Non-scientific truth

[Paksenarrion]

What is love? Is it:

a. Baby, don't hurt me
b. don't hurt me
c. no more
d. *head bobbing*

I think there's some kind of psychological thing going on because your avatar is a cute girl (is that you?), but I always love your posts.

Yes, that's me. ^_^

And thanks!

 

[katsumoto03]

Beauty: That which is aesthetically pleasing to an individual.

Love: A chemical reaction in the brain.

Good (AKA Moral): That which maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering for all involved.

What happens to the soul: Nothing, because it probably doesn't exist.

Do I win now?

 

[Saelune]

If God is real, and he made everything, then he made logic. Thus it is a tool of God and should be used.
When religious people argue against logic after using "logic" they lose all credibillity with me.

All my views on faith and religion use logic. It makes me not fear God (well, not in a way to beg him for anything), and it makes me not believe in a conscious afterlife.

Most of the time they use logic is when you argue why God lets bad happen. If he is all knowing and all powerful, why does bad stuff happen?
"He has a plan"
If he can do anything, then why not just make it happen?
"Freewill"
Again, if he knows everything and can do anything, he can work around that.

 

[FinalHeart95]

There is no one answer to those questions. They are all in the eye of the beholder. Thus there can be no "truth" to them, since the answers are based entirely on opinion.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Whats this?? A thread about religion...outside of the religion and politics section of threads?

 

[Ipsen]

How do you search for objective truth outside science? The same way you search for objective truth IN science.

I might not be the most religious person out there, But it baffles me the level of ignorance shown by learned people who back science as religiously as some people back faith.

Thing is, from what ive seen entirely too often is that people who profess science is the true way because Faith is ignorant superstition that has been proven wrong so many times over. The problem is a case of not seeing the forest for all the pretty trees. Science judges religion, especially christianity on circumstantial points that in the modern age we know from science are not accurate, and draws the conclusion that, Well if you screwed up the technical details then the whole thing must be wrong. Completely missing that in religion its not intended to be a literal translation but a figurative one.

Im sorry, but the way I see it, there is really no reason for religion and science to be at odds. If anything Science and religion should work together in order to fill in the gaps that the other cannot resolve..... or..

TLDR: Religion is intended to be a figurative translation, not a literal one. Most People who revere science and condemn faith need to realize that they are incorrectly reading the parameters of faith to be something they are not.

Hat off to you, sir. It always bugs me when these topics crop up, and similar responses unfold...

 

[The Night Shade]

Q. What is beautiful? A. Anything that is pleasing the senses or mind aesthetically
Q. What is love? A. Love is a chemical reaction in the brain
Q. What is good? A. It's morally subjective, whats good for some is evil for others
Q. What happens to the soul when we die? A. Nothing, It doesn't exist

How do you search for objective truth outside science? You dont, you just make shit up and say its turth!

This a hundred times

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Just because we can't explain it yet doesn't mean that you can make up bullshit instead.

That's all you need.

It's not a case of you misunderstanding what love or beauty or anything else is, them not understanding what science is. Science, by it's very definition, has no limits to what it can explain.

 

[mikev7.0]

But reading further all I can say is that everything can be inserted into sciense in one way or another. Love is nothing but a chemical reaction in your brain urging you to find a suitable mate to create the next generation. Its the same as any animal, even the whole "love forever" kind of deals. Swans for instance choose ONE mate for their whole life.
Theres also an emotional attatchment in play that works pretty much like any drug you can find. It makes you dependable and addicted to the feeling of love you experience with the person in focus. There are highs, withdrawal syndromes, relapses ect. Someone said love is a drug - they are 100% correct.

if it cant be measured it has no mass.

See, I told him that and he went, "Science can tell us how things work, but not what they are," (or something like that).

Also, you can measure energy, which has no mass. I get what you're saying (how can we know something exists if you define it as undetectable?), but I just wanted to make sure you didn't say that in front of someone who would use it against you.

And frankly I'm surprised at how many replies I've gotten.

