Yuujin wrote:
(Skip - And you expect the full explanation from faith in some invisible entity or rejection of that faith?)
Just because it's invisible, it doesn't mean it's not there, does it?
That's beside the point, and so is your notion of god.
My point was that
neither belief nor unbelief explain love. Scientists study the brain and its functions, but have not yet finished their explorations, so all explanations to date are incomplete. But they've made some remarkable medicine possible to save and improve a lot of lives.
Science can't explain many things, and I'm not waiting for it to give me answers to my most important inquiries, for I'll probably die before, and it'll be too late then
As science isn't finished, nobody knows what it can explain or whether it has limits. In any case, you will never know all - or even a tiny fraction of - that science has already explored. No individual can.
(Skip - .... no organism is motivated by preservation of the species. Biologically, organisms are driven to 1. preserve their own life and 2. perpetuate their own genes, in competition ...)
So, in essence, you're saying the question is too complicated for science to answer ...
No. (Reading is hard.) I'm saying that
scientists
Let us make this clear: scientists, not Science. Science is a discipline, and approach to problem solving, a method, a human endeavour encompassing many fields of study in which millions of people participate over thousands of years, each adding their little bit of theory, observation, experimentation, explanation, and yet more questions. Science is not a conscious entity: it doesn't say anything, do anything or want anything. People do.
are in the process of investigating thousands of complicated questions. I don't know all the answers they've arrived at so far, but I know a damn sight more of them than you seem to.
And it's a personal choice if one wants to believe that the answer is somewhere in the scientific field (like you do), or it's in a totally different dimension (like I do). Either way, both are a belief. It's entirely an individual's decision as to what each one of us wants to believe.
Of course it is. I choose to believe what makes sense, agrees with the world as I perceive and experience it and is demonstrated to work. I have no interest in trying to disillusion you.
(Skip - Plus, complexity is prone to malfunction: rarely is any single biological requirement being serviced in the most effective and efficient manner.)
This is why I became a theist. The atheistic view would see a most beautiful human behavior "unconditional love" as a biological malfunction.
Where did you get that? (Reading is hard!) I said complexity is prone to malfunction, which simply means that the most evolved animals don't work as efficiently as fungi or nematodes, which makes the motivation of complex organisms difficult to judge from the outcome of their actions.
Incidentally, where is it demonstrated that unconditional love exists or is beautiful? Human societies are hardly proof of this.
If that's the case, we shouldn't admire parents who pour their love onto a child with severe disabilities or terminal illness, because they're misfiring their love for something that's negative biologically. I don't want to live with a worldview like that.
Who asked you to?
