Are skepticism and Belief in God mutually exclusive?

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I cannot on a thread fully explain how love works, nor do I know. However, I’ll have a go.

You don't know, but you're going to tell us anyway? So, you're theorising?

Anyway, your theory of love doesn't take into account homosexual love, or explain why two people who don't/can't have children stay with one another.

williamgrogan

Anyway, your theory of love doesn't take into account homosexual love, or explain why two people who don't/can't have children stay with one another.

Oh yes it does. But I'm going out to the pub so can't explain now.

Capt'n Midnight

The glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Having a glass half-full or half-empty are not only not mutually exclusive, they don't even represent all the valid choices.

GuanYin

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Science never proved such things existed. It was theory that was not accepted because it could not be proved. In fact the opposite happened, when experiments were done there was no phlogiston or ether, they were dis-proved. It wasn’t philosophy that dis-proved the ether, it was normal common or garden science.

You obviously don't know your science history very well. Both were widely accepted as existing and an awful lot of respected scientists spent alot of time and money trying to prove they existed. When they were eventually disproved it was by accident as a consequence of other findings (which was incidently held dubious in the case of ether because it proved ether didn't exist).My point is notthat philosophy has ever disproved science, but that science is not the set of "stone hard facts" that you seem to imply it is. Nor is scientific endeavour the answer to all lifes mysteries.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Studying genetics does tell you how the mind works as does other sciences.
It doesn’t tell you EVERYTHING about how the mind works and that’s not what I said. I did say that you cannot fully understand or probably even begin to understand how the mind works without knowing about how it evolved. This is why Philosophy is lame without Science.

Ok, explain it? Give me a genetics based explanation to why we have consciousness. You can't. And if you can you're up for a Nobel prize, hell I'll nominate you myself, because noone else in the world can do it.

Evolution *does* gives you some nice theories, but they can't be proved, because noone was there to observe the event, we don't know whatthe environment was like enough to ever prove what selection pressure took place.... sort of like luminiferous ether and phlogiston, no, theories that haven't been prove but are widely accepted?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
The primary mechanism for evolution is DNA, chromosomes and genes. The brain in which the mind resides is an end product of evolution. Therefore it is hard to believe that it could ever be understood without understanding evolution.

The mind works using the structure that the brain evolved. So evolution was critical for the way the mind works and for how it works, the brain’s limitations & speed, the traits we have, the skills, the lack of skills say in comparison to a computer, the different emphasis on senses between animals (see & hear with us, smell with dogs etc.) are all related to evolution.

Some scientists have even tried to create AI by trying to get programs to evolve..

The primary mechanism for evolution is environment, but don't let that stop you. No, you see you miss the point. There are two very opposing theories on how the brain evolved, both have alot of evidence in their favour. One is that the brain evolved as a consequence of an evolutionary arms race. More computing power meant better risk analysis ability etc etc. However another theory suggests that the brain evolved due to an abundance of the matter that makes brains big. This has an awful lot going for it aswell, and nicely explains quite a few other quirks about humans.

The thing is, in either case, not least he latter, consciousness isn't required. We can can have high spacial relations cognition and association skills, risk analysis etc etc, but we don't need shakespeare, we don't need art, we don't need the psyche we developed. The brain could work just fine without these things, and in some humans it does, its been seen through some rather grotesque experiments in people up to about 60 odd years ago. So why then do we need the "consciousness" that basically acts as a committee spokesperson for the rest of the brain at all?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I cannot on a thread fully explain how love works, nor do I know. However, I’ll have a go.
Sex evolved in more primitive species (a billion years ago?)
2 separate creatures had to attract each other for it to work
mutations in genes that produced an advantage evolved that made this more efficient and successful
mechanisms evolved that were coded in the genes that attracted the other sex
when we receive signals that subconsciously tell us that a potential mate has a good prospect of helping spread our genes we have sex with them
we then stay with this mate and help nurture the small bundles of genes (50% of which are ours)
This entire procedure above in humans is known as “Love”.
PS When I told my wife this she wasn’t too happy…………

There are many much more efficient and advantagous ways of attracting a good candidate mate in nature than love. Why do we use something that is so hit and miss instead of something that is proven and more effective throughout the animal kingdom? We know that proto humans used these other methods so why have we evolved a less efficient method of attracting a mate?