How love works: A chemical reaction in your brain is triggered that initiates an urge to mate and an emotional attatchment.
What love IS: A chemical reaction in your brain that initiates an urge to mate and creates an emotional attatchment.

Both science. Again, its that simple. I think that guy youre arguing with is looking for a higher meaning where none exists.

Are you just talking about romantic love? If so I agree with you, but personally I think unconditional love is a much more different thing and there's no convincing me that it doesn't exist, I've seen, marveled at, and been inspired by it.

Original Topic: I think what the person your talking to is forgetting (or already aware of and trying to use against you) is that the questions that he's posing are all Philisophical. Science is what humans invented when Philosophy wouldn't cut it. Philosophy is great but you can't actually prove or support it. This is why I prefer physics to metaphysics. True you can't prove either, but at least physics is well supported, which is as close as you come to what a lot of people call "proof".

Philosophy (and by extention all the questions he's asking) is subjective by it's nature and to best answer your question "How do you search for objective truth outside of Science?" is that you don't because Science was what we created when we realized that Philosophy would not give us a truth that was objective. He's actually pretty mean if he's doing this intentionally and as others have said your heart is in the right place, but you may be wasting your time. (Although according to Science that doesn't really matter so if it's fun and educational hey go with it!)

Now for a question of my own regarding this statement: You cant prove anything doesn't exist, only that something does exist.

If this is true then what was the Michaelson/Morely experiment all about? Are my books lying to me?? Now you've stated that as fact not your opinion so I think you surely have the answer. All I can state is that the M/M experiment delivered a LOT of support for the hypothesis that the ether does not exist. So what's going on there? Man I HATE it when my books lie. Then again they never have so far....

 

[Unesh52]

While questions like the ones you mentioned may not have clear cut, universally true answers, I don't think that means they're not worth thinking about. True global peace, and an end to all violence might be impossible, but that doesn't mean I'm about to stop working towards it.

There are things to be gained from considering the meaning, depth, and scope of your love and passions, but that doesn't mean anything you learn constitutes an objective fact about the universe. No amount of reading the bible or fasting is going to give you the "meaning" of love.

How do you search for objective truth outside science? The same way you search for objective truth IN science.

If you are doing something the same way you do it in science, you're doing science. Praying, listening to people's stories, and drawing broad conclusions from incredibly limited, uncontrolled data is not science. Those are also the parts of the process by which religion gleans "truth" that I find fault with. And though I'm sure such a sentiment had been expressed here, the OP doesn't cite a conflict between science and religion. It merely states that the explanations of abstract and subjective concepts like love and beauty are unsupported, or supported only by poor methodology.

 

[Unesh52]

Beauty: That which is aesthetically pleasing to an individual.

Love: A chemical reaction in the brain.

Good (AKA Moral): That which maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering for all involved.

What happens to the soul: Nothing, because it probably doesn't exist.

Do I win now?

You're late. And no.

 

[Unesh52]

Hat off to you, sir. It always bugs me when these topics crop up, and similar responses unfold...

Put that hat back on cowboy. See my response in post 51.

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

While questions like the ones you mentioned may not have clear cut, universally true answers, I don't think that means they're not worth thinking about. True global peace, and an end to all violence might be impossible, but that doesn't mean I'm about to stop working towards it.

There are things to be gained from considering the meaning, depth, and scope of your love and passions, but that doesn't mean anything you learn constitutes an objective fact about the universe. No amount of reading the bible or fasting is going to give you the "meaning" of love.

Just because a method doesn't work for one person doesn't mean it won't work for another.

 

[mikev7.0]

Spoiler

I'm currently in a YouTube argument with this guy who's apparently a pastor. (It's remarkably civil for YouTube.) He expresses a sentiment that I've heard several times before, both around here and on YouTube, but I haven't gotten a satisfactory explanation of it. The long and short of it is this:

"Science can't answer some questions about the universe, e.g. What is beautiful? What is love? What is good? What happens to the soul when we die? There are truths to be known about these things, and they will be found outside of science."

