Do you love your mother?

Can someone of science community prove to me that they love their mothers? And can you, please, use scientific process to prove it. Also, if you could only use logic and common sense in ANALYSING the facts.Please, don't give responses such as "I kiss my mother good night" or "I give her hugs and flowers", etc... I've given some girls flowers and kisses and hugs and more... but didn't love them (to maximalist Christians: yep I'm going to burn, I know )Anyways, for time being, I'm assuming that non of science oriented atheists love their mothers and to say more don't even care about them.ps.. I guess this sound a bit wierd, but I just want to understand why people don't belive in God out of lack of physical prove but they can't even give a scientific prove that they love their mothers. But maybe I'm wrong and you can prove that. In that case,I'm a newby and damn it... I'm aloud to post at least one stupid topic!

I'm sure that scientists can prove that we love our mothers, but along the way, we might discover that love is merely a chemical illusion.

I'm sure that scientists can prove that we love our mothers, but along the way, we might discover that love is merely a chemical illusion.

quote:

---

I'm sure that scientists can prove that we love our mothers

---

that's what I'm waiting for... any takers? or just blind faith in science? you got to have some evidence! or data?

quote:

---

but along the way, we might discover that love is merely a chemical illusion.

---

"Might" is the key word here. As in I might be the most intelegent person out here... Am I? are you? who is?

This is an incredibly bizarre statement: Could you perhaps point out to me where any scientist anywhere has claimed they could prove they love their mothers? Or hate them, for that matter? Or prove the existence or nonexistence of any subjective "feeling"? Care to try your hand at an operational definition of "love" that is empirically testable, replicable, and independently varifiable (hence amenable to scientific evaluation)? And when you've done that, perhaps you'd care to take a stab at a cross-cultural definition? This makes no sense whatsoever. How do you go from the existence or non-existence of a subjective, internal, individualized emotive response to the existance or non-existance of an external supernatural entity that allegedly has the capability to intervene directly in nature but is unverifiable and undetectable? I don't claim my emotions have an existence independent of "me". Theists, on the other hand, proclaim that their deity has an independent existence and moreover interacts with the physical world. Evidence is demanded for the thing which has an independent existence, not that which is only a reflection of an internal state. Unless, of course,you're willing to say God only exists in your mind...

What I was trying to get at, is the fact that science has limits that even scientists are aware of. Such limits as proveing metaphysical things. So basing your belifes stricktly on science is having blind faith. A hundred years ago every scientist knew that Energy and Matter are completely differnt entities. then came Einstein and proved that they are the same thing, matter is just condence energy, thus reinventing physics. So should I base my whole belife on science, and wait untill the return of Einstein or other genius to show me that my scientific proof can go down the drain? (there are examples of this in evey branch of science)I see people here making fun of religious people for their "blind faith". At the same time they have a huge element of that themselfs. Could it be that our existence cannot be without "blind faith"? and we just make our best judgment on were to apply it? If yes than theist are no worse or better then scientist.

quote:

---

So should I base my whole belife on science, and wait untill the return of Einstein or other genius to show me that my scientific proof can go down the drain? (there are examples of this in evey branch of science)

---

No, you shouldn't.As you have pointed out, science doesn't have anything to say about those things which are not ammenable to empirical testing and logical reasoning. What you have to remember is that it doesn't have anything at all to say about the existance or non-existance of your God, unless you decide that it does and force it to.If you insist that physics or biology must agree with the bible for the bible to be correct then you are just asking for it. You may wait for new concepts and evidence to come along through the scientific process to support you but meanwhile you're left having to go to more and more rediculous extremes to hang on to your ideas. The majority of Christians do not have your problem.

quote:

---

I see people here making fun of religious people for their "blind faith". At the same time they have a huge element of that themselfs. Could it be that our existence cannot be without "blind faith"? and we just make our best judgment on were to apply it? If yes than theist are no worse or better then scientist.

---

I hope no one falls into making fun of people for their "blind faith". I try not to. But when they attempt to take that blind faith and try to make up something they want called "science" to support it then the results can be pretty ridiculous. My teenagers have gotten some great laughs out of that. Again, it is your choice to cross over into that territory.A Christian has no problem recognizing that God wrote on a much larger page than that of the small book in a motel drawer. A page that demands that we use the talents we have to read it. One that, by it's beauty rewards those who try very hard to read the words there.Some minority cults of major religions can't lift their eyes from the tiny book written by man's hand to see the book God writes in. These worship the book and damage the story it tries to tell.Try reading this Christian Creationist
http://www.geocities.com/vr_junkie/thebibleandscience.htmSome samples
"As you might have guessed by now - Christian's reputations of a lack of knowledge and education distress me. Especially when they are arrogant and condescending in espousing their dogmatic beliefs
based on nothing more than ignorance.""We also have to be careful and check what we read. The old saying "Don't believe everything you read" contains some truth. There are "Christian" authors who are not honest. Do not rely on the false premise that they are necessarily above fabricating supporting evidence, misquoting sources, or fabricating negative information about persons with whom they disagree."