Furthermore love is actually contrary to our initial instincts. Early brainwave patterns in relationships between humans are based on gain and reward (basically sex), not anything emotional (this happens much further in). This isn't the activity of a species acting as a mechanism aiming for love.

Its a nice theoryyou put forward but it falls down in being very basic, being contrary to alot of neurobiological findings, ignoring important findings in behavioural and cognitive sciences and also having no proof whatsoever.

You are being very unscientific William.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
We separated a lot earlier from the whale and dog than from the other primates. Whales could have had evolved an intelligence equal to ours in “functionality” by a different route in the same way as the eye evolved to solve the same problem in different species. If they had it would be interesting to understand how their minds worked but to understand that we would have to understand their evolution too. Dogs don’t build aeroplanes because their minds cannot build things because they didn’t evolve the software to do so because they didn’t evolve hands. The way our mind works when it imagines building things, planning them and actually building them is related to how we evolved. We wouldn’t have the skills we have and our minds wouldn't work in the way they do unless we evolved the way we did.

Apart from size, there is little different in animal brains among mamalian species (with some notable exceptions). You software analogy is flawed in how the brain works, as I have already explained to you. You keep using the chicken and the egg argument "its all evolution because we wouldn't be us if it wasn't for evolution". You miss the point. What caused teh selection pressure to make us evolved consciousness, because there is really nothing evident. Evolution doesn't just happen for evolutions sake as you suggest. Its not a clear cut case of we change and if we're better we survive because many other species are changing and evolving around us. Environmental selection pressure has a large role to play. We go bak to the environment being more important than anything else.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
The construction & development of the brain and how the mind works is intrinsically interwoven into our genes and the information they carry.

Do you know anything about genetics or are you just using buzzwords? You have yet to give any reasonable explanation for this statement, let alone any proof to commonly heald acceptance of what you say (because there isn't any).

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Oh but they do.
I have no difficulty in understanding that the information needed to build a human’s brain is primarily encoded in the genes. It is not encoded in the same way the instructions are in a human produced blueprint on how to make say a house but the “steps” needed to build a brain are there. They got there blindly by evolving..

What? You just contradicted yorself in one paragraph. Genes don't give specific instructions at all. They give a rough outline. They also have an awful lot of redundant genes that willkick in if the proper materials aren't available. Genes code for proteins (mosty). They say nothing about assembly or interactions except when to stop and start making more.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
What “dumb down” popular science books are you referring to? Can you give us an example?

A good example is whatever book you got your understanding of genetics from.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
No. I think you are wrong.

I quote from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics...

Oh the irony of you using bioethics for your arguments. Didn't you discount it a few posts back.
They are wrong. Website material is a useless source of scientific fact. I hope you aren't they type to go googling and then believing verbatim what you read.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I think that you cannot tell the hard fibrous lignified matter under the bark for the gymnosperms and angiosperms.

Yeah? well I think you're a science fanboy who has read a few popular science best sellers and thinks he can be an armchair expert.
(j/k)
No seriously, I'm not having a go at you. But I'd really like you to consider something. You have laid very strong groundings for what you believe science to be "all about". Yet you don't seem to have a strong grasp of the areas you are arguing. You conjure theory and hypothisis without any grounding or fact and set your stall in one "theory" as gospel while discounting other theories based soley on what you would like to believe. All of this is exactly what a scientist isn't or at least shouldn't be.

sextusempiricus

WG's quote from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics requires further comment.
It's statement on phenotype includes the sentence, "Researchers in behavioural genetics often include such diverse traits as marital status, taste in music and religious beliefs as part of the phenotype ."

This strikes me as risking an excessive REDUCTIONISM. Of course reductionism has been an immensely productive scientific tool ( read for example Francis Crick's reductionist analysis of vision in his 'The Astonishing Hypothesis') but I am unwilling to accept that my dislike of Schonberg's music is powerfully influenced by my genetic make-up. Its much more complex than that.

