Is man more than matter?

Originally posted by Moldy Crow
You xtians are fond of the belief that animals have no souls . Therefore , I would ask you why doesn't an elk turn on his herd members and gore them ? Why doesn't a lioness eat her cubs when she's hungry ? Why doesn't an ant go it alone instead of slaving for the colony ? Why don't dogs turn on their masters ? After all , if none of these creatures h ...[text shortened]... out in bold text was unintentional . Must have pressed the wrong key somewhere along the line .

It came out in bold because you quoted something that included a bolded section and RHP deleted out the [ /b ] when it tried to make the selected part shorter. Notice that the [text shortened] section in your quote comes immediately after a bolded section in the quoted post.

Originally posted by bbarr
Well, I agree with a lot of what you say, but I'm still confused about your main contention. You started off claiming that if man were merely matter, then we couldn't make sense of the importance and value of love. I responded that even if man were merely matter, love wouldn't lose any of its importance or value, because we would still take it seriously i ...[text shortened]... le. I'm not sure what sort of reason you could provide in support of this claim.

Take care,

Cool - thanx for your straightforward and sensible post...

If I can rephrase what I think love is and why I don't think it's based entirely on chemical reactions/emotions. I believe love is based on a combination of two things - if one's missing, it falls apart. They are chemistry and will (them chemical reactions, feelings, emotions and then a will to love).

The necessity of chemistry is obvious: this is usually what gets one together in the first place, this is what keeps marriage exciting and ultimately might make babies. The emotions and feelings of marriage should be sustained not only by nature, but also by will. What often happens is that a couple come together (usually young, niave and infatuated) and are in love for a while and when the chemistry slows down and often dies out, they move out and the marriage falls apart. Emotion-driven couples hardly last.

I think that the term "work on marriage" refers to the will involved in love. You decide to sometimes to go against your emotions and even reason (spend well-earned money on buying her some funny-looking stones on a string, despite her being bitchy and difficult). Decisions (will) lead to consequences and these are to the benefit or detriment of the relationship. What also gives me the notion that love is deeper than chemistry is what one loves (when it comes to long-term commitment) in another person. It's not how sexy or intelligent they are, but their character (which is developed by circumstance, genetics, but mostly decisions, ie will).

While I can understand the chemistry of "natural-selection" - trying to get the best gene to couple with to the next generation - I've seen this infatuation far surpassed by a deeper love (one based on loving each other for who they are rather than what they are.

Perhaps we'll find that there's a chemical reaction to explain this behaviour, but I believe it has to do with man being more than chemicals (possessing a consciousness and ability to decide - which can't be explained scientifically). My two-cents, and take care...

Originally posted by RatX
While I can understand the chemistry of "natural-selection" - trying to get the best gene to couple with to the next generation - I've seen this infatuation far surpassed by a deeper love (one based on loving each other for who they are rather than what they are.

Natural selection need not be solely physical....since a lot of character and demeanor, and potentially interests, are genetically influenced and/or influenced by parenting, there is no reason why we should exclude the possibility that natural selection can also make decisions based on whether someone's nice, or based on what they like to do, etc.

Originally posted by echecero
Natural selection need not be solely physical....since a lot of character and demeanor, and potentially interests, are genetically influenced and/or influenced by parenting, there is no reason why we should exclude the possibility that natural selection can also make decisions based on whether someone's nice, or based on what they like to do, etc.

Don't personal choices have anything to do with shaping ones character and demeanor?

That aside, why are characteristics, like being nice (vague, almost meaningless) chosen for natural selection? Shouldn't the agressive and libido-charged gene-Hercules be the only characteristics (prime for survival) be chosen for NS?

If you're breaking down love and marriage to natural selection, you've got plenty shortcomings... Why would anyone hook up with a genetically deficient person - or far worse for NS, an infertile one? Natural Selection and Evolution claim to be based on empirical, observable and uniformitarian science - how would character and demeanor (except if it's to the advantage of survival) influence this?

Originally posted by RatX
Don't personal choices have anything to do with shaping ones character and demeanor?

That aside, why are characteristics, like being nice (vague, almost meaningless) chosen for natural selection? Shouldn't the agressive and libido-charged gene-Hercules be the only characteristics (prime for survival) be chosen for NS?

If you're breaking down love and ...[text shortened]... how would character and demeanor (except if it's to the advantage of survival) influence this?

Ah...assigning intelligence to Natural Selection, eh? Natural Selection is the process by which the fittest survive...there is no "why." If the children of the nice people are the ones that survive, and the children of the mean people don't, then the nice peoples' kids were the "fittest"--it's that simple. Which, mind you, is why it is established science. There is no mystical being deciding what is best. The survival of the being determines that...and for ease of communication we've developed a turn-of-phrase, "survival of the fittest," to explain the process.
In modern society, does being aggressive and "libido-charged" lead to an increased survival chance? Perhaps in parts of the world, but I would argue that complacency is a trait found in many who survive. Any group that is restricting how many children it gives birth to, or has that restricted, would be the enemy of our current variety of natural selection.

