Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I think you and Deut have more faith in Science than many people have in God. Makes ya kinda go, "Hmmmnnn?"!I mean that given enough time, science could explain "everything".
Well, besides being able to document the different chemicals released in certain situations, and how those chemicals physically affect us (thereby causing emotions), science, specifically anthropology, can explain the origins and necessity for emotions. Displaying emotion is the oldest and simplest form of communication. In fact, it is widely used by other animals today. (Humans use it too, but not as often as animals with less sophisticated verbal languages, or none at all.) Animals help to warn each other by displaying fear, intimidate intruders by showing angry and agressive behavior, and even practice their own form of love by the endorphins that bond them to their young or mate, and the protectiveness that they then display. As you can see, the development of emotions is a critical part of survival.Really now? The origins as well? I have yet to see that.But, can science "explain moods and feelings"? Of course it can.
Even with age, there are no guarantees.pah said:Ah, but so rudimentary and limitied. Aspects of love are not fully learned until adulthood
Deut. , that link is to a site selling books . ??? Which I'm sure you are aware of . But just because someone writes a book doesn't make it so . And adds aren't the best thing to base an arguement on , are they ?Deut. 32.8 said:Perhaps you could start here.
You're right, it can't. Nor can science fully explain gravity. But that doesn't mean gravity doesn't have a scientific explanation - we just haven't figured out what it is yet. Ditto feelings.Science can not FULLY explain moods and feelings...
Nah there are some problems that may never be proven, - we may never reach the sophistication of measurement. And I don't have a problem with that. I do appreciate what has been proven and I like the "envelope" being pushed back.NetDoc said:So you have FAITH that science will deliver!
Define "fully," and define "explain."NetDoc said:please prove me wrong! (I double dog dare you!)
Oy veh, I think you know you're hitting a nerve with this one.So you have FAITH that science will deliver!
Agreed!Have you noticed, that no one ever admits to having blind faith? Nope, they see "their faith" as reasoned, purposeful and insightful. Faith they don't understand however... that's blind.
Well NetDoc...I think faith that science may one day find an explanation for something is a bit different than, say, faith that leprechauns exist. The former implies a confidence based on evidence (science has, given time, found explanations for many past mysteries)...the latter is a belief held in spite of evidence (or rather, the lack thereof). The difference between the two is subtle, but significant.NetDoc said:I love to show people when they commit the same sins they accuse others of committing.
The nerve endings in the erotic zones????NetDoc said:But why is a kiss still just a kiss...
No, it makes you "kinda go, 'Hmmmnnn?'". If by 'faith you mean unevidenced belief, I see very little need for it other than as an expedient/heuristic.NetDoc said:I think you and Deut have more faith in Science than many people have in God. Makes ya kinda go, "Hmmmnnn?"!
The known world expands, and the world of impenetrable mystery shrinks. With every expanse, something is explained which at an earlier point in history had been permanently consigned to supernatural mystery or metaphysical speculation. And the expansion of scientific knowledge has been and remains an epistemological threat to any claims which have been fashioned independently (or in defiance) of such knowledge. We are confronted with an asymptotic decrease in the existential possibility of the supernatural to the point at which it is wholly negligible.
-- Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism by Doctor Barbara Forrest