More fruitful perhaps is the interaction between minds and what Popper has called 'World 3' i.e. the product of minds as written down in scientific papers, on web-sites etc which can exist objecively without even a knowing subject ( 'Epistomology Without a Knowing Subject' Chapter 3 of Popper's 'Objective Knowledge' ). Discussion of whether sceptics can consistently believe in a God would be part of World 3. It also includes the culture in which we live. Perhaps if I listen to more Schonberg or am lucky to meet someone who really likes his music I might change my mind. Minds as Popper describes them belong to World 2 and our subjective feelings and thoughts our included here. World 1 is the physical world which of course inclues DNA molecules. WG may wish to question the ONTOLOGICAL status of Popper's Worlds 1,2 and 3.

I'm afraid that discussing REDUCTIONISM and ONTOLOGY and Popper's EPISTOMOLOGY means dirtying one's hands in PHILOSOPHY. Make's life interesting however.

I'm off to the flicks.

williamgrogan

I don’t know if Syke’s many childish insults are intended to provoke me into calling him a p**t but I’m not going to. His last post had 12 insults!

You seem to indicate that you are a teacher but I seriously hope that that is not true. You would make an appallingly arrogant & cynical teacher.

You seem to have some knowledge of biology but you also seem incapable of drawing logical conclusions from this knowledge. I keep wondering if you are bluffing.

I have said several times that I do not believe that Science is gospel, yet you keep accusing me of saying it is.

I said that Science did not prove the ether and you agree and yet seem to contradict that agreement. Science always has had and will have theories that will be disproved. I know this. Why do you keep giving examples? Do you illogically think that this is some negative in Science? Do you understand Science at any level? What point are you trying to make?

I didn’t say evolution explained consciousness. No one yet knows what it is although there are some weak theories. I said that to try as Philosophy did and understand the working of the brain/mind without understanding evolution for example was pointless. You haven’t contradicted that statement. I stand by it and I suspect that so would most scientists.

When I said, “The primary mechanism for evolution is DNA.” I didn’t say “cause” which is what you seem to think I said. I meant what I said, “mechanism”.

Consciousness is a major unknown in science and I do not think there is much point in speculating as to what caused it when we don’t yet know what it is. That’s the sort of thing Philosophy waste’s its time on.

I started my explanation on “love” with “I cannot on a thread fully explain how love works, nor do I know. However, I’ll have a go.” You seem incapable of remembering the start of a paragraph when you decide to tackle it. I think my opening comment would indicate that my proposal would be "basic". Human love must be a by-product of evolution and again I would expect that most Scientists would agree with me.

I am still waiting on you to give an example of a book on popular science that you decide is beneath you. All I got when I asked for clarification on this was another pathetic insult.

I can quote from anywhere I like. Because something is on the internet doesn’t make it unquotable as you clearly appear to think. Do you think that something in a magazine is quotable but not in HTML? I think by quoting as I did, I successfully contradicted your previous statement. At the very least it is a grey area.

GuanYin

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I don’t know if Syke’s many childish insults are intended to provoke me into calling him a p**t but I’m not going to. His last post had 12 insults!

I was joking at the one intentional insult (which I indicated)
anything else is saying you don't understand genetics, which you clearly do't. Sorry if that insults you, but thats what your posting indicate.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
You seem to indicate that you are a teacher but I seriously hope that that is not true. You would make an appallingly arrogant & cynical teacher.

No, I lecture. Yes I'm arrogant and yes I'm cynical, they are pre-requisits for research science.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
You seem to have some knowledge of biology but you also seem incapable of drawing logical conclusions from this knowledge. I keep wondering if you are bluffing.

You don't seem to have much knowledge of biology. You seem to be regurgitating stuff you read. I haven't actually drawn any conclusions. I don't actually believe in god or any magical aura, I don't think theere isanything beyond death and I don't have any faith in spirituallity. However, I don't ever try and push my personal beliefs on anyone in these matters and I don't discount that they could exist. A good and scientific approach to anything is not to just ask "is their any evidence for it" but also "is there any evidence against it". I'm not arguing againts science, I'm arguing about your mis-use of science to push forward some very narrow beliefs.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I have said several times that I do not believe that Science is gospel, yet you keep accusing me of saying it is. .

