013 at 6:59 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Put another way:

Douglas Adams Wrote:Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?

Indeed. I am aware of the concept introduced by William of Ockham (Ockham's Razor), but I do not see why this concept should have universal application. Also, I disagree that I am gratuitously invoking "God of the Gaps" to explain love.

As I am sure you're aware, consciousness and love are exceedingly complicated topics; they're exceptionally difficult to define. Although, I am sure, most atheistic rationalists would come to the hasty conclusion that the brain is the ultimate source and generator of consciousness and love (emerging from complex neural biochemistry), I view it as much more complex and counter intuitive than this; I interpret the available scientific evidence on the subject differently from most people. It is nothing to do with not being able to "accept reality" from a reductionist perspective.

Why shouldn't Occam's Razor have universal application? What are the grounds for discerning the areas in which it can apply? Emergent properties from relatively simple systems are, to my knowledge, reasonably well understood and are capable of explaining, if not everything then certainly a great deal about these concepts. It must be borne in mind that consciousness, love etc are not purely nor even primarily human traits.

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?

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.

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.