Usually the person who makes this claim then cheekily implies that science's inability to "explain" their paranormal or religious claim is evidence that it is true, though they'd never be so presumptuous as to say that. From my POV, there are at least 2 flaws with this kind of thinking.

First, it assumes there are answers to these questions. Indeed, I think it's rational to think of concepts like love, souls, and beauty as products of the consciousness and therefore do not have any relation to objective reality. In other words, subjective things are subjective. Don't know why things like this are so hard to understand. Second, even if I accept that there is some absolute truth about the nature of beauty or love or whatever, why should I assume that your opinion about it is that truth? After all, science is an empirical method for discerning the nature of the universe -- it works by creating hypothesis and eliminating alternative explanations (and self-checking by repeating experiments with other scientists). It doesn't matter what you personally believe about the phenomena, science will only yield one answer in the long run. What method supersedes science for these questions? Can anyone describe it? What makes it reliable? This is the most important question, and I've yet to have it answered. It's especially important if the claimant is arguing that science needs to change and "accept the paranormal" or some such thing...

Does anyone know what I'm talking about? Do you believe this? How do you search for objective truth outside science?

While questions like the ones you mentioned may not have clear cut, universally true answers, I don't think that means they're not worth thinking about. True global peace, and an end to all violence might be impossible, but that doesn't mean I'm about to stop working towards it.

How does that go again?? Oh. Yeah. This x the circumference of a circle to it's radius.....no wait...well it was something like that!

Remember Duct Tape Jedi no one can prove that it's impossible and it sounds crazy fun so GO FOR IT!!

 

[Unesh52]

While questions like the ones you mentioned may not have clear cut, universally true answers, I don't think that means they're not worth thinking about. True global peace, and an end to all violence might be impossible, but that doesn't mean I'm about to stop working towards it.

There are things to be gained from considering the meaning, depth, and scope of your love and passions, but that doesn't mean anything you learn constitutes an objective fact about the universe. No amount of reading the bible or fasting is going to give you the "meaning" of love.

Just because a method doesn't work for one person doesn't mean it won't work for another.

WOAH, hold on. We're talking about discerning objective reality here. I'm fully aware of the potential for personal growth through the development of subjective values and meaning, but that's not "truth." By definition, an objective truth is true for everyone. A method that produces subjective "truth" is useless for this purpose.

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

While questions like the ones you mentioned may not have clear cut, universally true answers, I don't think that means they're not worth thinking about. True global peace, and an end to all violence might be impossible, but that doesn't mean I'm about to stop working towards it.

There are things to be gained from considering the meaning, depth, and scope of your love and passions, but that doesn't mean anything you learn constitutes an objective fact about the universe. No amount of reading the bible or fasting is going to give you the "meaning" of love.

Just because a method doesn't work for one person doesn't mean it won't work for another.

WOAH, hold on. We're talking about discerning objective reality here. I'm fully aware of the potential for personal growth through the development of subjective values and meaning, but that's not "truth." By definition, an objective truth is true for everyone. A method that produces subjective "truth" is useless for this purpose.

Some questions don't have objective, universally true answers.

 

[Unesh52]

Some questions don't have objective, universally true answers.

I... know. That's what the whole thread is about. Keep up lovely.

 

[Bru09]

I myself agree with you FalloutJack, we have to realize that there are limits to our current understanding of the state of the universe. However, this is not to say we can't someday advance our species intellect/understanding, just that the current level is insufficient for objectively saying "this is an empirical truth of the universe."

 

[CarpathianMuffin]

All of it is subjective. Humans need something beautiful to look forward to each day so they don't blow their brains out from boredom. Love's a series of chemical reactions in the brain.
All very easy to explain, at least the basics.

 

[infohippie]

Why do animals tend to their fur and feathers? Because they want it to look beautifull or pretty in order to attract the opposite sex.

First of all - I do agree with your post. However, I gotta be pedantic and let you know that the primary reason animals tend to their fur and feathers isn't anything to do with looking good to attract a mate; it's because, without grooming, the fur and feathers won't do their job properly, such as keeping the animal warm, waterproofing it, allowing it to fly, etc.