But you say on one case that philosophy hasn't and can't prove any of its theories and then go an subscribe wholeheartedly to a scientific theory that can't be proven. Isn't that just biased blind faith on your part? Why dismiss one thing offhand and not the other?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I said that Science did not prove the ether and you agree and yet seem to contradict that agreement. Science always has had and will have theories that will be disproved. I know this. Why do you keep giving examples? Do you illogically think that this is some negative in Science? Do you understand Science at any level? What point are you trying to make?.

No, I'm highlighting that the flaws that you say are inherent in philosophy are also inherent ion sciece, because at the end of the day, they are both run by human nature. If you accept that, fine I won't make the point anymore.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I didn’t say evolution explained consciousness. No one yet knows what it is although there are some weak theories. I said that to try as Philosophy did and understand the working of the brain/mind without understanding evolution for example was pointless. You haven’t contradicted that statement. I stand by it and I suspect that so would most scientists.

Why is it pointless? Again memetics is a very useful philosophical theory on the development of the mind. It is widely enthused over in the neurological, evolutionary and cognitive science communities. It has no scientific fact to back it up, it has nothing tangible that can measure what it proposes. It explains an awful lot. It may not be correct, but it is not pointless. And ifso, who cares, many scientific endeavours are utterly pointless in the betterment of mankind.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
When I said, “The primary mechanism for evolution is DNA.” I didn’t say “cause” which is what you seem to think I said. I meant what I said, “mechanism”.

Granted. However the overall "mechanism" of evolution is environmental selection pressure. The mechanism of biological change is DNA mutations. DNA is not a mechanism, it is a chemical structure. Transcription and translation of DNA are mechanisms. So either way, you are still wrong. Just while we are being pedantic. Isn't semantics fun?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Consciousness is a major unknown in science and I do not think there is much point in speculating as to what caused it when we don’t yet know what it is. That’s the sort of thing Philosophy waste’s its time on.

Really, is it only pointless while philosophers do it or if scentists speculate is it worthwhile? I know 6 people trying to figure out how the mind and matter are intrinsicly linked. They seem quite put out at how the amount of genes don't account for the some trillion individual and distinct neural connections in the brain (there is a reason for this, but only if you scale up from the reductionist model you have been using here, and it further highlights why your genetic model is so inadequate). They ask alot of pseudo-philisophical questions in their work but one of them works in the lab of 2003 nobel chemistry prize winner (I do like to name drop, don't I ecksor? ) so they can't be totally barmy?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I started my explanation on “love” with “I cannot on a thread fully explain how love works, nor do I know. However, I’ll have a go.” You seem incapable of remembering the start of a paragraph when you decide to tackle it. I think my opening comment would indicate that my proposal would be "basic". Human love must be a by-product of evolution and again I would expect that most Scientists would agree with me.

Generally its accepted that there are three evolutionary driven emotion-motivations systems in mating and reproduction: lust, attraction, and male-female attachment (Arch Sex Behav. 2002 Oct;31(5):413-9. ) but these don't account for the intricacies of human love. The framework for what we call love is evolutionary driven, but the actual product in observed behavioural science far surpasses the expectation of any system (Behav Sci Rev. 1999 Dec;48(3):579-87.). Again its over simplification contributing to a misleading point.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I am still waiting on you to give an example of a book on popular science that you decide is beneath you. All I got when I asked for clarification on this was another pathetic insult. .

I merely said you didn't understand genetics properly. If youdo, I apologise, but your posts indicate you don't. Whats insulting about that. Why do you care what books I read? Its way off topic. Start a thread in the appropriate forum on science books if you wish to discuss and I'm sure I'll indulge you.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I can quote from anywhere I like. Because something is on the internet doesn’t make it unquotable as you clearly appear to think. Do you think that something in a magazine is quotable but not in HTML? I think by quoting as I did, I successfully contradicted your previous statement. At the very least it is a grey area.

Becaus egenerally anything in a scientific magazine will be reviewed by an editor. Anything in a book will be reviewed by magazines and scientists. Anything published i a reputable journal will be peer reviewed. Any quack can put a definition or explanation about an aspect of science on the net and there is nobody to review or critique it. There are millions of sites with wholly inaccurate information. Anything quoted from a non-publication or research affiliated site on the net isn't deemed a worthy reference or citation by the general scietific community.