I think that what you have written is a bit confused. Are you saying that NOT beleiving things that can't reasonabley be shown to be true is "blind faith?"If not perhaps you wuld like to phrase your point more clearly ?

Correct. These constraints have been recognized and accepted by scientists since at least Galileo. Remember the bit about "The bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go"? Science makes no mention of or claim to be able to address metaphysical issues. This assertion doesn't follow from the preceeding. In the first place, no one "bases beliefs" on science. Science is a process, not a "thing" to be believed in or discarded. It is an incredibly productive method of understanding the physical world in which we live. The results of scientific inquiry are only "believed" insofar as they accurately reflect that world. I "believe" the rotation of the Earth will cause the sun to "rise" tomorrow as the terminator passes over my location. If the sun doesn't show up, then I will be forced to re-evaluate that "belief". Contrast this meaning of belief with a theist's belief in - utter assurance of - the existence of a supernatural entity for which there is no physical evidence. A scientist "believes" based on accumulated evidence (the sun has always risen). A theist "believes" based on faith in the utter absence of evidence - or even in the face of contradictory evidence. This is blind faith. Your accusation is in error. This is simply a restatement of the tentative and self-correcting nature of science. You seem to need absolute assurance. Science doesn't provide absolute assurance; by its very nature it is tentative and subject to revision. Is this the root of your anti-science stance? No one "bases their whole life on science". This would require a philosophical stance which is unaddressable by science. Science doesn't tell you "oughts" or "should be's". Science doesn't tell you how to live your life. Science doesn't pretend to provide the answer to life's purpose. It does, however, provide a way to understand the processes, interactions, and phenomena that effect us all. Theists, however, demand that their personal presuppositions be accepted by everyone else. Scientists question the presupositions. There is no comparison.Now that I've answered your question, please answer mine: define love so that it can be empirically tested. Prove to me that you love your mother.[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 04-15-2003]

Hmm.. I didn't think my satirical post would bring me these fruits. Atleast, now I know all sorts of wonderful things about science. The truth is, I don't have an "anti-science" stance at all and I'm fully aware of science being a just a process. My stance is that theology is not just a matter of interpreting scriptures but also its a concept of a metaphysical intelect bringing physical universe into excistence. Universe is the physical expresion of an idea. All we know of G-d (this metaphysical force) is found inside the physical creation, thus it is imposible to describe theology WITHOUT science(s).

quote:

---

Now that I've answered your question, please answer mine: define love so that it can be empirically tested. Prove to me that you love your mother.

---

The best definition of love I can give you is one from Tulmud: "Love is a feeling we get from observing virtues in others" and I know this can't be "empirically tested", that was the point. I can't prove to you that I love my mother more than you can prove to me that you love yours. That was the point as well.

quote:

---

Theists, however, demand that their personal presuppositions be accepted by everyone else. Scientists question the presupositions.

---

I see what you're saying. If someone is trying to force their belive structure on you it would be foolish to accepted it without even questioning it. Couldn't agree with you more.It's just that I come from religion that does not force anything upon anyone. So, when I talk about theology, I don't try to make you belive it, it's just me sharing my views, that's all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheOne:
< !--UB

quote:

---

-->

quote:

---

< !--UE-->I'm sure that scientists can prove that we love our mothers< !--UB

---

-->

---

< !--UE-->

​

that's what I'm waiting for... any takers? or just blind faith in science? you got to have some evidence! or data?

​

< !--UB

quote:

---

-->

quote:

---

< !--UE-->but along the way, we might discover that love is merely a chemical illusion. < !--UB

---

-->

---

< !--UE-->

​

"Might" is the key word here. As in I might be the most intelegent person out here... Am I? are you? who is?

---

I suppose that in all honesty, we do not know for certain whether or not we love our mothers. We also are unable to define love, and we cannot prove that it has any more meaning than chemical reactions in the brain. Can you prove otherwise? I think not.

Hmm. I feel almost as though I've been hoodwinked, here. You posted a provocative OP, which you now claim was "satirical". Evidently you're using the term in a different fashion than it is commonly used. You created a strawman argument with the unstated claim that scientists claim to be able to "prove" love (that was your challenge, was it not?) Now you state that you don't hold to the contention presented in the OP.Since I've now realized you're Jewish, and I'm aware this is an accepted and traditional style of rabbinical argument, I don't hold it against you. However, I feel you were disingenuous at least by not plainly stating this from the beginning. I doubt that I would have wasted the time responding had I known that this was your purpose. There ARE posters here who enjoy this style of argumentation. However, I am but a poor, semi-literate former scientist who prefers to know the constraints or at least parameters of a discussion before jumping in to it.Perhaps some other time.