RE: Ex-"New Atheist", Now Christian
May 4, 2013 at 8:33 am
(This post was last modified: May 4, 2013 at 8:37 am by Whateverist.)
(May 4, 2013 at 5:51 am)Love Wrote: Again, I am going to attempt to explain something that I perceive to be beyond the scope of reason via the natural use of English language (which is, by definition, governed by reason).
This is not a unique perspective, we all attempt to do this everyday. Many things in human experience are inadequately communicated in language. Think about what purposes language would have evolved to serve and look at how far we've stretched it from there. The wonder is that language is able to convey as much as it does.
(May 4, 2013 at 5:51 am)Love Wrote: Saying "the feeling of love is a chemical reaction in the brain" is a very simplistic explanation for an exceedingly complex philosophical topic; it is a statement from a rationalist perspective, which I view as utterly inadequate. We can supplement rationalism with empiricism and include the scientific method to make sense of love from a material reductionist perspective. For example, scientists in the field of cognitive/imaging neuroscience have utilised functional magnetic resonance imaging devices to demonstrate that there are neural correlations (mainly the neurotransmitters dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin and the hormone oxytocin) when an individual is experiencing love. This is about as far as science takes us as regards providing an explanation for "how love works".
Of course, if anyone thinks that what science can tell us of love or other subjective/emotive experiences is complete, they are short sighted. But how many people really "love is nothing but .."? Whatever the number may be, it isn't a serious position and isn't deserving of an in depth response.
(May 4, 2013 at 5:51 am)Love Wrote: In terms of viewing this from a wider perspective, evolutionary biologists are generally puzzled as to why love actually exists. Love and altruism appear to have absolutely no bearing on the propagation of DNA and, therefore, seem to be absolutely superfluous; the propagation of DNA is "the meaning of life" from an evolutionary perspective. Richard Dawkins stated in one of his interviews: "I fully accept that science cannot explain love" (I will provide a link to the YouTube video if you wish) and I completely agree. To me, love is something that goes beyond the scope of reason, the scientific method and rational language.
I don't think all evolutionary biologists are puzzled by why love exists. We can observe strong pair bonds in many other creatures than ourselves. While it is important not to anthropomorphize, neither is it a good idea to assume that the quality of experience in other creatures is so very different than our own.
Sure, love extends beyond the scope of science and the descriptive powers of language. That is pretty obvious and I think likely the majority opinion.
(May 4, 2013 at 5:51 am)Love Wrote: Again, I am going to attempt to explain something that I perceive to be beyond the scope of reason via the natural use of English language (which is, by definition, governed by reason).
This is not a unique perspective, we all attempt to do this everyday. Many things in human experience are inadequately communicated in language. Think about what purposes language would have evolved to serve and look at how far we've stretched it from there. The wonder is that language is able to convey as much as it does.
(May 4, 2013 at 5:51 am)Love Wrote: Saying "the feeling of love is a chemical reaction in the brain" is a very simplistic explanation for an exceedingly complex philosophical topic; it is a statement from a rationalist perspective, which I view as utterly inadequate. We can supplement rationalism with empiricism and include the scientific method to make sense of love from a material reductionist perspective. For example, scientists in the field of cognitive/imaging neuroscience have utilised functional magnetic resonance imaging devices to demonstrate that there are neural correlations (mainly the neurotransmitters dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin and the hormone oxytocin) when an individual is experiencing love. This is about as far as science takes us as regards providing an explanation for "how love works".
Of course, if anyone thinks that what science can tell us of love or other subjective/emotive experiences is complete, they are short sighted. But how many people really hold positions which can be described as "love is nothing but .."? Whatever the number may be, it isn't a serious position and isn't deserving of an in depth response.
(May 4, 2013 at 5:51 am)Love Wrote: In terms of viewing this from a wider perspective, evolutionary biologists are generally puzzled as to why love actually exists. Love and altruism appear to have absolutely no bearing on the propagation of DNA and, therefore, seem to be absolutely superfluous; the propagation of DNA is "the meaning of life" from an evolutionary perspective. Richard Dawkins stated in one of his interviews: "I fully accept that science cannot explain love" (I will provide a link to the YouTube video if you wish) and I completely agree. To me, love is something that goes beyond the scope of reason, the scientific method and rational language.
I don't think all evolutionary biologists are puzzled by why love exists. We can observe strong pair bonds in many other creatures than ourselves. While it is important not to anthropomorphize, neither is it a good idea to assume that the quality of experience in other creatures is so very different than our own. Love obviously supports the nurturance of the young through the longest childhood of any creature.
Sure, love extends beyond the scope of science and the descriptive powers of language. That is pretty obvious and I think likely the majority opinion.