Myksyk

I'm just back from holidays ... and not only have there been another 50 posts on this thread but half of them are short novels!!

Is there a Boards.ie prize for longest post of the year or something?:D

I'll get back in on the thread once I've caught up ... so... talk to ye some time in February then!!!!

Calibos

This is my second biggest thread ever!

Thanks Lads! :D

williamgrogan

Glad you had a holiday. I thought that you had fallen asleep.

Generally its accepted that there are three evolutionary driven emotion-motivations systems in mating and reproduction: lust, attraction, and male-female attachment (Arch Sex Behav. 2002 Oct;31(5):413-9. ) but these don't account for the intricacies of human love. The framework for what we call love is evolutionary driven, but the actual product in observed behavioural science far surpasses the expectation of any system (Behav Sci Rev. 1999 Dec;48(3):579-87.). Again its over simplification contributing to a misleading point.

I only have time for this now.

This is typical of Sykes weird attempt to ............ do what? Disprove what I am saying or is prove what I am saying?

I said that to understand love one needs to understand evolution for example. Philosophy tried to get to grips with the meaning of love but without understanding the relationship between love which includes lust, attraction, and male-female attachment we need Science. You point re "simplification" is only relevant to how important evolution is in love not whether its related.

ecksor

I'm getting confused here. First of all you say that you don't know how love works, but then you give us a theory in terms of genetics and evolution anyway. None of your evidence appears to stand up however, but you still stand by your original theory? Or a similar theory that involves evolution? What is your reasoning for this?

As for the irony of you quoting bio-ethics to back you up, I found it more ironic when you used the argument of a dead philosopher to justify your disbelief in god earlier.

GuanYin

Originally posted by williamgrogan
This is typical of Sykes weird attempt to ............ do what? Disprove what I am saying or is prove what I am saying?

To show that you really don't fully understand what you are saying and are blindly quoting rhetoric, buzzwords and the skeptical party line.

Its not that I'm trying to disprove you, or that I disagree with everything you have said. Its just that the pseudo science and information you quote belongs in those media science sections that you slag off on another thread and don't make a convincing arguement for your point.

You could well convince me that philosophy isn't as worthwhile as scientific research. You could convince me that conciousness is down to a series of protein and ion interactions. However, you won't convince anyone when you mis-interpret and mis-understand the science you are using to make the point.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I said that to understand love one needs to understand evolution for example. Philosophy tried to get to grips with the meaning of love but without understanding the relationship between love which includes lust, attraction, and male-female attachment we need Science. You point re "simplification" is only relevant to how important evolution is in love not whether its related.

Wha? Ecksor summed up nicely your inconsistancy in this arguement. Either theroies with no experimental back up are acceptable or they are not. You claim not to understand something but you concoct some theory anyway? Then you discredit philosophers for not having an understanding of what they are forming theories about...... strange.

williamgrogan

I cannot on a thread fully explain how love works, nor do I know. However, I’ll have a go.

The above is what I said. (Maybe my use of commas was faulty.)

The word “fully” is very important. I meant fully explain and fully know. You hardly though I was claiming that I fully understood what love is?

It means that I believe that love is a human “trait” that evolved. What we know as love is very much associated with evolution and cannot be understood without knowing about evolution and that we evolved.

Can I ask a simple question? Does anyone actually disagree with this point? Or have I spoiled Valentines Day?

PS

What dead philosopher?

GuanYin

Originally posted by williamgrogan
It means that I believe that love is a human “trait” that evolved. What we know as love is very much associated with evolution and cannot be understood without knowing about evolution and that we evolved.

Can I ask a simple question? Does anyone actually disagree with this point? Or have I spoiled Valentines Day?

See you are using "belief" here. So you believe in something that you have no proof of or no conclusive evidence of, because you think alot of other people of status within a certain community believe it too and have told you it is right.

Does this sound familiar to you in any way?

Your point is still over simplified. Man powered flight and oreo cookies exist due to human evolution but anyone who tried to explain these things using evolution and genetics as the sole or even main basis would be a fool.

What we actually know is that humans evolved big brains. Noone knows why. it could be the by-product of an evolutionary arms race (savannahs), it could be the result of an abundance of dietary essential fatty acids (aquatic ape) or it could be because little green men posing as gods performed experiments on our early ancestors.