Originally posted by echecero
Ah...assigning intelligence to Natural Selection, eh? Natural Selection is the process by which the fittest survive...there is no "why." If the children of the nice people are the ones that survive, and the children of the mean people don't, then the nice peoples' kids were the "fittest"--it's that simple. Which, mind you, is why it is established sc ...[text shortened]... irth to, or has that restricted, would be the enemy of our current variety of natural selection.

You're not posting much sense here...

But if I can extrapolate anything out of your post, it's to say that survival of the fittest is a law and the fittest is not what he seems.

Breaking down love to natural selection and survival of the fittest is illogical when it comes to face certain occurences. For example, how can you explain (using survival of the fittest) self-sacrifice? Are you saying the guy who dies trying to save another's life was unfit for survival? Was he stupid?

Originally posted by RatX
You're not posting much sense here...

But if I can extrapolate anything out of your post, it's to say that survival of the fittest is a law and the fittest is not what he seems.

Breaking down love to natural selection and survival of the fittest is illogical when it comes to face certain occurences. For example, how can you explain (using survival of t ...[text shortened]... ou saying the guy who dies trying to save another's life was unfit for survival? Was he stupid?

Correct me if I am wrong (I'm sure you will), but the TOE and natural selection don't deign to demonstrate the origin or application of what we call consciousness. While it may describe the origin of our physical brain, that's where it ends. The selfless act of the solider diving on the grenade to die may remove him from the gene pool, it wasn't natural selection that did that, it was a result of his conscious choice to save the lives of others.

In everything I've read about the TOE, it never once describes how love and compassion might have been involved in evolution.

Originally posted by David C
Correct me if I am wrong (I'm sure you will), but the TOE and natural selection don't deign to demonstrate the origin or application of what we call consciousness. While it may describe the origin of our physical brain, that's where it ends. The selfless act of the solider diving on the grenade to die may remove him from the gene pool, it wasn't natural ...[text shortened]... the TOE, it never once describes how love and compassion might have been involved in evolution.

For a change, I'm not going to correct you (it might be viewed as condescending), I'm just going to explain a little more of my view.

If evolution explains the origin of man and his nature, he is no more than a complex mix of biochemicals and everything he does is simply a reaction (a biochemical response to any give stimuli). This may explain most responses - even violent and malicious ones - but doesn't (for me) explain the ability for man to choose to respond against his nature.

I agree with you here - TOE cannot explain love and compassion, these are responses that go beyond our nature and this is where we realise that man is more than matter (has he a mind/consciousness, and dare we assert, a soul? ). Perhaps, when seeing a selfless act of sacrifice (a soldier diving on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers) we are seeing a concious choice of self-sacrifice. Perhaps we are a witness to a glimpse of the divine...

Originally posted by RatX
If evolution explains the origin of man and his nature, he is no more than a complex mix of biochemicals and everything he does is simply a reaction (a biochemical response to any give stimuli). This may explain most responses - even violent and malicious ones - but doesn't (for me) explain the ability for man to choose to respond against his nature.
...[text shortened]... eing a concious choice of self-sacrifice. Perhaps we are a witness to a glimpse of the divine...

OK, but none of that invalidates the TOE. As Scribbles pointed out, the idea of the divine is not necessarily exclusive of the theory that we evolved.

We are indeed a witness to the nature of our consciousness in the self-sacrifice of the hypothetical soldier. This also does nothing to pointing toward 'god' as any type of necessity. Our brains are an extremely complex system of chemical reactions and neurotransmission through synapses. Agreed? A by-product of this could be the idea that 'I am'.

I'd be interested to see your thoughts on LJ's thread (no chest-beating in there, I assure you), and the comments on the WL Craig article.

Originally posted by David C
OK, but none of that invalidates the TOE. As Scribbles pointed out, the idea of the divine is not necessarily exclusive of the theory that we evolved.

We are indeed a witness to the nature of our consciousness in the self-sacrifice of the hypothetical soldier. This also does nothing to pointing toward 'god' as any type of necessity. Our brains are an ex ...[text shortened]... J's thread (no chest-beating in there, I assure you), and the comments on the WL Craig article.

I'll take a look-see...

L8r

Originally posted by RatX
But when evolution is shoved down your throat against your will at schools, universities, the media and chess forums, it becomes a a political force in spite its lack of indisputable proof.

And when has Creationism ever acknowledged its anti-science stance? Where the hell did you shovel this manure from?[/b]

By that am I assuming you are against creationism? I first read that
to mean creationism does not take an anti-science stance but
re-reading it makes me think you are condemning creationism.
Is that so?
It sounds like you are saying Creationists are anti-science but
would never cop up to that charge. Which then kind of says maybe
you are against creationism?

Originally posted by sonhouse
By that am I assuming you are against creationism? I first read that
to mean creationism does not take an anti-science stance but
re-reading it makes me think you are condemning creationism.
Is that so?
It sounds like you are saying Creationists are anti-science but
would never cop up to that charge. Which then kind of says maybe
you are against creationism?

I think you need to read the post to which i was responding to... Some numbnuts claimed that Creationism has taken up an "anti-science stance".

I was just wondering from where that turd was extrapolated.