We then know that humans took to living in communities, and that in these communities they eventually tended towards monogamy. We don't know how or why we developed the ability to tell stories, paint, write sonnets, sing rock songs or build skyscrapers. There are some nice ideas, but in reality none of them have any more foundation than the alien theory above. We don't know how primal lust and reproductive instinct lead to what we calllove, because the two are very different. If you want to take a critical overview of love, many psychologists argue that love is actually counterproductive to the propogation of a species as it has too many side unhealthy effects.


So yes we need to know about evolution to try and understand it, but no we cannot use evolution to understand it.

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
The word “fully” is very important. I meant fully explain and fully know. You hardly though I was claiming that I fully understood what love is?

You claim to have explained this theory to your wife. I certainly wouldn't have presented such a controversial theory to a SO if I didn't think I had at least a fair understanding, but that's just me and not really relevant.

To answer your question, I didn't think that you were attempting to offer a full explanation, but I'll address that in my next paragraph.

It means that I believe that love is a human “trait” that evolved. What we know as love is very much associated with evolution and cannot be understood without knowing about evolution and that we evolved.

Yes, but the main thrust of my question above is why do you think that this is the case? You claim that it's a partial explanation, but evolution generally seems to favour other models of reproduction. What I'm saying is, I've lost track of your reasoning that asserts that this is due to evolution.

Can I ask a simple question? Does anyone actually disagree with this point? Or have I spoiled Valentines Day?

Assuming that you mean the love argument, I neither agree or disagree. I haven't seen a convincing argument.

Even if I assume that this did evolve (which is a reasonable belief considering the popular scientific viewpoint, in my opinion), it doesn't mean that we understand it or can explain it.

What dead philosopher?

William of Occam (or however you wish to spell it).

williamgrogan

William of Occam (or however you wish to spell it).

Sh1t. I knew I shouldn't have quoted him here.

However, Occam's Razor is only a guide line and its in that context I used it. I think Fermat's Last Theorm proof proves that.

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
However, Occam's Razor is only a guide line and its in that context I used it.

Hey, I don't knock the principle at all, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency.

I think Fermat's Last Theorm proof proves that.

Actually, the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem proves that X^n + Y^n = Z^n -> n <= 2 (for X, Y, Z,n elements of N).

williamgrogan

I think Fermat's Last Theorm proof proves that.

I think you missed the word in bold.

ecksor

No I didn't, that is actually what the proof proves. Anyway, I'm just yanking your chain.

Please elaborate on how it proves something other than the implication I posted.

sextusempiricus

According to Nicholas Fearn in his 'Zeno and the Tortoise' scientists in Cornell University published research in 1999 to show that LOVE

...is a cocktail of dopamine, phenylethylamine and oxytocin in the bloodstream that produces the sensation we call infatuation. Love, the researchers argued, was in fact a chemically induced form of insanity. This condition lasts until the body builds up an immunity to the substances involved, which is usually just long enough to meet a mate and raise a child to early infancy.

Fearn regards this theory as 'dubious' and comments,

Love ,we feel, is the most important thing that can happen to a person and should be placed on a pedestal, not in a syringe with which to inject the loveless.

The paper was published in the summer and well after April 1st. I'll try and search the Web for the original. The point I wish to make, of course, is that this is an example of reductionism. Without denying that chemical transmitters may be a factor in the feeling of 'being in love' (these belong to Popper's World 1) I do think its a bit more complicated than just chemicals. There is the whole cultural thing which includes our values and traditions which did not arise from any blueprint but evolved over countless generations. These are part of World 3 and influence our (World 2) thoughts. In turn our minds can develop the contents of World 3. Such traditions allow us to transcend our biological origins. Very often our goals and ideals have nothing to do with survival or reproductive advantage and evolutionary theory cannot give a satisfactory account of such important facets of human life such as our appreciation of beauty, desire for knowledge and our sense of morality. If we were merely a mixture of chemicals why has conciousness evolved as a useful tool to interact with and understand our world and to make us more than just biological robots with conciousness as a useless epiphenomenon.

Put so briefly this may be dismissed as 'airy-fairy' nonsense (see my previous comment on philosophy in this thread) but there are good arguments to show the limitations of a reductionist approach and the possibility of emergent properties arising from more basic levels (conciousness from our neuronal make-up for example). Some of these can be found in 'The Self and its Brain' by Popper and the neurophysiologist John Eccles (1978), 'Human Freedom after Darwin: A Critical Rationalist View' by John Watkins (1999), the section on reductionism in 'Aristotle to Zoos' by Peter and Jean Medawar (1983) and lastly 'The Rediscovery of the Mind' by John R. searle (1992).

PS I wonder if WG's genetic explanation of love shows he has less insight into the complexities of love than his wife. Seems to me she is less reductionist.

Calibos

I dont think we have trancended anything. Even morality. Surely that has nothing to do with evolution, reproduction etc. Why then have 'scientific' experiments with monkeys demonstrated a sense of fairplay ie a kind of morality in monkeys. A monkey was given a task to perform for a reward which was a basic food item. It was quite happy to perform the task repeatly for said food item. Another monkey in full view of the first was given the same task to do but recieved a prized food item as the reward. The first monkey after seeing this refused to perform the task again for the basic food item even though it was quite happy to moments before and it exhibited signs of agitation with the researcher and the second monkey.

I think that everything that we do can be reduced to biological, evolutionary reproductive reasons. Our quest for knowledge?? Approval of the troop(group), better prospects with the females. Its all about sex I tells ya!

DadaKopf

Urgh, Searle. He's a dualist! Howcome no one's mentioned Daniel Dennett? Searle is perhaps an even worse "philosopher" than Dennett (who I quite admire).

Searle may be right in the way he ascribes intrinsic intentionality to human cognitive acts but doesn't avoid the dualism his view sets up - he returns to a form of naturalist Cartesianism. Dennett's more materialist but leaves room for us to adopt different stances, particularly the intentional stance, which amounts to a "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" approach. Which is fine because he has a much more nuanced view than williamgrogan. As do evolutionary psychologists like Cosmides and Tooby.

See, williamgrogan, if you knew what you were talking about, you might find people agreeing with you if you said something like "I think Kant's metaphysics don't stand up to scrutiny. The rationalism of his approach leads me to think that the material sciences offer a better methodology with which to explain the universe," that might be OK. Instead, you're ranting. If you said "Descartes' theory of mind is valid, but unsound" people may agree with you.

If you criticise particular instances of philosophical enquiry, maybe you might have a leg to stand on - it'd certainly make for a more interesting discussion - but you're ranting. You're making a blanket judgement about something you probably know nearly nothing about. I haven't dared to assume I know more about biology than syke. You have, you've taken him on specific points, and lost ungraciously.

So you make you feel good about yourself, you start hating on philosophy, creating a pseudo-argument, because you know you're on safe, wishy-washy ground to say what the hell you like. It's not philosophy you're retreating to, it's ignorance. Philosophy is something different.

DadaKopf

I think that everything that we do can be reduced to biological, evolutionary reproductive reasons. Our quest for knowledge?? Approval of the troop(group), better prospects with the females. Its all about sex I tells ya!

Maybe "biological, evolutionary, reproductive" functions? Reasons are different.

Calibos

You know what I meant, don't be so pedantic(feel free to correct me if thats the wrong word). I have to laugh, most people here actually agree with most of what WG is saying whether about the original topic of god and religion or the off shoots on philisophy or the biology of love but argue on semantics(again correct me if its the wrong word) or lack of qoutations of emminent thinkers in the field.

I should change the title of the thread to.....

WG, you're right but for all the wrong reasons

or

We agree with you WG but then again we don't agree cause your arguements aren't detailed enough, You should put aside a few more hours to answer each point with a mini thesis.

Granted, the second one is a bit of a mouthful

GuanYin

Originally posted by Calibos
You know what I meant, don't be so pedantic(feel free to correct me if thats the wrong word). I have to laugh, most people here actually agree with most of what WG is saying whether about the original topic of god and religion or the off shoots on philisophy or the biology of love but argue on semantics(again correct me if its the wrong word) or lack of qoutations of emminent thinkers in the field.

i dont agree on his dismissal of philosophers or his attitudes towards science.

i don't believe in god but i don't hold my own opinion without proof so high as to discredit and insult alot of people on an arrogant whim.

i think philosophy has contributed alot to society and the development of humanity, despite its failings.

what you must realise is that many people here do believe in what wg dismisses. and regardless of my stance, id rather not see someone debating in the name of science when he doesn't even understand his main arguement.

if yo want blind agreement and think you can generalise without being called up, boy are you on the wrong site.

ecksor

Originally posted by Calibos
You know what I meant, don't be so pedantic(feel free to correct me if thats the wrong word). I have to laugh, most people here actually agree with most of what WG is saying whether about the original topic of god and religion or the off shoots on philisophy or the biology of love but argue on semantics(again correct me if its the wrong word) or lack of qoutations of emminent thinkers in the field.

I'm trying to think of something he said that I've agreed with, but the things I don't agree with stick out. Firstly, his dismissal of things like philosophy and economics are laughable. He says that science can disprove the existence of god, which of course it cannot. Rather than argue the point properly, he dismisses anything which counters his arguments as 'bull****'. So no, I very specifically do not agree with most of what he is saying about either god or philosophy. I'm tempted to think I don't agree with any of it, but I'd have to reread the thread to make sure. As for the biology of love, I've been trying to get clarification from his position on that but as far as I can make out it's that he's sure that evolution has something to do with it, even if he doesn't know how himself. Which is fair enough I suppose, but hardly very supporting the position that science is the ultimate fountain of knowledge. I teased him about using the philosophical gadget of William of Occam, but I don't actually see anything wrong with using it since it has proved a very useful philosophy on which science has based a lot. However, you can't selectively dismiss the quoting of dead philosophers, and say what you like about William of Occam, but he is very definitely dead.
.
There's a very worrying trend about of dismissing the arts as not being valid next to engineering or the sciences, and I think it's very dangerous. Like it or don't like it or appreciate it or don't, but don't make the mistake of thinking it's worthless. At the very least a scientist should examine what they set out to do, what assumptions they are built upon, and make a decision from that point of view. I'm sure that most philosophers would not claim that philosophy is best suited to answering empirically testable propositions for example.

There's one particularly farcical post on here where he has built up his viewpoint that we can't believe in god due to the ultimate lack of evidence, but he's intermixing his apparently rock-solid belief in the big-bang.

I'm actually curious to see where he's going with occam's razor and fermat's last theorem though.

Myksyk

I stated at the start of this thread somewhere that the Irish Skeptics have said that this is not a question they are particularly interested in (i.e. the existence of God or belief in him/her), and that it is, on either side, essentially a matter of belief not empirical fact.

I've just been looking through this thread and interesting as it is, I think it conclusively demonstrates the futility of addressing this question with any hope of resolution. And remember this discussion is largely amongst science-minded agnostics (I think)!!!

On the other hand, religious or philosophical 'beliefs' are distinctly different from religious 'practices' or religious 'claims about the material world' ... (the latter two obviously exist whether there is really a god or not).

These practices or related (empirically testable) claims can sometimes be usefully addressed. This again is the position of the Irish Skeptics (see their site).

We can discuss the existence of god until the sacred cows come home and we will not have resolved anything ... it will remain a discussion outside empirical testing. Until serious empirical evidence is available it is, in my opinion, simply not a useful area for a skeptics society (as a group interested in promoting science and critical thinking) to broach, whatever the beliefs (NB) of individual members.

ecksor

Agreed, but no harm in discussing it here

DadaKopf

We can discuss the existence of god until the sacred cows come home and we will not have resolved anything ... it will remain a discussion outside empirical testing.

I thought that was how the thread started but it turned into a discussion about the nature of scientific methodology. I, personally, entered the discussion of the opinion that science is a useful tool but is by no means a system of thinking without limitations.

As a once student of philosophy, my opinion is that God will always remain an open question. I also believe that, on viewing the history of knowledge in such areas questioned (religion right through to science) in this thread, science remains an open question given that so many paradigms have existed and we may have no assurance that our present paradigm will not be replaced by another. People believe in the objectivity of science way too much. Theory is always by someone, for some purpose.

We should all be more humble. Ecksor is, why can't williamgrogan?

ecksor

That's the first time I've ever been called humble.